Road rage in Bath Options

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

I can see it Andy, I just don't think this deserves any defence. Being a yoof,I use the internet a lot and am familiar with the ways of trial-by-video. Having suffered from it myself, I was performing a questionable act with a rented woman and unbeknown to me, my friends had attached a camera to my dog, which was watching us during the entire evening.

It then ended up on Mytube and Facespace and it was only after a super injunction was issued that the videos were removed and my dignity was restored, and my £40 refunded. The happy ending was very good though. I got a free ice-cream too.
You're getting confused with having an opinion on everything and knowing everything.
Although a nice bait, you almost got me to flame, but I have a Pepsi on my desk with a lot of ice, so I'm as cool as Terrance the Bi Bi-Polar Polar bear on his little ice-cube.

"Disagree" is a command; had you said 'I disagree', I'd have written something else sarcastic.

I could not have written "I disagree" as this would have constituted an "overly long" response.

And what exactly has happened instead? If no-one does the right thing, then the right thing cannot happen. If people don't report things then section 59's cannot be issued.

But the thing is that section 59s require no proof. You can get one for nothing, or you can get one for doing a million miles an hour. On the second section 59 your car can be siezed. Section 59 requires no "evidence" and you can't argue about it as there is no trial and no comeback.
The justice system for people who report crimes is not very good so why bother.

There is a vast difference in UBF with 'willing victims' being foolish, and the 'trial by Internet' medium we have today.

Rather a trial by internet than a trial by TV. How many people were "willing" and how many didn't know they were being filmed...I did have this idea of doing really funny/stupid things and sending in tapes to get £250 each time but it never panned out as I broke my face on the first attempted.

The badly parked car is the 'first punch'.

No that's a woman who can't park I understand your attempt at the metaphor, but if anything the video camera was the first punch, the woman that parked there was the "argument" or "dispute" beforehand.

[massifheed]

You're getting confused with having an opinion on everything and knowing everything.

But then you also say stuff like this...

I will now drop the "only giving short answers" routine (if you hadn't pegged it by now) and properly explain why you are wrong.

I think that's what Andy's on about.

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

On this subject*

[massifheed]

Well, that's the main thing, I guess.

[Andy Capp]

I can see it Andy, I just don't think this deserves any defence.

I'm not defending her. If anything, what I'm probably saying is I don't have full sympathy for the camera man.

Being a yoof,I use the internet a lot and am familiar with the ways of trial-by-video. Having suffered from it myself, I was performing a questionable act with a rented woman and unbeknown to me, my friends had attached a camera to my dog, which was watching us during the entire evening.

It then ended up on Mytube and Facespace and it was only after a super injunction was issued that the videos were removed and my dignity was restored, and my £40 refunded. The happy ending was very good though. I got a free ice-cream too.
You're getting confused with having an opinion on everything and knowing everything.

.............................oh, sorry ... have you finished!

I could not have written "I disagree" as this would have constituted an "overly long" response.

I don't think it does.

But the thing is that section 59s require no proof. You can get one for nothing, or you can get one for doing a million miles an hour. On the second section 59 your car can be siezed. Section 59 requires no "evidence" and you can't argue about it as there is no trial and no comeback.
The justice system for people who report crimes is not very good so why bother.

Rather a trial by internet than a trial by TV. How many people were "willing" and how many didn't know they were being filmed...I did have this idea of doing really funny/stupid things and sending in tapes to get £250 each time but it never panned out as I broke my face on the first attempted.

No that's a woman who can't park I understand your attempt at the metaphor, but if anything the video camera was the first punch, the woman that parked there was the "argument" or "dispute" beforehand.

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

[Andy Capp]

I'm sorry, but I find Nothing Much does it much more convincingly than you, and 'why should I play on the swings when I've been to Disney Land'.

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

I have been to Disney Land

[Nothing Much]

Hey I have a brownie point from Andy Capp.
Thanks.
I still think the driver was not nice, could have done better,
but the video was an an argumentative action by the person.
And he was lucky to get away.

Don't ask me about blue badge holders.
Do I snitch when a regular uses a yellow line? Not an aged Grandma in sight.
He runs restaurants. It is about £400 for me on a resident bay.
They are Turks. Diplomacy rules

[Turin Machine]

My twopennorth, Ajay, I think you're right but can come over as a little vapid, I personally love your style but Hay Ho !

Sorry Andy (and this is only my opinion) but you increasingly come across as a professional arguer, If I said the moon was out you would say "its not" ! you simply like arguing for thr sake of it. Nothing wrong with it, just makes all your posts such hard work and very predictable. Sorry.

[Andy Capp]

Sorry Andy (and this is only my opinion) but you increasingly come across as a professional arguer, If I said the moon was out you would say "its not" ! you simply like arguing for thr sake of it. Nothing wrong with it, just makes all your posts such hard work and very predictable. Sorry.

It is your opinion and I have no problem with that, although on this thread, I don't think I have said the woman is innocent; I haven't. What I wanted to do was expand the argument as I think this issue isn't just about poor parking. In my view, like Nothing Much said, the camera man contributed to his predicament.

I don't argue for the sake of being contrary. It is more that I often disagree with a few vociferous members on this forum. I see some members are predictably right-wing, which will put me in conflict with those members, often because I see holes in their point of view.

If you say 'the Moon' is out, I will more than likely to say, 'not in New Zealand'.

[Turin Machine]

Fair enough, but to disagree with someone on all points because you don't like the colour of their flag seems a bit self defeating, still, your view and, you are entited to hold it.

[Andy Capp]

Fair enough, but to disagree with someone on all points because you don't like the colour of their flag seems a bit self defeating, still, your view and, you are entited to hold it.

I don't think I disagree on all points. The point I make is that due to the right wing nature of a number of members, I am bound to come in conflict with some of their more 'extreme' views.

I find the 'hang 'em high' response to many things both predicable and lacking in reason. I see a lot of spite on here, and I find that is not much better than the people they might be complaining about.

[Biker1]

Sorry Andy (and this is only my opinion) but you increasingly come across as a professional arguer, If I said the moon was out you would say "its not" ! you simply like arguing for thr sake of it.

No, not just your opinion!

[Andy Capp]

[Strafin]

Just back to the section 59 thing, surely recordings are admissible otherwise CCTV footage wouldn't be worth a jot.

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

Just back to the section 59 thing, surely recordings are admissible otherwise CCTV footage wouldn't be worth a jot.

Not sure officially, I just know that if you show a picture of a short video of someone parking on double yellow lines, or being twats, they just took a note on the computer. "Want me to email you that?" -no it's ok we have the notes


Obviously in a murder or something yes it could be used but in motoring offences unless it's caused an accident they never bother, far too much paperwork. Only so much time to eat doughnuts, you know.

My twopennorth, Ajay, I think you're right but can come over as a little vapid, I personally love your style but Hay Ho !

Is that to me? If so highlight the page and read the lines below.
Hey, I have brownie points too! c.e we stand at 1 a piece. Consider this a game of tennis.
What does it say about my vocabulary level that I had to google what "vapid" means. My aim is to be who I am without offending as many people as possible.
If that's not to me and to someone called Ajay then highlight the page and read the lines below
You are no longer invited to my 21st birthday party and I hope penguins eat your fingers and toes while you sleep but leave your thumbs and pinkies, and also your small toe. Small toes are funny because you have 4 small toes but you automatically assume the smallest one...why is it thus not called smallest toe. Small toe should be the one next to your big toe surely?

I see a lot of spite on here, and I find that is not much better than the people they might be complaining about.

Fair point. It's like, complain about people who swear by swearing yourself. We are all hypocrites on some level. I'm just a hypotw*t.

[Turin Machine]

Actually xjay, yes it was you, sorry, long week an all that, Jeez, Ajay ! what was I thinking, sheese ! Justt keep making me laff, please !

[Cognosco]

Just back to the section 59 thing, surely recordings are admissible otherwise CCTV footage wouldn't be worth a jot.

Only not worth a jot when it is upgraded by WBC! Try asking them when the CCTV gave any useful evidence for a conviction?

Perhaps all the effort went into the number plate camera on the Wharf bridge?

[Exhausted]

My understanding is that a camera can be used whilst on or from any public place even to photograph or video police or security forces or uncle Tom Cobly and all. There might be special rule about taking pictures of restricted areas if a non photoghraph sign is displayed.