12 Points on the Horizon...

[Countdown]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Apologies if Ive missed this but... i thought the criticism was because one party was complaining about how unfair it was, NOT because they had done wrong. Its not the "doing wrong" that's being criticised.... just the moaning about unfairness.

[Ken Figenus]

Its a staggering hypocrisy to break a law for reasons that you will not admit to or publicly disclose (and that are quite likely along the line of my 'common sense' whinges) but then mitigate your offence by claiming its absolutely fine to prosecute you for that purposeful and deliberate transgression because you knew they might do that anyway . That is hardly digging deep or analysing the situation for a better reason/purpose (and we have given enough examples here to differentiate between the selfish numptie doing 45 through a village at 3pm on a Saturday viz a chap overtaking safely on an A road hitting 65 or maybe 80mph on a dry quiet motorway - context...). No its all about you were wrong on purpose and they are always right...well just because... Its like a socialist shoplifter saying he doesn't agree with stealing from Harrods but that it serves a purpose for the homeless he feeds with the ill gotten goods but that he is also really happy to get caught! Let them all have cake and eat it!

[Countdown]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This is where you have completely and totally missed the point. You are equating "moaning about being done for speeding" with "speeding" and suggesting that "because you speed" it is therefore justifiable for "other people to moan about being done for speeding". It's patently silly. It's like driving into a brick wall and then complaining about the damage inflicted to you/your car from driving into a brick wall. Very few people would intentionally drive into a brick wall. Only their mums would sympathise with them fro driving into a brick wall and suggesting that the brick wall is being unfair.

[cmaguire]

I frequently do more than 120mph on the road. I'd be pretty cheesed off if I got caught as I don't think it unreasonable for me to be doing it. If I did I wouldn't do it. I am wilfully breaking the law because I don't respect that law, although I am fully aware that I may fall foul of it. That isn't going to mean I 'will accept responsibility for my actions and take it like a man' if I get caught because that would imply that I accept I am doing something wrong, which I don't. I will simply accept the punishment, because I don't have a choice (I could go slower of course but I think I've covered that one already, and it is also completely disengaging).

[singlecoil]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It was just another vote, one of a fair few now, against your position. I have no intention of trying to argue you out of it, you are obviously not a man to be argued with on this particular point.

[Ken Figenus]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

HONESTLY I think that seals this avenue - the only missing bit is getting them to be honest enough to admit that the law bit they choose to deliberately flout on purpose is because it is sometimes a blunt and somewhat unjust application of the law (this being easier for the administrators...) and, just maybe, that's why they gone and went and done and broke it!.

I personally have no issues in doing that for 65mph in blanket 50mph Dorset in passing a horsebox - however the righteous would be happy for me to get a ticket though... Let alone THEM!! Just odd logic! Will never compute

[singlecoil]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Of course it is, but you've demonstrated an immunity to anything that doesn't accord with your view on this subject. Appeal to popularity? I don't think so.

Interesting that you cared enough to post a riposte though.

[Countdown]

Ken Figenus said:

I personally have no issues in doing that for 65mph in blanket 50mph Dorset in passing a horsebox - however the righteous would be happy for me to get a ticket though... Let alone THEM!! Just odd logic! Will never compute

Are you and Cmoose on some special kind of drugs?

I would not be happy or unhappy for you to get a ticket. However if you

(a) KNOW that if you get caught speeding you will get a ticket and then
(b) complain about getting a ticket because you were caught speeding

the I would think the "complaining" bit was a pointless waste of time and energy. Why would that make be "righteous", brother?

[singlecoil]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not really. Most of your stuff on this thread, when examined, proves to be nothing more than proof by assertion.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There's no proof there beyond your saying that he has no such right.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And that's the sort of thing you resort to when you feel your back is to the wall, which it is.

[whoami]

[Ken Figenus]

Countdown said:

Are you and Cmoose on some special kind of drugs?

I would not be happy or unhappy for you to get a ticket. However if you

(a) KNOW that if you get caught speeding you will get a ticket and then
(b) complain about getting a ticket because you were caught speeding

the I would think the "complaining" bit was a pointless waste of time and energy. Why would that make be "righteous", brother?

Because, bizarrely, some of us approach and discuss that 'ticket' issue before it happens. Seriously!

Separate the context from a moany gripe based on something that hasn't actually happened (yet - in my case) and then add sensible context - still work for you?

Its about the approach, the ethos, the thought process, the application of the concept/law - not that that bothers some (yet)! You, like many, it seems just rolls over like an obsequious Spaniel! Well its an easier life innit... Some dig deeper though - that can be classed as futile nonsense or a far nobler pragmatic thing!

Edited by Ken Figenus on Wednesday 28th September 22:20

[singlecoil]

I sort of enjoy your rambles, Ken, though I realise I probably shouldn't .

[Ken Figenus]

singlecoil said:

I sort of enjoy your rambles, Ken, though I realise I probably shouldn't .

Thank you mate. Maybe its because I mentioned rolling over like a subservient Spaniel - eager to please a master unthinkingly You are likely a dog man - people who love dogs are often great people!

[Ken Figenus]

Countdown said:

Are you and Cmoose on some special kind of drugs?

I would not be happy or unhappy for you to get a ticket. However if you

(a) KNOW that if you get caught speeding you will get a ticket and then
(b) complain about getting a ticket because you were caught speeding

the I would think the "complaining" bit was a pointless waste of time and energy. Why would that make be "righteous", brother?

I'm not 'complaining' as I didnt get caught passing the horsebox at a dizzy 65mph in 50mph Dorset. That you think its right for youtoo to be nabbed for the same safe reasonable action is my discussion. I'd be annoyed FOR you - even though none of these things happened!!! Sorry if this is abstract and not directly connected to a factual actual dismissable moany thread whinge

[vonhosen]

Ken Figenus said:

Countdown said:

Are you and Cmoose on some special kind of drugs?

I would not be happy or unhappy for you to get a ticket. However if you

(a) KNOW that if you get caught speeding you will get a ticket and then
(b) complain about getting a ticket because you were caught speeding

the I would think the "complaining" bit was a pointless waste of time and energy. Why would that make be "righteous", brother?

I'm not 'complaining' as I didnt get caught passing the horsebox at a dizzy 65mph in 50mph Dorset. That you think its right for youtoo to be nabbed for the same safe reasonable action is my discussion. I'd be annoyed FOR you - even though none of these things happened!!! Sorry if this is abstract and not directly connected to a factual actual dismissable moany thread whinge

But what you are deeming as a reasonable action the state does not, it expressly forbids it.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The state has outlawed it because it doesn't consider it reasonable.
We (as a people) empower them through our democratic process to make those determinations on our behalf for society as a whole.

When, for instance, you (or I) personally determine in your (or my) mind an action to be reasonable, that is cold (or no) comfort to the individual convicted because the state didn't consider it so. As such your (or my) personal view is of little consequence & the state's very relevant.
Your (or my) view only becomes relevant where it has sufficient sway/support to encourage the government to change it's stance to what amounts to reasonable behaviour.
Without that it's impotent.

Your (or my) views of what is reasonable may shape your (or my) choice of action, but unless you (or I) don't care about the potential consequences in relation to sanctions, we can't do it without consideration of the state's view of what amounts to reasonable.

[singlecoil]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The time and energy you are putting in to your defense shows more clearly than anything else could that somewhere deep down inside you there's some part of you that knows you are wrong.

You do protest too much.

[singlecoil]

Ken Figenus said:

singlecoil said:

I sort of enjoy your rambles, Ken, though I realise I probably shouldn't .

Thank you mate. Maybe its because I mentioned rolling over like a subservient Spaniel - eager to please a master unthinkingly You are likely a dog man - people who love dogs are often great people!

I would be perfectly happy if dogs had never been invented. Cats are the thinking man's pets.

[blindswelledrat]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Quite mental

[Ken Figenus]

vonhosen said:

The state has outlawed it because it doesn't consider it reasonable.
We (as a people) empower them through our democratic process to make those determinations on our behalf for society as a whole.

When, for instance, you (or I) personally determine in your (or my) mind an action to be reasonable, that is cold (or no) comfort to the individual convicted because the state didn't consider it so. As such your (or my) personal view is of little consequence & the state's very relevant.
Your (or my) view only becomes relevant where it has sufficient sway/support to encourage the government to change it's stance to what amounts to reasonable behaviour.
Without that it's impotent.

Your (or my) views of what is reasonable may shape your (or my) choice of action, but unless you (or I) don't care about the potential consequences in relation to sanctions, we can't do it without consideration of the state's view of what amounts to reasonable.

And then we are full circle again Has no law ever been challenged for being poorly thought out or implemented badly? Good men and women fight these things comrades! This Dorset blanket 50 was not set by an MP - it was set by a local quango honcho keen to make his mark and crow about a 1% drop in fatalities because a lorry driver didn't nod off in that stats period this year. Then he wants my money too for overtaking safely. I think its OK to challenge things like that but respect the law in general. Differentiation - even though das ist verboten accoding to some!