I have no time for drunk drivers

aka the Daily Jackboot.

 

wrote

I started with the Daily Herald and left for the Guardian shortly after
it morphed into the Sun. These days (the last 20 years) I get my
propaganda from the Beeb.

 

Nice. Sadly missed.

 

I used to take the Morning Star daily [1], I still buy it from time to
time as most WH Smiths carry it. Daily during conference season. Its
the only paper that carries accurate reporting of TU motions.

Incidentally, there are long memories in the labour movement. One old
activist wouldn't touch it as it "sold out the International Brigades".


[1] At the newsagents in Westbury high street...

Me: I ordered the /Morning/ Star not the /Daily/ Star.
Girl: Is there a difference?

Queue collapses in hysterics.

 

My Mother's Father took the Mirror. I suspect that despite being a
Farmer he voted Labour[1]. I wasn't allowed to read it when we visited-
not sure if that was because of the possibility of scantily dressed
women (the Mirror used to do that too, didn't it) or its politics. I
suspect the latter.

[1] Farmers in the 70s were scared that Labour would nationalise the
land; they made some pronouncement about this I believe.

 

My Nan's obituary was published in it.

 

His last interview was *rivetting*.

 

Yes. Smoking carriages are indeed sadly missed.
After giving up 'cos my arteries were clogged,
I used the smokers to get a passive fix.
I suggest that people unable to smoke through
age or infirmity should have been allowed in.

BTW, are there any smoking carriages left on British trains?

 

Yes, SWT still have smoking /compartments/

 

Last time I checked [1] GNER Geordie express had smoking carriages at
each end, one for first and one for second class, they put them at each
end so if there was a accident the smokers die first, as they had a
lower life expectances they were loosing less and it mattered less,
presumably this would be coupled with smaller damages awards to the
victims families.

[1] 2 years ago

--
Bob
Currently borrowing a black and red Yamaha XJ750 with fuel injection
Present: Honda XL125RF (FS)
Past: Honda CG125
bob at homeurl tomato dot co dot uk
remove the red fruit if you’d like to email me.

 

No - the compartment at the front is to make sure the smoke is distributed
to other compartments by the air-con system.

 

I think intercities still have them (did last time I travelled), but in
the event of carriage shortages it was cattles class smoking that got
chucked off, and you weren't allowed to trudge to the business class
smoker and stand and light up there, or they wanted you to pay the
suppliment.

On one train where they ahd dropped the commoners smoking carriage the
guard/revenue collector actually said to me, go stand in the doorway by
the window with it down when you want one. Such an amazing display of
undertanding that on a 4 hour journey an addict to a legal substance may
need a fix. First and only time it has happened though.

 

Terefore you considered his reply and calling you a troll worth replying
to.

Seems you will reply to most things.

 

Don't forget war crimes.

 

Senator Blair doesn't have a hard job to do. But he does have dificulty
acting like he has a hard job.

The strain of being the first attempt at "Celebrity Faking it" is really
showing.

Let's face, basically all he has to remember is to say "Yes Mr
President", and never to ask "Why do I have to be the woman".

You know that special relationship we have with the states?
It's very special. They have been fucking us for years, without having
to worry about making any ties or commitments.

 

Hanging should be brought back for: Murder, rape and death by dangerous
driving.

The law at the moment, is far too soft on drunk drivers

 

You, sir, are an utter tit.
Not only do you fail to reply to the points of the above post, and spew
forth utterly irrelevent views, but your views are, to say the least,
unfounded and hysterical.

Have you any idea how many miscarriages of justice there are, and therefore
how many innocent people would hang for the above crimes? And just think,
for every innocent person murdered by the state, there's still an
unconvicted guilty person on the loose. and no-one will be looking, because
instead of having a chance to realise they were wrong, the police will be
sat smugly thinking justice has been dserved.

Also, put into context the act of murder. Could it be a result of years of
physical or mental abuse at the hands of a spouse or family member? Could be
it manslaughter, but the barrister was not a good one? I dare you to try and
state that it's a truly black and white issue, when every sentient being
knows life is more often than not shades of gray.

Define dangerous driving. For example, a very drunk cyclist on a main road,
late at night, with no lights, and no streetlights, swerves into the path of
an oncoming car. The driver of the car was going at 50% more than the speed
limit (speeding is a heinous crime according to many). The driver doesn't
see the unlit cyclist until it is far too late to stop. Dead cyclist. Does
the driver deserve death because he hit a near invisible obstacle?

I don't know why I'm bothering, but here goes.
Drink driving, in this day and age, is a very silly thing to do. The ever
changing law on the amount of alcohol means many people don't actually know
if they've had a drink too many or not. Many people still think 3 pints is
the limit, some thing one sniff of a weak shandy is, and so on. And some
people simply are not *drunk* on the amount the law says is currently
acceptable. I'm not sure you actually comprehend the difference between
drink driving, and drunk driving, either. Which wouldn't surprise me, as I
doubt you comprehend a great deal. At the level currently set, very very few
people would be considered to be drunk. Mildly impaired enough to be a high
risk, and therefore prosectued, but drunk, no. That is an important point.
Terminology, in a court of law, can be the make or break of a case.

It is also important to remember that like speeding, drinking does not
automatically result in major damage to people or property. An analogy might
be it is legal to own a carving knife. It is illegal to threaten someone
with it. It is illegal to kill someone with it. But should threatening
someone (with no intent to harm) be subject to the same punishment as
actually killing someone? So should someone who is slightly over the limit,
but in reasonable control of their faculties, suffer the same consequences
as someone who is out of their tree and mows down a bus queue?

I doubt you'll reply to this, as it means actually having to construct an
argument, the best I can hope for is another spectacular failure of yours to
say anything in context, but I'm bored (literally watching paint dry) and
playing with the feeble minded morons on usenet sometimes amuses me.

Oh, and once in a while, try to keep to some standards of posting, or Mr.
ISP might not let you play with the interweb any longer.

 

Stuffed wrote

You really cannot argue with that.

He goes dogging as well. I thought I would mention it just in case
anybody out there happens to be horribly homophobic.

But if you could get slung off the internet for just being an ignorant
tosser I doubt I would be replying to this post of yours, mr hard man
with his frets.

 

What is "dogging" and will I be sorry I asked?

 

Dan Buchan wrote

Here is one definition

http://www.londonfetishscene.com/newsdesk/ViewArticle.asp?ArticleID=1373