Nuxx:B9a5e22e-7ad5-428d-9506-a85729879edf@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Nuxx Vomica. Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:14:23 -0700 (PDT) References:  <66mdtpF2lgcesU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 54 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.150.187 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1208355265 13637 127.0.0.1 (16 Apr 2008 14:14:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:14:25 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.150.187; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b5) Gecko/2008032620 Firefox/3.0b5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4104 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:647504

On Apr 16, 2:45=A0pm, Matt B  wrote: > Simon Mason wrote: > > Bloody cameras! I went into WH Smith today and just needed a ballpoint > > pen. I was in a hurry to write a letter so took one of the loose pens > > out of the pen box. It was only 35 pence, so I didn't bother to pay for > > it. The next thing a jobsworth store detective ran out of the store and > > said he saw me on their sneaky spy camera stealing a pen. > > > I mean it's a 35p pen FFS, peanuts to a large company like that, but he > > insisted it was stealing. I said that in my car, I was allowed 10% plus > > 2 mph before I got nicked, so I could be driving at 79 mph on a motorway=

> > and not get done according to the ACPO guidelines, but it cut no ice. > > One pen, a box of pens, it was still stealing. > > Not a very convincing analogy with speed cameras. =A0You actually created > a victim. =A0About 100% of speed camera convictions are for actions which > did /not/ produce a victim. > > A better analogy would be that they collared you for actions which, > although they didn't actually lead to you stealing a pen, may have done > so under an entirely different set of circumstances. =A0Perhaps walking > within 10 yards of the pen counter with writing paper, an envelope and > stamp, but no money about your person. > > > The sods didn't even have the decency to publish the whereabouts of the > > cameras in the local rag or on the radio like they do with the safety > > cameras, so I know where I can break the law. Swines. > > Stores operating CCTV systems are legally obliged to display prominent > signs warning of its presence.

As above. There's also the fact that every driver, including Spindrift (who won't admit it because he knows how ridiculous it would make his arguments look), speeds. Setting a safe speed for the conditions, which may sometimes involve exceeding an arbitrary limit, is an inseparable part of driving. Relatively few people shoplift, and you don't just drift out of the shop with something in the same way that you drift over the speed limit.

Why am I bothering? The OP knows all this already, unless he's provocation and/or humour rather than an attempt at making a serious point. I suppose it depends on whether the OP supports cameras because he's a motorist-hater like Spindrift or Crapman, or because he's a sad clueless idiot who doesn't understand the figures or the process of driving.
 * extremely* thick. I assume that his post was an attempt at

Speeding is done millions of times a day with no harm resulting. If every speeding infraction was prosecuted, every driver would be banned. Shoplifting always results in harm, and if every shoplifting infraction was prosecuted, the world would be a much better place. Only a fool or a lying motorist-hating scumbag would equate the two activities.