Wind your neck in...

marc said:

Quoted message said:

marc said:

dkahn400 wrote:
> On Oct 1, 10:16 am, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>> Anyhow as his attitude still stinks and we feverently believe he
>>> should be taught the error of his ways
>> Kowtow to the police or expect to be harrased?
> Behaving reasonably does not mean kowtowing. Similarly standing up
> to the police when they exceed their powers does not require one
> to be obnoxious. Pulling over cars that appear to be being driven
> illegally is not harrassment.
At no time did I say it was, what followed later could well be seen
as. If Sniper hadn't stopped him he'd still be roaring

> round with his blacked out windows, no licence, invalid insurance,
> and with the same eff-you attitude to pedestrians, cyclists and
> other motorists that he displayed to the police.
I have no problem with the intial stop because of the SORN

> The vehicle examiner had to make a judgement call: "If I let him
> drive home will he do so sensibly and carefully, or will he go
> roaring off in a childish display of emotion, risking innocent
> people's lives?" By the sound of it it was an easy decision.
I have no problem with the vehicle examiners decsion. However he was
called in to teach the driver a lesson in how to talk to the
police, not to for any other reason.

To be fair we had a pretty good idea it was going to fail before we
called the examiner and would have called him to check the safety of
the screen in any case and the final outcome would have been exactly
the same.. You don't seriously believe we would stop a vehicle and
not check the driver's insurance and driving credentials do you?

Not relevant. You stated your reasons for calling in the examiner,
those reasons were that you believed the driver needed teaching a
lesson.

And the lesson was 'get a licence, tax, insurance and a roadworthy vehicle'.

On 1 Oct, 11:26, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

marc said:

dkahn400 said:

On Oct 1, 10:16 am, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Anyhow as his attitude still stinks and we feverently believe he
>> should be taught the error of his ways
> Kowtow to the police or expect to be harrased?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Behaving reasonably does not mean kowtowing. Similarly standing up to
the police when they exceed their powers does not require one to be
obnoxious. Pulling over cars that appear to be being driven illegally
is not harrassment.

Quoted message said:

At no time did I say it was, what followed later could well be seen as.
If Sniper hadn't stopped him he'd still be roaring

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

round with his blacked out windows, no licence, invalid insurance, and
with the same eff-you attitude to pedestrians, cyclists and other
motorists that he displayed to the police.

Quoted message said:

I have no problem with the intial stop because of the SORN

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The vehicle examiner had to make a judgement call: "If I let him drive
home will he do so sensibly and carefully, or will he go roaring off
in a childish display of emotion, risking innocent people's lives?" By
the sound of it it was an easy decision.

Quoted message said:

I have no problem with the vehicle examiners decsion. However he was
called in to teach the driver a lesson in how to talk to the police, not
to for any other reason.

To be fair we had a pretty good idea it was going to fail before we
called the examiner and would have called him to check the safety of
the screen in any case and the final outcome would have been exactly
the same.. You don't seriously believe we would stop a vehicle and
not check the driver's insurance and driving credentials do you?

Sniper8052

On 1 Oct, 11:26, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

To be fair we had a pretty good idea it was going to fail before we
called the examiner and would have called him to check the safety of
the screen in any case and the final outcome would have been exactly
the same.. You don't seriously believe we would stop a vehicle and
not check the driver's insurance and driving credentials do you?

Sniper8052

Sorry for double-post; forgot that one had to write message, THEN
send. I'm sure that's all changed since last time :-)

Well done, Sniper; sounds like good use of intuition and common sense.
I'm sure that a few cyclists and even more motorists had a safer
journey home as a result.

Peter.

I cant believe anyone thinks they can get away with tinting the front
screen - possibly they dont think and thats the problem. I'd like my rears
tinted (I know theres no restriction on that and will likely have them
fairly dark) but I'd also like my front drivers/passengers lightly tinted
too as they are most of the length of the car - reasons of hiding contents
more than looks, though that seems a contentious issue, as I often have to
leave a few grands worth of kit in the car when doing my sport. I'm
concerned about getting it done and then ending up on the wrong side of the
law - is there any way of having it checked by a local station without them
then enforcing the law you were hoping to avoid falling foul of? Most people
dont have the light meter and the effect of one tint differs from window to
window due to existing glass colouring.

Just curious.

cupra said:

marc said:

Quoted message said:

On 1 Oct, 11:54, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
> dkahn400 wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 10:16 am, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>>> Anyhow as his attitude still stinks and we feverently believe he
>>>> should be taught the error of his ways
>>> Kowtow to the police or expect to be harrased?
>> Behaving reasonably does not mean kowtowing. Similarly standing up
>> to the police when they exceed their powers does not require one
>> to be obnoxious. Pulling over cars that appear to be being driven
>> illegally is not harrassment.
> At no time did I say it was, what followed later could well be seen
> as. If Sniper hadn't stopped him he'd still be roaring
>
>> round with his blacked out windows, no licence, invalid insurance,
>> and with the same eff-you attitude to pedestrians, cyclists and
>> other motorists that he displayed to the police.
> I have no problem with the intial stop because of the SORN
>
>
>
>> The vehicle examiner had to make a judgement call: "If I let him
>> drive home will he do so sensibly and carefully, or will he go
>> roaring off in a childish display of emotion, risking innocent
>> people's lives?" By the sound of it it was an easy decision.
> I have no problem with the vehicle examiners decsion. However he was
> called in to teach the driver a lesson in how to talk to the
> police, not to for any other reason.
To be fair we had a pretty good idea it was going to fail before we
called the examiner and would have called him to check the safety of
the screen in any case and the final outcome would have been exactly
the same.. You don't seriously believe we would stop a vehicle and
not check the driver's insurance and driving credentials do you?

Not relevant. You stated your reasons for calling in the examiner,
those reasons were that you believed the driver needed teaching a
lesson.

And the lesson was 'get a licence, tax, insurance and a roadworthy vehicle'.

No the lesson was " wind you neck in talk to me in a different manner
and you can drive your girfriend can drive your illegal car home"

In article <[email hidden]>,
Duncan Smith
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I have a serious suggestion that I would like air; it involves the
setting up of a penal colony in the Falkland Islands - similar to
Australia or French Guyana from days of old.

Why spoil the Falklands? Belgium is much more convenient. :-)

marc said:

cupra said:

marc said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On 1 Oct, 11:54, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> dkahn400 wrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 10:16 am, marc <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>> Anyhow as his attitude still stinks and we feverently believe
>>>>> he should be taught the error of his ways
>>>> Kowtow to the police or expect to be harrased?
>>> Behaving reasonably does not mean kowtowing. Similarly standing
>>> up to the police when they exceed their powers does not require
>>> one to be obnoxious. Pulling over cars that appear to be being
>>> driven illegally is not harrassment.
>> At no time did I say it was, what followed later could well be
>> seen as. If Sniper hadn't stopped him he'd still be roaring
>>
>>> round with his blacked out windows, no licence, invalid
>>> insurance, and with the same eff-you attitude to pedestrians,
>>> cyclists and other motorists that he displayed to the police.
>> I have no problem with the intial stop because of the SORN
>>
>>
>>
>>> The vehicle examiner had to make a judgement call: "If I let him
>>> drive home will he do so sensibly and carefully, or will he go
>>> roaring off in a childish display of emotion, risking innocent
>>> people's lives?" By the sound of it it was an easy decision.
>> I have no problem with the vehicle examiners decsion. However he
>> was called in to teach the driver a lesson in how to talk to the
>> police, not to for any other reason.
> To be fair we had a pretty good idea it was going to fail before we
> called the examiner and would have called him to check the safety
> of the screen in any case and the final outcome would have been
> exactly the same.. You don't seriously believe we would stop a
> vehicle and not check the driver's insurance and driving
> credentials do you?
Not relevant. You stated your reasons for calling in the examiner,
those reasons were that you believed the driver needed teaching a
lesson.

And the lesson was 'get a licence, tax, insurance and a roadworthy
vehicle'.

No the lesson was " wind you neck in talk to me in a different manner
and you can drive your girfriend can drive your illegal car home"

I'm not the OP but I can take a guess that that *wasn't* the lesson.....

In article said:

dkahn400 said:

marc said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Anyhow as his attitude still stinks and we feverently believe he
> should be taught the error of his ways
Kowtow to the police or expect to be harrased?

Behaving reasonably does not mean kowtowing. Similarly standing up to
the police when they exceed their powers does not require one to be
obnoxious. Pulling over cars that appear to be being driven illegally
is not harrassment.

At no time did I say it was, what followed later could well be seen as.
If Sniper hadn't stopped him he'd still be roaring

Quoted message said:

round with his blacked out windows, no licence, invalid insurance, and
with the same eff-you attitude to pedestrians, cyclists and other
motorists that he displayed to the police.

I have no problem with the intial stop because of the SORN

Quoted message said:

The vehicle examiner had to make a judgement call: "If I let him drive
home will he do so sensibly and carefully, or will he go roaring off
in a childish display of emotion, risking innocent people's lives?" By
the sound of it it was an easy decision.

I have no problem with the vehicle examiners decsion. However he was
called in to teach the driver a lesson in how to talk to the police, not
to for any other reason.

Do you think Sniper would have done that if he thought the guy was
being lippy but there was probably nothing wrong with the car?
He might not have had a meter, but I'll bet he suspected the tinted
windows were overdone. If he really was doing it just to teach the
driver to be polite, that was wrong, I agree, but the words immediately
after the quoted bit were "whilst promoting road safety".

al Mossah said:

On 1 Oct, 11:26, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

To be fair we had a pretty good idea it was going to fail before we
called the examiner and would have called him to check the safety of
the screen in any case and the final outcome would have been exactly
the same.. You don't seriously believe we would stop a vehicle and
not check the driver's insurance and driving credentials do you?

Sniper8052

Sorry for double-post; forgot that one had to write message, THEN
send. I'm sure that's all changed since last time :-)

Well done, Sniper; sounds like good use of intuition and common sense.
I'm sure that a few cyclists and even more motorists had a safer
journey home as a result.

I may be skirting a bit close to Godwins law here...

In Britain, first they came for the scrotes,
and I didn't speak out becasue I wasn't a Scrote.

Then they came for the speeders, and I was alright because I wasn't a
speeder.

Then they took the stroppy ones that wounldn't wind their necks in, and
I failed to speak because my neck was wound in.

Then they came for the cyclists, I was a cyclist but there was no one
left to speak for me.

With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller

Coyoteboy said:

I cant believe anyone thinks they can get away with tinting the front
screen - possibly they dont think and thats the problem. I'd like my rears
tinted (I know theres no restriction on that and will likely have them
fairly dark) but I'd also like my front drivers/passengers lightly tinted
too as they are most of the length of the car - reasons of hiding contents
more than looks, though that seems a contentious issue, as I often have to
leave a few grands worth of kit in the car when doing my sport. I'm
concerned about getting it done and then ending up on the wrong side of the
law - is there any way of having it checked by a local station without them
then enforcing the law you were hoping to avoid falling foul of? Most people
dont have the light meter and the effect of one tint differs from window to
window due to existing glass colouring.

Just curious.

To get any effect as you describe the tint would have to be too dark
to be legal in my opinion. I can check the exact transmission
requirements but it's fairly high, in the region of 75% for the front
and 70% for side windows.

Shaped cardboard and bluetac is probably a better bet, obviously
installed after you have finished driving 🙂

Sniper8052

In news:[email hidden],
marc <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

In 1984 lots of miners needed teaching lessons.

Such as:

How /dare/ you be politically motivated North of Watford

??

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
They came for Dani Behr; I said: "she's over there, behind the
wardrobe".

marc said:

Then they came for the speeders, and I was alright because I wasn't a
speeder.

Then they took the stroppy ones that wounldn't wind their necks in, and
I failed to speak because my neck was wound in.

Don't be a prat.

They came for the ones driving untaxed cars with dangerously obscured
windows. If the car had been legal, the 'chav' would have gone on his
way, regardless of the nastiness of his attitude.

I support 100% the removal from the roads of vehicles judged by law to
be unsafe. It's a pity you don't.

Quoted message said:

With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller

It's disappointing that you choose to disrespect a brave and
honourable man in order to try and score a completely false point.

In my opinion, that is rather more offensive than any Godwin. I find
your posting disgustingly repulsive, and hope you do not post anything
remotely like it again.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Dave Larrington said:

In news:[email hidden],
marc <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

In 1984 lots of miners needed teaching lessons.

Such as:

How /dare/ you be politically motivated North of Watford

??

I was thinking more of

"How dare you drive along the M4"

Quoted message said:

Why not use Australia again - not that it worked last time ;-)

Initially struck me that Australia was a great success, we eradicate a
large and problematic proportion of scum from society (at little cost)
who have no business being here - making life that much better for
those that remain.

Sure, some of their offspring found their way back a few hundred years
later, but by that time they were more reasonable and balanced folk
(on the whole).

Ian Smith said:

marc said:

Then they came for the speeders, and I was alright because I wasn't a
speeder.

Then they took the stroppy ones that wounldn't wind their necks in, and
I failed to speak because my neck was wound in.

Don't be a prat.

They came for the ones driving untaxed cars with dangerously obscured
windows. If the car had been legal, the 'chav' would have gone on his
way, regardless of the nastiness of his attitude.

I suggest you read the OP again. He was stopped for having a SORN
attached, was stroppy so was taught a lesson by calling in an examiner.

Quoted message said:

I support 100% the removal from the roads of vehicles judged by law to
be unsafe. It's a pity you don't.

You're free to show where I have said I wasn't in favour of removing
illegal vehicles, your equally free to apologise when you can't find such.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller

It's disappointing that you choose to disrespect a brave and
honourable man in order to try and score a completely false point.

Without delving too far in Pastor Martin Niemöller's past and character
I will agree that he was a brave and honourable U Boat Captain, however
his famous text admits that he was less than brave up until 1937, and
unless of course you want to class antisemitism as "honourable" the term
would be doubtful for the same period? Post war of course he admits that
"I returned home after eight years' imprisonment as a completely
different person." and post war is how he is now judged by those that
like comforting stereotypes.

Quoted message said:

In my opinion, that is rather more offensive than any Godwin. I find
your posting disgustingly repulsive, and hope you do not post anything
remotely like it again.

Maybe you should try and find a policeman and get him to teach me a
lesson for being offensive? Of course you then have to try and convince
him that his idea of offensive should match yours, it's a lot easier if
you can skip the convincing phase by being a police officer.In the
meantime I will continue to post ,as and when I feel like it , whether
you find those posts pleasing or not is beyond my control.

marc said the following on 01/10/2007 13:25:

Quoted message said:

he didn't deserve to be held up just
becasue he " needed teaching a lesson" in manners, because who's manners
are we going to use as a template?

I disagree, actually. How are these scrotes going to learn that
"manners maketh man" if they continue to get away with being rude and
arrogant. Maybe, just maybe, this particular scrote will think about
how he deals with people in the future. Be polite and have an easy life
or be an [censored] and get punished.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

marc said the following on 01/10/2007 13:52:

Quoted message said:

"How dare you drive along the M4"

Yesterday afternoon there wasn't much driving along the M4 westbound
towards Swindon...

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[email hidden] said the following on 01/10/2007 13:32:

Quoted message said:

To get any effect as you describe the tint would have to be too dark
to be legal in my opinion. I can check the exact transmission
requirements but it's fairly high, in the region of 75% for the front
and 70% for side windows.

I understood it was just the front side windows that had to be 70% - the
rear side windows can be as black as you like, can't they? Even if it
looks a bit daft!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

marc said the following on 01/10/2007 13:25:

Quoted message said:

he didn't deserve to be held up just becasue he " needed teaching a
lesson" in manners, because who's manners are we going to use as a
template?

I disagree, actually. How are these scrotes going to learn that
"manners maketh man" if they continue to get away with being rude and
arrogant. Maybe, just maybe, this particular scrote will think about
how he deals with people in the future. Be polite and have an easy life
or be an [censored] and get punished.

Fine, disagree, now answer the question. Who's manners are we going to
use as a template? If I decide that you are being rude by disagreeing
with me, what recourse do you have if I have power over you?

There is no statute that says " you must be polite to a police officer"
if there was then sniper could ( and should) have nicked him for it,
instead the driver was rousted not for his offences but for being rude.
That is only 1/2 a step along from being penalised for being a different
colour, I had hoped the police had moved further along than that, but it
seems they can only move as fast as society lets them, and if this
mornings replies are any sign society is happy to allow the police to
harras people who are rude to them as long as they can find a law to
hang it on. When I was doing O level history that was called "the ends
justify them means" , just be hopeful that one day you aren't one of the
ends.

Quoted message said:

Because who decides who is the "douche-bags"? Tomorrow it could be me,
or even worse , you!

Why don't we start with drivers of illegal tinted windscreens (who
invariably later turn out to have no driving license). I think I'd
like that. Alternatively, how about italic font number plates and Max-
Power stickers - an equally good indicator.