...common sense went out the window with this generation of uber-morons.
No, common-sense went out the window with this (and the previous) generation of judges. You know, the ones who award millions in damages for trivial foolishness that the subject was too stupid to avoid, and deny proper damages in cases of genuine suffering because some company paid them to look the other way.
Hmmm
Is it the judges, or the juries that award the large damages? I suspect it is the latter and not the former.
To the contrary, she was one of the greatest politicians of the XX century. Together with Ronald Reagan and John Paul II she finished Soviet Union without going to war. That is why the Left hates her so much. She has proven how corrupt and dumb are leftist ideas. You sir are one of those usefull idiots that Moscow was using to cover their genocidal political system. Why don't you move to Cuba or North Korea, the last bastions of your belowed ideology ?
JAM
Hmmm
I can't answer for anyone else, but my dislike of Thatcher has everything to with her economic policies within the United Kingdom and absolutely nothing to do with what happened to the Soviet Union.
I believe it is accurate to state that her popularity, with the general public of the UK, decreased as the distance from London increased.
According to reports, the ballot was out of action for 14 months before the EU noticed. So if Google really did snitch, they most certainly did not do so in a timely manner.
This just seems to be pure speculation, given the length of time the ballot was down, it could be anyone or no one...
snip... We are afraid of body bags coming home and we're afraid of collateral damage. snip...
Hmm
I don't believe the military is afraid of collateral damage maybe reporting of it and gaining negative publicity, but certainly not of inflicting it. One reason that collateral damage figures in Iraq (inflicted by the alliance), were not reported, indeed they lied at the time and said the figures were not even recorded.
Assange fled Sweden rather than defend himself against the charges.
Hmmm
Except that is not correct, he did not flee, he left Sweden legally. It was only after he had left Sweden that the new prosecutor issued a new arrest warrant.
Ireland is not part of the UK. Unless you lot want to go back to being good little colonists too?
What is the issue? The summary does not state nor imply that the Republic of Ireland is part of the UK.
The initial investigation was carried out by inspectors from the Irish government on products that were sold in Ireland. The suppliers were traced, it was found that they supplied meat to the UK. Tesco's were one of the companies that had sourced meats from these suppliers, they placed their ads in the UK after finding out some of the products they sold in the UK had traces of horse-meat in them.
I'm talking about a town of 600,000 people that has a far lower violent crime rate than either NYC or the UK. Murder is included in violent crime, but isn't the only component. Guns are involved in violent crime, but they also aren't the only factor. If guns were the only factor, then Mesa would also have a high violent crime rate. Guns don't cause violent crime, criminals do. If you drill further down into the statistics you quote about murder in Arizona, you will discover they are either gun or illegal immigration factors in a large percentage of them. Changing gun laws won't change those statistics at all, except now when the meth addict breaks into someone's home he has a better chance at killing the occupants.
Hmmm
As stated elsewhere, the UK uses a different method of recording Violent Crime, so a direct comparison cannot be made, at least not without acknowledging those differences. According to the FBI (1,2): "defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery."
In England & Wales the following definition is used (3): "Violent crime covers a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Robbery, an offence in which violence or the threat of violence is used during a theft (or attempted theft) is not included in the police recorded violence against the person offence group as it is reported separately in the robbery section, but it is included within CSEW violence".
So given the above it is hardly surprising that the UK has a significantly higher violent crime rate than your county, state or even country.
I have seen no statistic that show direct proof that reducing guns reduces crime without other statistics that refute it. I believe it's because there are far too many other factors that aren't taken into account and can't be removed from the equation. There are only misleading statistics that people use to support their side of the argument. Did you know the average criminal that uses a gun shoots less than three times?? Did you know that in instances where either off duty law enforcement or private citizens were present and able to stop public shootings, the average number of people killed (including the perpetrator) is 3 and not 11 when guns aren't present. (And that the national media never reports those because the body count isn't high enough to warrant any attention?) How come you don't mention those, you only mention the ones that support your belief (just as I did.)
I don't mention them, because I have never come across a reputable source that has data on them. Please provide a link to a reputable source that contains data that can be examined. The statistics that I use are provided by the law enforcement agencies of the respective countries, I always provide a link to the stats and where required, the page the stats reside on, so that the data can be examined and verified. I don't state "Did you know" and then proceed to make a series of statements without even 1 link to help verify them.
So, ignoring misleading statistics, please explain how limiting magazines to 7 rounds does anything. I have a two six shot revolvers, one 5 shot, and a 7+1 round semi-automatic (if you don't know what 7+1 means, you have no business talking about guns). I can easily carry al
Or is it a country without very large population centers, mostly rural, where murder rates are statistically lower anyway, everywhere in the world. Except in their cities
I live in Arizona, where people carrying guns are not an uncommon site. I myself have carried into gas stations, drug stores, and banks without incident. I had a police officer pull me over to tell me my brake lights were out, I had a gun visible and he didn't ask me to take it off..
According to the FBI there were 339 Murders in the state of Arizona in 2011 (1). Google estimates the population of Arizona to be approx 6,482,505, so a per capita murder rate of 5.229 According to the UK's Home Office (2) there were 636 Homicides in England & Wales in 2011. Google estimates the population of England and Wales to be approx 56,050,000, so a per capita Homicide Rate of 1.134.
So despite the relaxed gun control laws and lower population density, the state of Arizona has a substantially higher Homicide Rate than England & Wales.
Should be 'New York Passes Useless Gun Control Law', since nothing in the law will make any positive difference in crime rates, and will only impact legal gun holders. My prediction is that like Chicago, New York will continue down the path of passing more and more restrictive gun control laws, which make it easier for criminals to commit more crimes and serve only to continue to drive their violent crime rates even higher above the national average. Meanwhile, I live in a community of over 600,000 people in a state with very few gun control laws (Arizona) that has a violent crime rate almost have the national average. Where I can open carry into a bank (and have) and no one runs out in fear, the tellers smile, say high, and take my deposit as if nothing was wrong.
Because nothing was wrong.
According to the FBI there were 339 Murders in the state of Arizona in 2011 (1). Google estimates the population of Airzona to be approx 6,482,505, so a per capita murder rate of 5.229 According to the FBI there were 774 Murders in the state of New York in 2011 (1). Google estimates the population of New York to be approx 19465197, so a per capita murder rate of 3.976 According to the UK's Home Office (2) there were 636 Homicides in England & Wales in 2011. Google estimates the population of England and Wales to be approx 53,050,000, so a per capita Homicide Rate of 1.134.
So despite the relaxed gun control laws and lower population density, the state of Arizona has a substantially higher Homicide Rate than England & Wales. Arizona also appears to have a higher Murder rate than that of New York State.
Yes, but did you read the report that UK has been fudging the numbers for several years?
Also, they report differently than we do. We report every homicide (not even sure if we include suicides), but we include justified homicides, accidental, etc. It is my understanding that they UK does not, and will find excuses for reducing the murder tally from homicide tally.
Which report? Please link to a reputable source... The UK & USA also report / record violent crime differently, that does not stop Americans from directly comparing them...
You mean the UK, where the violent crime rate is 3.5 times that of the US?? Where there was recently a run on small baseball bats because police weren't able to protect businesses and people from rioters?? That country??.
Which definition of Violent Crime are you using? That of the UK or the USA, or are you doing a direct comparison based on what is recorded as Violent Crime by each country? There is a substantial difference between how the USA & the UK record Violent Crime UK : http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_283456.pdf (page 16)
Definition : Violent crime covers a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Robbery, an offence in which violence or the threat of violence is used during a theft (or attempted theft) is not included in the police recorded violence against the person offence group as it is reported separately in the robbery section, but it is included within CSEW violence.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/aggravated-assault Aggravated Assault : The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery.
Damn, it's only a memo about improving a video game? I thought it was going to be a memo about how to improve the snoozefest that is soccer/futbol. (Yeah, and here come all the non-Americans to talk about how superior it is to basketball/baseball/football. I don't care. Any game that ends in a 0-0 tie is not entertaining to watch.)
Hmmm
So it is the act of scoring that makes a game exciting? Personally I don't think so, certainly not in regards to basketball, where I believe the opposite is true... As a Brit I have seen many scoreless football matches, yes, quite a few of them have been dire, however a fair number of them have been very tense and exciting. The best have been those matches where one side has dominated the match but have been denied victory by a perfect performance from the other team's goalkeeper.
No, it is inappropriate to not revoke his license. Making his way to the schools on foot or public transport might give him sufficient time to reflect on his actions and the damage he has caused to these peoples lives.
As a cager that has to contend with motorcyclists paying insufficient attention to the road on a daily basis, I have to state the the driver did us all a service by removing two dangerous hazards from the road.
I pay a great deal of attention to motorcycles when I drive -- though for my own protection. Motorcyclists seem to do incredibly stupid and dangerous things every time they're around me.
Just a few days ago, for example, some moron on a motorcycle decided to pass me on the right (the shoulder, not a different lane) while I was making a right turn on to a busy highway. Had I not expected him to do something incredibly stupid when I saw him behind me, I'd have run right in to him. (What's worse, he shouted some obscenity at me as he drove past, as though it was my fault he was putting his life and my fender unnecessarily at risk.)
I would state that motorcyclists that do not pay sufficient attention to the road do not remain motorcyclists for very long through either through death or serious injury. As for removing 2 dangerous hazards from the road, I have not seen any information that says they contributed to the accident in any way, therefore you appear to be tarring all motorcyclists with the same brush due to past encounters with moronic bikers.
He should have been banned from driving for 5+ years and been given a much larger fine. The community service is absolutely nothing, it is certainly not going to act as any form of deterrent for other morons that drive whilst texting.
The only person responsible for the accident was the driver of the car. He chose to read the text messages whilst driving. What I cannot understand is the reasoning from the courts as to the decision handed down to the driver of the car. Such a serious accident and he did not even get banned from driving? As a motorcyclist that has to contend with car drivers paying insufficient attention to the road on a daily basis, I have to state that the driver should have been penalised much more severely for his actions.
The corporations are the primary source of the politicians campaign contributions, contributions that allow the politicians to continue on the gravy train. As such, do you really expect them not to look out for the best interests of said corporations first?
If you read the patent, you will see it refers to earlier patent applications on a related theme from them. The earliest patent application goes back to November 1995, hence it is prior art from before that date that needs to be taken into consideration.
I will see if I can find any more, but in some cases the details were in letters to the editor published in the printed version of MCN and not on the forums
No, formal written notifications under the ASBO laws were handed out. These were widely reported in the motorcycle press at the time. I know that Motorcycle News covered the stories.
This is why the ASBO is and has always been a foul addition to British law.
Someon is doing something not illegal, but deemed anti-social, they can be issued with an anti-social-behaviour-order to constrain their activities. Even if the order tries to stop them doing something completely legal, they can be fined or imprisoned fro breaking it. It's a horrific abuse of the law, I just hope that sooner or later someone takes this through to the ECHR and gets the whole ASBO scheme shut down.
Someone asked me the other day about why I hated the labour party in the UK. That ASBOs were introduced on their watch is something I forgot at the time, it'll be in there next time someone asks me.
Hmmm
In recent years a number of Police forces have issued ASBOo's to Motorcyclists. In some cases the issuing of the ASBOo's has been because of offences committed by the motorcyclists (speeding / illegal exhaust / number plates), the police chose not to prosecute, but to instead issue an ASBO, the terms of the ASBO being that any future "anti-social" behaviour performed by the motorcyclists would enable the police to seize and crush the motorcycles. So the end result is the potential punishment is far harsher than that laid down by the law for the offences committed, and at the same time, the police do not have to prove their case in a court of law...
The above was an example of ASBO's being abused when offences have been committed, but some police forces have issued ASBO notices when no offence has been committed. North Wales Police used to have a chief constable that was very anti-motorcycle. During the summer months the North Wales Police would be out in force every weekend pulling over every single motorcyclist using the roads. As part of one of their crackdowns on anti-social motorcyclists they started to issue ASBO's to every motorcyclist stopped. When questioned as to why ASBO's were being issued when no offence committed, the police would trot out the line that some (other) motorcyclists had committed offences and this had raised concerns from the local community and so the ASBO orders were justified...Guilt by association, and none of it needing to be proved in court...
Slashdot Mirror
...common sense went out the window with this generation of uber-morons.
No, common-sense went out the window with this (and the previous) generation of judges. You know, the ones who award millions in damages for trivial foolishness that the subject was too stupid to avoid, and deny proper damages in cases of genuine suffering because some company paid them to look the other way.
Hmmm
Is it the judges, or the juries that award the large damages? I suspect it is the latter and not the former.
To the contrary, she was one of the greatest politicians of the XX century. Together with Ronald Reagan and John Paul II she finished Soviet Union without going to war. That is why the Left hates her so much. She has proven how corrupt and dumb are leftist ideas. You sir are one of those usefull idiots that Moscow was using to cover their genocidal political system. Why don't you move to Cuba or North Korea, the last bastions of your belowed ideology ?
JAM
Hmmm
I can't answer for anyone else, but my dislike of Thatcher has everything to with her economic policies within the United Kingdom and absolutely nothing to do with what happened to the Soviet Union.
I believe it is accurate to state that her popularity, with the general public of the UK, decreased as the distance from London increased.
snip...
And endeavour is spelled endeavor.
Endeavour is the correct spelling for those of us from the United Kingdom.
According to reports, the ballot was out of action for 14 months before the EU noticed. So if Google really did snitch, they most certainly did not do so in a timely manner.
This just seems to be pure speculation, given the length of time the ballot was down, it could be anyone or no one...
snip...
We are afraid of body bags coming home and we're afraid of collateral damage.
snip...
Hmm
I don't believe the military is afraid of collateral damage maybe reporting of it and gaining negative publicity, but certainly not of inflicting it. One reason that collateral damage figures in Iraq (inflicted by the alliance), were not reported, indeed they lied at the time and said the figures were not even recorded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority
Assange fled Sweden rather than defend himself against the charges.
Hmmm
Except that is not correct, he did not flee, he left Sweden legally. It was only after he had left Sweden that the new prosecutor issued a new arrest warrant.
Hmmm
All of the above may indeed be correct, however what the UK People support and what the Politicians approve are two entirely different things.
Hey, Samzenpus, plus editors!
Ireland is not part of the UK. Unless you lot want to go back to being good little colonists too?
What is the issue? The summary does not state nor imply that the Republic of Ireland is part of the UK.
The initial investigation was carried out by inspectors from the Irish government on products that were sold in Ireland. The suppliers were traced, it was found that they supplied meat to the UK. Tesco's were one of the companies that had sourced meats from these suppliers, they placed their ads in the UK after finding out some of the products they sold in the UK had traces of horse-meat in them.
I'm talking about a town of 600,000 people that has a far lower violent crime rate than either NYC or the UK. Murder is included in violent crime, but isn't the only component. Guns are involved in violent crime, but they also aren't the only factor. If guns were the only factor, then Mesa would also have a high violent crime rate. Guns don't cause violent crime, criminals do. If you drill further down into the statistics you quote about murder in Arizona, you will discover they are either gun or illegal immigration factors in a large percentage of them. Changing gun laws won't change those statistics at all, except now when the meth addict breaks into someone's home he has a better chance at killing the occupants.
Hmmm
As stated elsewhere, the UK uses a different method of recording Violent Crime, so a direct comparison cannot be made, at least not without acknowledging those differences. According to the FBI (1,2) :
"defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery."
In England & Wales the following definition is used (3) :
"Violent crime covers a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Robbery, an offence in which violence or the threat of violence is used during a theft (or attempted theft) is not included in the police recorded violence against the person offence group as it is reported separately in the robbery section, but it is included within CSEW violence".
So given the above it is hardly surprising that the UK has a significantly higher violent crime rate than your county, state or even country.
I have seen no statistic that show direct proof that reducing guns reduces crime without other statistics that refute it. I believe it's because there are far too many other factors that aren't taken into account and can't be removed from the equation. There are only misleading statistics that people use to support their side of the argument. Did you know the average criminal that uses a gun shoots less than three times?? Did you know that in instances where either off duty law enforcement or private citizens were present and able to stop public shootings, the average number of people killed (including the perpetrator) is 3 and not 11 when guns aren't present. (And that the national media never reports those because the body count isn't high enough to warrant any attention?) How come you don't mention those, you only mention the ones that support your belief (just as I did.)
I don't mention them, because I have never come across a reputable source that has data on them. Please provide a link to a reputable source that contains data that can be examined. The statistics that I use are provided by the law enforcement agencies of the respective countries, I always provide a link to the stats and where required, the page the stats reside on, so that the data can be examined and verified. I don't state "Did you know" and then proceed to make a series of statements without even 1 link to help verify them.
So, ignoring misleading statistics, please explain how limiting magazines to 7 rounds does anything. I have a two six shot revolvers, one 5 shot, and a 7+1 round semi-automatic (if you don't know what 7+1 means, you have no business talking about guns). I can easily carry al
Or is it a country without very large population centers, mostly rural, where murder rates are statistically lower anyway, everywhere in the world. Except in their cities
I live in Arizona, where people carrying guns are not an uncommon site. I myself have carried into gas stations, drug stores, and banks without incident. I had a police officer pull me over to tell me my brake lights were out, I had a gun visible and he didn't ask me to take it off..
According to the FBI there were 339 Murders in the state of Arizona in 2011 (1). Google estimates the population of Arizona to be approx 6,482,505, so a per capita murder rate of 5.229
According to the UK's Home Office (2) there were 636 Homicides in England & Wales in 2011. Google estimates the population of England and Wales to be approx 56,050,000, so a per capita Homicide Rate of 1.134.
So despite the relaxed gun control laws and lower population density, the state of Arizona has a substantially higher Homicide Rate than England & Wales.
1. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
2. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary Page 16
Doh, population of England & Wales should be 56,050,000 and not 53 million...
Should be 'New York Passes Useless Gun Control Law', since nothing in the law will make any positive difference in crime rates, and will only impact legal gun holders. My prediction is that like Chicago, New York will continue down the path of passing more and more restrictive gun control laws, which make it easier for criminals to commit more crimes and serve only to continue to drive their violent crime rates even higher above the national average. Meanwhile, I live in a community of over 600,000 people in a state with very few gun control laws (Arizona) that has a violent crime rate almost have the national average. Where I can open carry into a bank (and have) and no one runs out in fear, the tellers smile, say high, and take my deposit as if nothing was wrong.
Because nothing was wrong.
According to the FBI there were 339 Murders in the state of Arizona in 2011 (1). Google estimates the population of Airzona to be approx 6,482,505, so a per capita murder rate of 5.229
According to the FBI there were 774 Murders in the state of New York in 2011 (1). Google estimates the population of New York to be approx 19465197, so a per capita murder rate of 3.976
According to the UK's Home Office (2) there were 636 Homicides in England & Wales in 2011. Google estimates the population of England and Wales to be approx 53,050,000, so a per capita Homicide Rate of 1.134.
So despite the relaxed gun control laws and lower population density, the state of Arizona has a substantially higher Homicide Rate than England & Wales. Arizona also appears to have a higher Murder rate than that of New York State.
1. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
2. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary Page 16
Yes, but did you read the report that UK has been fudging the numbers for several years?
Also, they report differently than we do. We report every homicide (not even sure if we include suicides), but we include justified homicides, accidental, etc. It is my understanding that they UK does not, and will find excuses for reducing the murder tally from homicide tally.
Which report? Please link to a reputable source...
The UK & USA also report / record violent crime differently, that does not stop Americans from directly comparing them...
UK :
Definition :
The term homicide covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Murder and manslaughter are common law offences that have never been defined by statute, although they have been modified by statute. The offence of infanticide was created by the Infanticide Act 1922 and refined by the Infanticide Act 1938 (s1).
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary Page 16
USA :
Definition @
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
You mean the UK, where the violent crime rate is 3.5 times that of the US?? Where there was recently a run on small baseball bats because police weren't able to protect businesses and people from rioters?? That country??.
Which definition of Violent Crime are you using? That of the UK or the USA, or are you doing a direct comparison based on what is recorded as Violent Crime by each country? There is a substantial difference between how the USA & the UK record Violent Crime
UK :
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_283456.pdf (page 16)
Definition :
Violent crime covers a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving
that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Robbery, an
offence in which violence or the threat of violence is used during a theft (or attempted theft) is not
included in the police recorded violence against the person offence group as it is reported separately
in the robbery section, but it is included within CSEW violence.
USA :
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
Definition :
In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/aggravated-assault
Aggravated Assault :
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery.
The 1.6bn-pound plan ... release a 50ft diameter ... estimated 300kg.
Can't trust an article that can't even keep its units in check.
Hmmm
The daily mail is a UK "newspaper". The 1.6 billion pound figure is currency, not units of weight.
Damn, it's only a memo about improving a video game? I thought it was going to be a memo about how to improve the snoozefest that is soccer/futbol. (Yeah, and here come all the non-Americans to talk about how superior it is to basketball/baseball/football. I don't care. Any game that ends in a 0-0 tie is not entertaining to watch.)
Hmmm
So it is the act of scoring that makes a game exciting? Personally I don't think so, certainly not in regards to basketball, where I believe the opposite is true... As a Brit I have seen many scoreless football matches, yes, quite a few of them have been dire, however a fair number of them have been very tense and exciting. The best have been those matches where one side has dominated the match but have been denied victory by a perfect performance from the other team's goalkeeper.
No, it is inappropriate to not revoke his license. Making his way to the schools on foot or public transport might give him sufficient time to reflect on his actions and the damage he has caused to these peoples lives.
As a cager that has to contend with motorcyclists paying insufficient attention to the road on a daily basis, I have to state the the driver did us all a service by removing two dangerous hazards from the road.
I pay a great deal of attention to motorcycles when I drive -- though for my own protection. Motorcyclists seem to do incredibly stupid and dangerous things every time they're around me.
Just a few days ago, for example, some moron on a motorcycle decided to pass me on the right (the shoulder, not a different lane) while I was making a right turn on to a busy highway. Had I not expected him to do something incredibly stupid when I saw him behind me, I'd have run right in to him. (What's worse, he shouted some obscenity at me as he drove past, as though it was my fault he was putting his life and my fender unnecessarily at risk.)
I would state that motorcyclists that do not pay sufficient attention to the road do not remain motorcyclists for very long through either through death or serious injury. As for removing 2 dangerous hazards from the road, I have not seen any information that says they contributed to the accident in any way, therefore you appear to be tarring all motorcyclists with the same brush due to past encounters with moronic bikers.
Hmmm
He should have been banned from driving for 5+ years and been given a much larger fine. The community service is absolutely nothing, it is certainly not going to act as any form of deterrent for other morons that drive whilst texting.
Hmmm
The only person responsible for the accident was the driver of the car. He chose to read the text messages whilst driving. What I cannot understand is the reasoning from the courts as to the decision handed down to the driver of the car. Such a serious accident and he did not even get banned from driving? As a motorcyclist that has to contend with car drivers paying insufficient attention to the road on a daily basis, I have to state that the driver should have been penalised much more severely for his actions.
Hmmm
The corporations are the primary source of the politicians campaign contributions, contributions that allow the politicians to continue on the gravy train. As such, do you really expect them not to look out for the best interests of said corporations first?
Hmmm
If you read the patent, you will see it refers to earlier patent applications on a related theme from them. The earliest patent application goes back to November 1995, hence it is prior art from before that date that needs to be taken into consideration.
Some links I found on MCN :
MCN
MCN
MCN
MCN
MCN
I will see if I can find any more, but in some cases the details were in letters to the editor published in the printed version of MCN and not on the forums
Hmmm
No, formal written notifications under the ASBO laws were handed out. These were widely reported in the motorcycle press at the time. I know that Motorcycle News covered the stories.
This is why the ASBO is and has always been a foul addition to British law.
Someon is doing something not illegal, but deemed anti-social, they can be issued with an anti-social-behaviour-order to constrain their activities. Even if the order tries to stop them doing something completely legal, they can be fined or imprisoned fro breaking it. It's a horrific abuse of the law, I just hope that sooner or later someone takes this through to the ECHR and gets the whole ASBO scheme shut down.
Someone asked me the other day about why I hated the labour party in the UK. That ASBOs were introduced on their watch is something I forgot at the time, it'll be in there next time someone asks me.
Hmmm
In recent years a number of Police forces have issued ASBOo's to Motorcyclists. In some cases the issuing of the ASBOo's has been because of offences committed by the motorcyclists (speeding / illegal exhaust / number plates), the police chose not to prosecute, but to instead issue an ASBO, the terms of the ASBO being that any future "anti-social" behaviour performed by the motorcyclists would enable the police to seize and crush the motorcycles. So the end result is the potential punishment is far harsher than that laid down by the law for the offences committed, and at the same time, the police do not have to prove their case in a court of law...
The above was an example of ASBO's being abused when offences have been committed, but some police forces have issued ASBO notices when no offence has been committed. North Wales Police used to have a chief constable that was very anti-motorcycle. During the summer months the North Wales Police would be out in force every weekend pulling over every single motorcyclist using the roads. As part of one of their crackdowns on anti-social motorcyclists they started to issue ASBO's to every motorcyclist stopped. When questioned as to why ASBO's were being issued when no offence committed, the police would trot out the line that some (other) motorcyclists had committed offences and this had raised concerns from the local community and so the ASBO orders were justified...Guilt by association, and none of it needing to be proved in court...