Another pavement attack on a person using a car as a weapon.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 15 Oct, 08:27, "Brimstone" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

On 14 Oct, 20:23, Mike Ross wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:29:30 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

snips

"A 23-year-old man has been jailed after he mowed down a man in his
car, leaving him seriously hurt.

James Blundell, of Urmston, deliberately hit the man at speed outside
the Tim Bobbin Pub near his home in Flixton Road in September 2009.

Minshull Street Crown Court heard his victim was left needing
extensive surgery for a split bowel and has lost his job, home and
car.

Blundell was jailed for 15 months. He admitted assault and dangerous
driving..."

WHHAAAT! Only 15 months?

For once I agree with Doug. It seems strange that he wasn't charged
with
GBH,
wounding, or attempted murder.

Mike

Because he was intentionally merely using a car as a weapon instead of
a blunt instrument, knife or gun. Also I have little doubt that the
judge was a fellow motorist, with all that it implies.

I'm baffled Doug, what's the implication of the judge, or any other court
official, being a motorist? You surely don't think that just because the
offender used a car and the judge drives to and from work that the judge
will have sympathy for him, do you?

Yes. I also believe that our whole justice system also suffers from a
similar bias.

Which simply confirms your standing as the number 1 Usenet loony.

Its not called a 'car-centric society' for nothing.

Indeed, but the notion that a judge will let someone off lightly simply
because he used a car as a weapon is beyond laughable.

Now, when are we going to read anything at all about your own
viewpoints, whatever they are, instead of your eternal questions aimed
at me and others? Why are you so evasive and what are you trying to
hide?

When you start being rational and living in the real world I won't have to
ask for clarification.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

I'm baffled Doug, what's the implication of the judge, or any other
court official, being a motorist? You surely don't think that just
because the offender used a car and the judge drives to and from work
that the judge will have sympathy for him, do you?

Yes.

C'mon, Brim - he's given that answer and line of logic often enough in
the past that it's not a surprise now...

Don't forget that, in Duhgworld, a "motorist" is anybody not named Bollen.

Nope, not a surprise, but useful to get it confirmed.

"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I'm baffled Doug, what's the implication of the judge, or any other
court official, being a motorist? You surely don't think that just
because the offender used a car and the judge drives to and from work
that the judge will have sympathy for him, do you?

Yes. I also believe that our whole justice system also suffers from a
similar bias.

Which simply confirms your standing as the number 1 Usenet loony.

To be fair, there's others who get very close. But Duhg's long and
consistent history has to count for something, I s'pose.

On 15/10/2010 08:51, Doug wrote:
On 15 Oct, 08:47, Mike wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:45:30 -0700, Doug boggled us with:

On 15 Oct, 08:41, wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I would like to see where I have said I agree with physical harm.

Just the other day you studiously avoided condemning a deliberate
attempt to murder a mounted police officer.

Who did? Not me. Are you trying yet again to blame the messenger?

You did. You were asked if you condenmed it, you failed to answer.

You both seem to have the wrong Doug. Do try to pay attention to which
poster is which.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


The poster who posted about stringing wire nine feet high to catch a
mounted police officer was you.
You were asked if you agreed with it.
You did not answer.
Do not try to evade the truth.

--
Tony Dragon

On 15/10/2010 08:43, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

I'm baffled Doug, what's the implication of the judge, or any other
court official, being a motorist? You surely don't think that just
because the offender used a car and the judge drives to and from work
that the judge will have sympathy for him, do you?

Yes.

C'mon, Brim - he's given that answer and line of logic often enough in
the past that it's not a surprise now...

Don't forget that, in Duhgworld, a "motorist" is anybody not named Bollen.

Very true, have there ever been any 'true/pure cyclists' even Doug isn't
one of them.

--
Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

You both seem to have the wrong Doug. Do try to pay attention to which
poster is which.

The poster who posted about stringing wire nine feet high to catch a
mounted police officer was you.

Maybe it was the other Duhg Bollen who uses the same computer?

You both seem to have the wrong Doug. Do try to pay attention to which
poster is which.

The poster who posted about stringing wire nine feet high to catch a
mounted police officer was you.

Maybe it was the other Duhg Bollen who uses the same computer?

bad form, etc
Y'know, it's strange.

www.yournotme.com reports that there are two people in the UK called
Douglas Bollen.

A quick google shows that one is the 45yo landlord of a pub in Suffolk.
http://www.haverhillecho.co.uk/news/local/
pub_will_again_be_at_heart_of_community_1_673710

Can anybody explain?

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:51:08 -0700, Doug boggled us with:

On 15 Oct, 08:47, Mike P wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:45:30 -0700, Doug boggled us with:

On 15 Oct, 08:41, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I would like to see where I have said I agree with physical harm.

Just the other day you studiously avoided condemning a deliberate
attempt to murder a mounted police officer.

Who did? Not me. Are you trying yet again to blame the messenger?

You did. You were asked if you condenmed it, you failed to answer.

You both seem to have the wrong Doug. Do try to pay attention to which
poster is which.

BWHAHAHA. Lying is not your strong point is it, you moron?

I suppose next you'll be telling it's not you who posts all the Indymedia
crap, and someone steals your sig..

--
Mike P

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:05:02 +0100, Tony Dragon boggled us with:

On 15/10/2010 08:51, Doug wrote:
On 15 Oct, 08:47, Mike wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:45:30 -0700, Doug boggled us with:

On 15 Oct, 08:41, wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I would like to see where I have said I agree with physical harm.

Just the other day you studiously avoided condemning a deliberate
attempt to murder a mounted police officer.

Who did? Not me. Are you trying yet again to blame the messenger?

You did. You were asked if you condenmed it, you failed to answer.

You both seem to have the wrong Doug. Do try to pay attention to which
poster is which.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


The poster who posted about stringing wire nine feet high to catch a
mounted police officer was you.
You were asked if you agreed with it. You did not answer.
Do not try to evade the truth.

You're wrong Tony, sorry. There is another Doug Bollen who sneaks into
Doug's house and uses his PC when "our" Doug is not looking.



--
Mike P

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I'm baffled Doug, what's the implication of the judge, or any other
court official, being a motorist? You surely don't think that just
because the offender used a car and the judge drives to and from work
that the judge will have sympathy for him, do you?

Yes. I also believe that our whole justice system also suffers from a
similar bias.

Which simply confirms your standing as the number 1 Usenet loony.

To be fair, there's others who get very close. But Duhg's long and
consistent history has to count for something, I s'pose.

Indeed, credit where it's due.