How ironic! Riot killing by motorist using a car-weapon!

Doesn't this say something about where the real risks and dangers really
lie?

"Three killed in crash on night of Birmingham riots

Three men have been run over and killed as they protected property in a
second night of violence in Birmingham.

The men aged 31, 30 and 21 were hit by a car in Winson Green. They were
taken to City Hospital where about 200 people from the Asian community
gathered.

Witnesses said the men were in a group protecting their community after riot
police were called into the city.

Police have arrested a 32-year-old man who is being questioned on suspicion
of murder following the deaths..."

Mo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-14471405

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

On Aug 10, 5:33*pm, "Doug" wrote:
Doesn't this say something about where the real risks and dangers really
lie?

"Three killed in crash on night of Birmingham riots

I thought you were in favour of anarchy and violent protest.

On Aug 10, 5:39*pm, NotMe wrote:
On Aug 10, 5:33*pm, "Doug" wrote:

Doesn't this say something about where the real risks and dangers really
lie?

"Three killed in crash on night of Birmingham riots

I thought you were in favour of anarchy and violent protest.

Which sort of anarchy are you referring to? You thought wrong of
course, as usual, because it was a riot not a protest.

What is particularly interesting here is that despite all that
'violence' by rioters, all it takes is just one motorist with a car-
weapon to actually kill people. The question must be, why are mindless/
brainless drivers allowed to openly possess such lethal weapons on our
streets?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
One person's democracy is another person's Police State,
where rights are replaced by concessions.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:33:21 GMT, "Doug"
wrote:

Doesn't this say something about where the real risks and dangers really
lie?

"Three killed in crash on night of Birmingham riots

Three men have been run over and killed as they protected property in a
second night of violence in Birmingham.


Meanwhile hundred of cyclists used their vehicles to reconnoitre and
transport stolen goods.

On Aug 10, 6:07*pm, Doug wrote:
On Aug 10, 5:39*pm, NotMe wrote: On Aug 10, 5:33*pm, "Doug" wrote:

Doesn't this say something about where the real risks and dangers really
lie?

"Three killed in crash on night of Birmingham riots

I thought you were in favour of anarchy and violent protest.

Which sort of anarchy are you referring to?

The type you continually support.

You thought wrong of
course, as usual, because it was a riot not a protest.

Like the riot and the student demos which you support. The riots at
the TUC march that you supported etc.
Tell us Doug, what the difference is between a violent protest and a
riot.

How do you know what the motives are of individuals in the mob, you
forever claim that it is disparate individuals with different aims.
Can you state that none of the people involved had a political motive.

Or is it just a case that these anarchists do not share some of your
political views, so they don't have a right to protest.

Why do you support mindless violence when it agrees with your
political views, yet claim "it was just a riot" when it does not?

What is particularly interesting here is that despite all that
'violence' by rioters, all it takes is just one motorist with a car-
weapon to actually kill people. The question must be, why are mindless/
brainless drivers allowed to openly possess such lethal weapons on our
streets?

On Aug 10, 6:13*pm, (Cassandra) wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:33:21 GMT, "Doug"
wrote:

Doesn't this say something about where the real risks and dangers really
lie?

"Three killed in crash on night of Birmingham riots

Three men have been run over and killed as they protected property in a
second night of violence in Birmingham.

Meanwhile hundred of cyclists used their vehicles to *reconnoitre and
transport stolen goods.

Oh no, that cannot be! I think that you'll find that, as "Dave - VOR"
says "a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of
transport." (nor of reconnaissance).

Doug wrote:
On Aug 10, 5:39 pm, NotMe wrote:
On Aug 10, 5:33 pm, "Doug" wrote:

Doesn't this say something about where the real risks and dangers
really lie?

"Three killed in crash on night of Birmingham riots

I thought you were in favour of anarchy and violent protest.

Which sort of anarchy are you referring to? You thought wrong of
course, as usual, because it was a riot not a protest.

What is particularly interesting here is that despite all that
'violence' by rioters, all it takes is just one motorist with a car-
weapon to actually kill people. The question must be, why are
mindless/ brainless drivers allowed to openly possess such lethal
weapons on our streets?

I seem to recall one of the people you support as a political protester
throwing a fire extinguisher from the top of a tall building into the crowds
below. It was luck rather than anything else that ensured that that action
did not result in a death.

--
Kev

On 10/08/2011 17:33, Doug wrote:
Doesn't this say something about where the real risks and dangers really
lie?

"Three killed in crash on night of Birmingham riots

Three men have been run over and killed as they protected property in a
second night of violence in Birmingham.

The men aged 31, 30 and 21 were hit by a car in Winson Green. They were
taken to City Hospital where about 200 people from the Asian community
gathered.

Witnesses said the men were in a group protecting their community after riot
police were called into the city.

Police have arrested a 32-year-old man who is being questioned on suspicion
of murder following the deaths..."

Mo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-14471405

There should be a law against deliberately killing people by running them
over with a car. Perhaps Birmingham (always a go-ahead city) could lead the
way by getting Parliament to pass a by-law for them.

On Aug 10, 6:38*pm, "Ret." wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 10, 5:39 pm, NotMe wrote:
On Aug 10, 5:33 pm, "Doug" wrote:

Doesn't this say something about where the real risks and dangers
really lie?

"Three killed in crash on night of Birmingham riots

I thought you were in favour of anarchy and violent protest.

Which sort of anarchy are you referring to? You thought wrong of
course, as usual, because it was a riot not a protest.

What is particularly interesting here is that despite all that
'violence' by rioters, all it takes is just one motorist with a car-
weapon to actually kill people. The question must be, why are
mindless/ brainless drivers allowed to openly possess such lethal
weapons on our streets?

I seem to recall one of the people you support as a political protester
throwing a fire extinguisher from the top of a tall building into the crowds
below. It was luck rather than anything else that ensured that that action
did not result in a death.

There are two sorts of political protesters, those whose views agree
with Doug's, and those that don't.
The real fun comes when you realise that Doug himself has
diametrically opposed views on some issues.

On 10/08/2011 18:22, NotMe wrote:
On Aug 10, 6:07 pm, wrote:
....
You thought wrong of
course, as usual, because it was a riot not a protest.

Like the riot and the student demos which you support. The riots at
the TUC march that you supported etc.
Tell us Doug, what the difference is between a violent protest and a
riot....

Given the definition of a riot under the Public Order Act 1986:

(1)Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten
unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken
together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present
at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using
unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot..

(2)It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten
unlawful violence simultaneously..

(3)The common purpose may be inferred from conduct..

(4)No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to
be, present at the scene.

I doubt he can.

Colin Bignell