Spare wheel stolen

Jackson Priest · Post by **Jackson Priest** » 16 Jan 2006, 15:37

Oh excellent. Watch it here:

http://www.trioplus.tv/cop_rock/index.html

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Jan 2006, 15:39

Franck wrote:
Dadaist wrote:So do you accept that there is a significant risk that it would be a child you assaulted, if we are using your criteria for age verification?
If by child, you mean under 18,yes.

unrepentant and wing mirror-less

How long do you think it would be, if this were a nationwide policy, before
an adult killed a child, or the wrong person got hurt?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Jan 2006, 15:41

Jackson Priest wrote:Oh excellent. Watch it here:

http://www.trioplus.tv/cop_rock/index.html

Wow, straight along the tangents and back on topic.

Was there an episode featuring a vigilante choir that pursued, captured and violently assaulted an infantile gang of car damagers?

Jackson Priest · Post by **Jackson Priest** » 16 Jan 2006, 15:46

Porty wrote:Was there an episode featuring a vigilante choir that pursued, captured and violently assaulted an infantile gang of car damagers

Coming to you soon on Portabelly Telly. Quite possibly.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Jan 2006, 15:54

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Jan 2006, 15:58

I can see the Evening News article now - "Local TV channel rocked by controversial Musical Cop Violence furore"

You reading this, Jayne?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Jan 2006, 16:02

"Pugilistic Posse Perform Prince Prior To Pursuing and Pummelling Pre-Pubescent Panda Panellers"

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Jan 2006, 16:03

Porty wrote:"Pugilistic Posse Perform Prince Prior To Pursuing and Pummelling Pre-Pubescent Panda Panellers"

10/10

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 16 Jan 2006, 16:06

Dadaist wrote:
Franck wrote:
Dadaist wrote:So do you accept that there is a significant risk that it would be a child you assaulted, if we are using your criteria for age verification?
If by child, you mean under 18,yes.

unrepentant and wing mirror-less
How long do you think it would be, if this were a nationwide policy, before
an adult killed a child, or the wrong person got hurt?

I didnt realise I was proposing this as a 'nationwide policy'.It's how I feel, I'm sure more agree with you rather than me, u18's know it too and the wise ones use this as a barrier to hide behind.

I think we should possibly agree to disagree Dadaist, I understand your point of view, I just do not share it.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Jan 2006, 16:13

Franck wrote:
I think we should possibly agree to disagree Dadaist, I understand your point of view, I just do not share it.

Franck, Dadaist is bound to go for that peace offering.

I just hope he establishes your age prior to the intellectual kicking he is about to administer.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Jan 2006, 16:26

Franck wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Franck wrote: If by child, you mean under 18,yes.

unrepentant and wing mirror-less
How long do you think it would be, if this were a nationwide policy, before
an adult killed a child, or the wrong person got hurt?
I didnt realise I was proposing this as a 'nationwide policy'.It's how I feel, I'm sure more agree with you rather than me, u18's know it too and the wise ones use this as a barrier to hide behind.

I think we should possibly agree to disagree Dadaist, I understand your point of view, I just do not share it.

So do you feel only you should be allowed to carry this out, or everybody?

Further questions :

1. if you were the parent of a child who was mistakenly murdered by an irate car owner, what would you do?

2. if you lived in northern ireland and had the option of phoning the paramilitaries, would you?

3. apart from being able to enact your fantasy, what effect on the relative safety of your street do you think that your actions would have, and why?

4. if the person who had damaged your car looked much stronger than you, would you still assault them?

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 16 Jan 2006, 17:07

So do you feel only you should be allowed to carry this out, or everybody?

I speak for myelf and no-one else, how others act/re-act is their business/problem.

1. if you were the parent of a child who was mistakenly murdered by an irate car owner, what would you do?

Firstly, I have never (and I might be wrong, maybe you could pinpoint it for me) claimed I would murder anyone for vandalising my car.Clearly this would be an over-reaction.

So, what would I do if my child vandalised a car and was then murdered for doing so? I would greive the lose of a loved one.Then I would enact an eye for an eye justice.

If you lived in northern ireland and had the option of phoning the paramilitaries, would you?

No. I have zero interest in either side of the paramiltary guff of N.I.

3. apart from being able to enact your fantasy, what effect on the relative safety of your street do you think that your actions would have, and why?

It's not a fantasy, I do not sit and wait for the next vandal, unlike you seem to wait on the next post. I doubt it would make any difference to my street.Its not very residential, more traffic than pedestrians, so I'm not too concerned by this aspect.

4. if the person who had damaged your car looked much stronger than you, would you still assault them?

I would not be put off by physical appearance, if someone deserves a punch,they deserve it...is this still a child you're referring too?.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Jan 2006, 17:48

Franck wrote: I speak for myelf and no-one else, ?.

Franck,please pass on my sincerest apologies to your elf, I only posted the short people lyrics as a laugh, nothing personal was intended.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 16 Jan 2006, 18:08

Porty wrote:
Franck wrote: I speak for myelf and no-one else, ?.
Franck,please pass on my sincerest apologies to your elf, I only posted the short people lyrics as a laugh, nothing personal was intended.

No need to apologise to the elf Porty, they too live full and content lives

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Jan 2006, 18:25

Franck, could you ask the elf what the following word means?

Dadaist wrote: prepetrators

It sounds like some sort of scale for assessing the suitability of potential pet owners.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 16 Jan 2006, 18:38

Porty wrote:Franck, could you ask the elf what the following word means?

Dadaist wrote: prepetrators
It sounds like some sort of scale for assessing the suitability of potential pet owners.

The elf didnt know, but he did say it was an anagram of ARREST PERP TO, which is kind of relevent.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Jan 2006, 19:49

Porty wrote:Franck, could you ask the elf what the following word means?

Dadaist wrote: prepetrators
It sounds like some sort of scale for assessing the suitability of potential pet owners.

oops

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Jan 2006, 20:11

Franck wrote:
So do you feel only you should be allowed to carry this out, or everybody?
I speak for myelf and no-one else, how others act/re-act is their business/problem.

So you started off asking if anyone wanted to join your illegal crusade, and finish like this. Ho-hum.

1. if you were the parent of a child who was mistakenly murdered by an irate car owner, what would you do?
Firstly, I have never (and I might be wrong, maybe you could pinpoint it for me) claimed I would murder anyone for vandalising my car.Clearly this would be an over-reaction.

You have failed to tell us how you would assault a minor with all of your strength, hitting them in the head, whilst ensuring they didn't die.

So, what would I do if my child vandalised a car and was then murdered for doing so? I would greive the lose of a loved one.Then I would enact an eye for an eye justice.

So, if a relative of yours was murdered, you would carry out a murder? How would you find out for sure who it was that was guilty? And I assume that if you killed someone you assaulted, you would accept that their relatives would be coming to kill you? Also, when you're finished with your eye-for-eye retribution, do you accept that the relatives of your victim will be seeking revenge?

If you lived in northern ireland and had the option of phoning the paramilitaries, would you?
No. I have zero interest in either side of the paramiltary guff of N.I.

What exactly is the difference between the retribution you advocate and theirs?

3. apart from being able to enact your fantasy, what effect on the relative safety of your street do you think that your actions would have, and why?
It's not a fantasy, I do not sit and wait for the next vandal, unlike you seem to wait on the next post. I doubt it would make any difference to my street.Its not very residential, more traffic than pedestrians, so I'm not too concerned by this aspect.

So your only motivation is revenge?

4. if the person who had damaged your car looked much stronger than you, would you still assault them?
I would not be put off by physical appearance, if someone deserves a punch,they deserve it...is this still a child you're referring too?.

...and the judge of who deserves the punch and who dishes it out is you?
Thankfully your morality is not law. You appear to have thought through the consequences of these knee-jerk violent acts about as much as the individual who damaged your car did.

If you carry out this sick fantasy of yours, you are going to prison.
You will be in good company there, amongst violent people with a hands-on approach to those who harm children.

GRANTY · Post by **GRANTY** » 16 Jan 2006, 22:08

The last two lines of your posting are personal and offensive.

"If you carry out this sick fantasy of yours, you are going to prison.
You will be in good company there, amongst violent people with a hands-on approach to those who harm children."

Totally unnecessary.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Jan 2006, 22:16

GRANTY wrote:The last two lines of your posting are personal and offensive.

"If you carry out this sick fantasy of yours, you are going to prison.
You will be in good company there, amongst violent people with a hands-on approach to those who harm children."

Totally unnecessary.

So is vigilante and extra-judicial violence. If Franck thinks it's ok to carry out a vicious assault those who damage his car even if they are minors, surely he must be happy with the consequences.

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 16 Jan 2006, 23:40

Jamesie wrote:Was delighted to hear recently that the thieve who stole my Nissan Micra from Windsor Place last Valentine's day was arrested after failing to attend his own intermediate diet

didn't know you could get arrested for that...better start counting those calories

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 17 Jan 2006, 10:23

Dadaist wrote: So you started off asking if anyone wanted to join your illegal crusade, and finish like this. Ho-hum.

You're right, I am finished with this thread, ho-hum indeed.

Thank you for the intellectual beating I was promised.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Jan 2006, 10:40

Franck wrote:
Dadaist wrote: So you started off asking if anyone wanted to join your illegal crusade, and finish like this. Ho-hum.

You're right, I am finished with this thread, ho-hum indeed.

Thank you for the intellectual beating I was promised.

It was Porty that promised you some sort of "beating", not I.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Jan 2006, 12:27

I can totally understand Franck's instant reaction to vandalism and I get the more global point that Dada makes.

Dada paints a picture of Franck murdering a minor in a revenge attack, which is obvioulsy an extreme. I think its much more likely that instant justice will have a positive effect on the perpetrator.

If the perpetrator commits the act a) because he knows he will get away with it. b) doesn't normally do that sort of thing but is drunk. Then a punch in the pus will at least make them think before they did it again. The law allows a degree of force to be used to protect one's property and selves.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Jan 2006, 12:33

Porty wrote:I can totally understand Franck's instant reaction to vandalism and I get the more global point that Dada makes.

Dada paints a picture of Franck murdering a minor in a revenge attack, which is obvioulsy an extreme. I think its much more likely that instant justice will have a positive effect on the perpetrator.

If the perpetrator commits the act a) because he knows he will get away with it. b) doesn't normally do that sort of thing but is drunk. Then a punch in the pus will at least make them think before they did it again. The law allows a degree of force to be used to protect one's property and selves.

The law does not allow you to do what Franck described.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Jan 2006, 12:51

But it does allow a degree of violence. Are you saying that under no circumstances would a punch in the pus have a positive effect on a vandal?

The Gadgee · Post by **The Gadgee** » 17 Jan 2006, 12:57

Great stuff!

I'm normally a voyeur on this board rather than a participant. I find what I call "the middle-aged Neighbourhood Watch for the digital age" a bit scary. Just wanted to warn locals of my theft and gauge whether to even bother telling the police. From this we have a full blown diatribe on human morality. This kind of stuff keeps me coming back for more. Oh, that and the "what are you listening to at the moment?..."

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Jan 2006, 13:00

Porty wrote:But it does allow a degree of violence. Are you saying that under no circumstances would a punch in the pus have a positive effect on a vandal?

I will ponder that hypothetical, sir.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Jan 2006, 13:03

Not sure its hypothetical, it has bound to have happened bundles of times.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Jan 2006, 13:08

Porty wrote:Not sure its hypothetical, it has bound to have happened bundles of times.

Yeah but you said "would have", not "has had".

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 17 Jan 2006, 13:23

The Gadgee wrote:

what I call "the middle-aged Neighbourhood Watch for the digital age"

Watch it Mister! Or Ms. There are one or two of us around here who are still quite young, you know. Not many, I grant you, but still...

Glad you keep coming back though.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Jan 2006, 13:27

The Gadgee wrote:This kind of stuff keeps me coming back for more.

I would like to use this quote in mitigation next time I am hauled up before the grown-ups.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Jan 2006, 13:41

I would assume that the law allows for a degree of violence only in terms of defending yourself, property and loved ones, and that it would be up to lawyers to define strict terms of "excessive" violence.

Even if good has been done by vandals getting punched, the law has evolved for a reason - there's an enormous step between saying that good has been done (which is judgemental) and adopting it / advocating it.

Law must surely exist to protect the innocent - and I would have thought that fighting crime with crime didn't help anyone. What Franck described was assault, not defence, and whilst he does have a right to defenc his property, he does not have a right to break the law.

Another example would be if you were assaulted when drunk and got in a car to get away from your assailant, you have committed a crime - drunk driving. The law exists not only to protect you, but also from people you might kill. I guess that's why there are lawyers, juries, and endless controversies.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Jan 2006, 15:18

Yep, all you have said there seems very reasonable.

In real life many small "crimes" go unpunished, even when the perpetrators are caught. It is deemed too much trouble, time and effort to pursue the matter. This means that the criminal is not scared of doing similar things again.

A punch in the pus could prevent further transgressions, prevent the petty criminal from escalation into someting worse, even murder. I notice you have taken a rather circuitous route to fail to answer the pus punch question in a direct manner, which I would have appreciated.

In my book a swift pus punch is a useful crime deterrent and can have a positive effect on the transgressor. One only has to imagine the embarrasment of say a normally well behaved citizen going home to one's Mum, Dad, Partner or Hostel and explaing how a black eye, broken nose, broken jaw and or missing teeth were acquired.

Equally I accept deployment has inherent risks and is open to abuse.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Jan 2006, 15:29

You may as well ask a vegetarian "but have people not had benefit from eating meat?" - maybe they have, but it doesn't mean the veggie doesn't get a bit shifty.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Spare wheel stolen

COMMUNITY SPIRIT????

Re: COMMUNITY SPIRIT????