TUC Congress: Public will back us against cuts - Barber

16 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
However, I don't think that amounts to thuggish behaviour as described by some on here. It's particularly funny when someone who's bragged on here about his mates at Chelsea starts denouncing other people as animals or thugs.

That coming from someone who admits being in the " thick " of it?
You do not think that this was thuggish behaviour,yet I bet you are the first one to condemn the slightest heavy handiness of the police...........won't you?
Someone on here? Surely you cannot be that frightened of a strike to name me....are you?
I have lots of mates in the army, does that insinuate they are thugs as well? All because I have mates at a football club, are you labeling them all thugs?
You have admitted openly in this forum of your participation during the miners strike, and now you say you do not think the throwing of a concrete block, into the path of a motor vehicle killing someone,is thuggish behaviour.
Do you possibly buy the Morning Star as well?
I despair..............I really do.
No, I don't necessarily criticise police heavy handedness. I'm never surprised by what happens, even when, like the murder of Blair Peach, it's clearly the case that the police have been utterly out of control.
When you brought up your mates at Chelsea it was clearly in the context of the links betwene the thuggish element of Chelsea support and political groups. Of course, we all know it has to be taken with a pinch of salt because, as you admitted, you're an armchair suporter these days.
No, I don;t buy the morning STar - it's no surprise you don;t know the differnece between a tanky and a socialist.

16 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Some who support football teams are thugs.
Some in the Army are thugs.
Some of the miners in the miners strike were thugs.
To defend those that cannot be defended speaks volumes to me of those that try. This is not something that I can or want to beat someone with, but it does let me in to their inner self so I understand what they think, and how they think.
Awayman, thank you for sharing your private thoughts in public
Kenny, if you have a complaint then take it to st3v3.
Dave_Notts

I still don't think anyone's demonstrated that any of the miners were thugs., The Hancock and Shankland case hasn't since their convictions were based on the death being an unintended consequence. And despite your commitment to rational debate Dave yo haven';t rebutted a shred of that evidence - you've just asserted your opinion.

16 Sep 2010

Quote by Too Hot
What was the thread about???
Can we get back on track?
The TUC are way out of line here because realy there is no place for a politicised Union in modern Britain. Unions - by default create unemployment - and for that reason it is well time for them to get back to simply representing their "Members" (sic.) in employment tribunal cases and stop causing unemployment.
As has been stated in other similar threads the Unions destroyed UK shipping, motor, coal and steel industries by forcing wage and service conditions beyond what the free market could cope with and so the industries imploded. Unions by their nature make employing people more costly and more difficult and therefore their existence in modern the British workplace actually promotes mass unemployment whilst appearing to support a minority.

Do you really believe that? That we shouldn;t have unions so employers can drive wages down to the bare minimum?

16 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
Some who support football teams are thugs.
Some in the Army are thugs.
Some of the miners in the miners strike were thugs.
To defend those that cannot be defended speaks volumes to me of those that try. This is not something that I can or want to beat someone with, but it does let me in to their inner self so I understand what they think, and how they think.
Awayman, thank you for sharing your private thoughts in public
Kenny, if you have a complaint then take it to st3v3.
Dave_Notts

I still don't think anyone's demonstrated that any of the miners were thugs., The Hancock and Shankland case hasn't since their convictions were based on the death being an unintended consequence. And despite your commitment to rational debate Dave yo haven';t rebutted a shred of that evidence - you've just asserted your opinion.

16 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
Some who support football teams are thugs.
Some in the Army are thugs.
Some of the miners in the miners strike were thugs.
To defend those that cannot be defended speaks volumes to me of those that try. This is not something that I can or want to beat someone with, but it does let me in to their inner self so I understand what they think, and how they think.
Awayman, thank you for sharing your private thoughts in public
Kenny, if you have a complaint then take it to st3v3.
Dave_Notts

I still don't think anyone's demonstrated that any of the miners were thugs., The Hancock and Shankland case hasn't since their convictions were based on the death being an unintended consequence. And despite your commitment to rational debate Dave yo haven';t rebutted a shred of that evidence - you've just asserted your opinion.
The case found the two guilty of killing an innocent man who was going about his lawful business and they were jailed. That was the action of a law abiding citizen or of someone who was willing to break the law. Someone who willingly breaks the law for their own ends are thugs. Whether they do it once or constantly is irrelevant in my eyes. They done it, they pay for it for their thuggish behaviour.
They can repent and become born again christians in prison, but it won't sway me from at that time and place when they threw it off that bridge they were acting as a thug.
Apart from describing the difference between murder and manslaughter you have not shown any evidence that their act of throwing a stone off a bridge was not a thuggish act. If you had then they would have been found innocent of all charges........but they were not, exactly the same as R v Nedrick. Guilty but not of intent to murder, but their actions took a life.
Dave_Notts

16 Sep 2010

look and ye shall find
taken from a news article about flying pickets

In Nottinghamshire, known in 1984 as "scabby county", Neil Greatrex, a former miner, says he understood only too well the meaning of those words.
"I hate that bloody song," he says with a vengeance. "Even today I can't stand to hear it. What did it mean to me? It meant the gang of thugs at my gate, threatening my wife and children, had arrived and were waiting to hurl a couple of more bricks through my window. My next-door neighbour was a policeman and he got so fed up with new flying pickets thinking his house was mine that he put a sign in the window saying: 'Greatrex lives next door'."
Mr Greatrex, a miner and union official in Mansfield when Mr Scargill called the strike, helped to set up the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) in 1985 and is now its president. Though a fervent Scargill supporter in 1984, he was infuriated that there was no national ballot and, disgusted by the violence of the flying pickets, he instructed his men to work throughout 1984.
Seeing a disabled miner's car overturned was the final straw, he says. "It was probably a hot-headed spur-of-the-moment thing," he acknowledges, "but the sight of that made me jump on our buses to work that first morning and tell all the lads to go in to the mine and work."
Mr Greatrex and his family paid the price. "I was spat on, jeered, threatened that my house would be fire-bombed and thumped by Scargill's rent-a-mob. They surrounded my house when I was at work. Sheila, my wife, had to huddle the children on the bedroom floor. They threatened to and kill the kids. Sheila had to push the sofa against the door to keep them out. Brick after brick went through our windows. We were all terrified, there's no doubt about that. But we had our principles, too."

16 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Apart from describing the difference between murder and manslaughter you have not shown any evidence that their act of throwing a stone off a bridge was not a thuggish act

Best get Googling Away. wink

Just for the record Away.......
What is a THUG?
THUG is "Violent criminal or Person struggling to make something of their life"
Whether you like it or not they ARE violent criminals as they were convicted and sentenced, and from what I have read about those people, they were never going to make anything of their life either.
So you see they were thugs and probably still are thugs, and you see throwing a concrete block from a bridge into the path of a moving vehicle IS I repeat IS thuggish behaviour from thugs.
It seems very much to me that your assertions are from somebody who has the up most sympathy for them and they were fighting the cause eh? loon

Your attitude in previous threads leads me to believe that the miners EVERYONE of them have your full support.....would that be a fair assessment?

16 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Some who support football teams are thugs.
Some in the Army are thugs.
Some of the miners in the miners strike were thugs.
To defend those that cannot be defended speaks volumes to me of those that try. This is not something that I can or want to beat someone with, but it does let me in to their inner self so I understand what they think, and how they think.
Awayman, thank you for sharing your private thoughts in public
Kenny, if you have a complaint then take it to st3v3.
Dave_Notts

I still don't think anyone's demonstrated that any of the miners were thugs., The Hancock and Shankland case hasn't since their convictions were based on the death being an unintended consequence. And despite your commitment to rational debate Dave yo haven';t rebutted a shred of that evidence - you've just asserted your opinion.
so you don't consider the act of throwing a concrete block off a bridge into the path of a moving vehicle to be a thuggish act?

16 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Some who support football teams are thugs.
Some in the Army are thugs.
Some of the miners in the miners strike were thugs.
To defend those that cannot be defended speaks volumes to me of those that try. This is not something that I can or want to beat someone with, but it does let me in to their inner self so I understand what they think, and how they think.
Awayman, thank you for sharing your private thoughts in public
Kenny, if you have a complaint then take it to st3v3.
Dave_Notts

I still don't think anyone's demonstrated that any of the miners were thugs., The Hancock and Shankland case hasn't since their convictions were based on the death being an unintended consequence. And despite your commitment to rational debate Dave yo haven';t rebutted a shred of that evidence - you've just asserted your opinion.
so you don't consider the act of throwing a concrete block off a bridge into the path of a moving vehicle to be a thuggish act?

16 Sep 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
look and ye shall find
taken from a news article about flying pickets
In Nottinghamshire, known in 1984 as "scabby county", Neil Greatrex, a former miner, says he understood only too well the meaning of those words.
"I hate that bloody song," he says with a vengeance. "Even today I can't stand to hear it. What did it mean to me? It meant the gang of thugs at my gate, threatening my wife and children, had arrived and were waiting to hurl a couple of more bricks through my window. My next-door neighbour was a policeman and he got so fed up with new flying pickets thinking his house was mine that he put a sign in the window saying: 'Greatrex lives next door'."
Mr Greatrex, a miner and union official in Mansfield when Mr Scargill called the strike, helped to set up the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) in 1985 and is now its president. Though a fervent Scargill supporter in 1984, he was infuriated that there was no national ballot and, disgusted by the violence of the flying pickets, he instructed his men to work throughout 1984.
Seeing a disabled miner's car overturned was the final straw, he says. "It was probably a hot-headed spur-of-the-moment thing," he acknowledges, "but the sight of that made me jump on our buses to work that first morning and tell all the lads to go in to the mine and work."
Mr Greatrex and his family paid the price. "I was spat on, jeered, threatened that my house would be fire-bombed and thumped by Scargill's rent-a-mob. They surrounded my house when I was at work. Sheila, my wife, had to huddle the children on the bedroom floor. They threatened to and kill the kids. Sheila had to push the sofa against the door to keep them out. Brick after brick went through our windows. We were all terrified, there's no doubt about that. But we had our principles, too."

Nice to see you again Rob
But do you have any evidence of thuggish behaviour, unless you have evidence I will have to dismiss this as here-say :giggle:

16 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
*Snip*
To defend those that cannot be defended speaks volumes to me of those that try. This is not something that I can or want to beat someone with, but it does let me in to their inner self so I understand what they think, and how they think.
Dave_Notts

Quote by Dave__Notts
*Snip*
The case found the two guilty of killing an innocent man who was going about his lawful business and they were jailed. That was the action of a law abiding citizen or of someone who was willing to break the law. Someone who willingly breaks the law for their own ends are thugs. Whether they do it once or constantly is irrelevant in my eyes. They done it, they pay for it for their thuggish behaviour.
They can repent and become born again christians in prison, but it won't sway me from at that time and place when they threw it off that bridge they were acting as a thug.
Apart from describing the difference between murder and manslaughter you have not shown any evidence that their act of throwing a stone off a bridge was not a thuggish act. If you had then they would have been found innocent of all charges........but they were not, exactly the same as R v Nedrick. Guilty but not of intent to murder, but their actions took a life.
Dave_Notts

I think the highlighted text above from Daves post's best sums up my finnal thoughts on the early demise of the inocent taxi driver.
Now back to the OP

16 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Some who support football teams are thugs.
Some in the Army are thugs.
Some of the miners in the miners strike were thugs.
To defend those that cannot be defended speaks volumes to me of those that try. This is not something that I can or want to beat someone with, but it does let me in to their inner self so I understand what they think, and how they think.
Awayman, thank you for sharing your private thoughts in public
Kenny, if you have a complaint then take it to st3v3.
Dave_Notts

I still don't think anyone's demonstrated that any of the miners were thugs., The Hancock and Shankland case hasn't since their convictions were based on the death being an unintended consequence. And despite your commitment to rational debate Dave yo haven';t rebutted a shred of that evidence - you've just asserted your opinion.
The case found the two guilty of killing an innocent man who was going about his lawful business and they were jailed. That was the action of a law abiding citizen or of someone who was willing to break the law. Someone who willingly breaks the law for their own ends are thugs.Whether they do it once or constantly is irrelevant in my eyes. They done it, they pay for it for their thuggish behaviour.
They can repent and become born again christians in prison, but it won't sway me from at that time and place when they threw it off that bridge they were acting as a thug.
Apart from describing the difference between murder and manslaughter you have not shown any evidence that their act of throwing a stone off a bridge was not a thuggish act. If you had then they would have been found innocent of all charges........but they were not, exactly the same as R v Nedrick. Guilty but not of intent to murder, but their actions took a life.
Dave_Notts
So everyone who speeds is a thug? That's a novel definition of thuggery.

16 Sep 2010

:sleeping::sleeping:

16 Sep 2010

People who speed
Do not choose their victim
Do not choose and take with them a separate weapon
Do not single out a specific vehicle
Do not single out specific people
Do not wait in a specific place where the specific person will pass at a specific time
Do not lay in wait for that specific vehicle before they strike just at the right time

16 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
So everyone who speeds is a thug? That's a novel definition of thuggery.

Those that are convicted of manslaughter, murder, violence, etc are thugs in my mind. So out of my whole post you took that one sentance. That makes me feel quite good in that was the only thing you could say about it. Hopefully my first sentance will qualify my original sentance.
The legal system does not allow motive to be part of the process. This will only come into being when justice has been done and the defence can introduce it in their mitigation of sentance. So intent is the factor that has to be proved, and this was not proved so it was reduced to manslaughter. Intent is not motive, so it was not introduced at trail. So to keep pointing at the verdict that it was reduced is a red herring as this proved intent not motive.
Dave_Notts

17 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Nice to see you again Rob
But do you have any evidence of thuggish behaviour, unless you have evidence I will have to dismiss this as here-say :giggle:

i`m still about blue just incredibly busy at the moment with expansion wave

17 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

So everyone who speeds is a thug? That's a novel definition of thuggery.

Those that are convicted of manslaughter, murder, violence, etc are thugs in my mind. So out of my whole post you took that one sentance. That makes me feel quite good in that was the only thing you could say about it. Hopefully my first sentance will qualify my original sentance.
The legal system does not allow motive to be part of the process. This will only come into being when justice has been done and the defence can introduce it in their mitigation of sentance. So intent is the factor that has to be proved, and this was not proved so it was reduced to manslaughter. Intent is not motive, so it was not introduced at trail. So to keep pointing at the verdict that it was reduced is a red herring as this proved intent not motive.
Dave_Notts
I took that one sentence to illustrate the broad brush you were painting with.
Your repetition of the same point does not address the key issue; you are are describing as thugs men who did not intend to cause serious harm. That's what the courts decided.

17 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
People who speed
Do not choose their victim
Do not choose and take with them a separate weapon
Do not single out a specific vehicle
Do not single out specific people
Do not wait in a specific place where the specific person will pass at a specific time
Do not lay in wait for that specific vehicle before they strike just at the right time

The court did not accept that those were the facts.
You obviously disagree with the courts.
Good effort though, but ultimately a fine example of how ignorance of the facts can lead you astray.
For instance. The courts found that they did not choose a victim, since they did not intend to cause serious harm, either to David Wilkie or the scab. That pretty much torpedoes the rest of your argument.

17 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
People who speed
Do not choose their victim
Do not choose and take with them a separate weapon
Do not single out a specific vehicle
Do not single out specific people
Do not wait in a specific place where the specific person will pass at a specific time
Do not lay in wait for that specific vehicle before they strike just at the right time

The court did not accept that those were the facts.
You obviously disagree with the courts.
Good effort though, but ultimately a fine example of how ignorance of the facts can lead you astray.
For instance. The courts found that they did not choose a victim, since they did not intend to cause serious harm, either to David Wilkie or the scab. That pretty much torpedoes the rest of your argument.
does logic this mean raol moat will never be classed as murderer as he will never face a trial or the courts dunno

17 Sep 2010

Quote by flower411
People who speed
Do not choose their victim
Do not choose and take with them a separate weapon
Do not single out a specific vehicle
Do not single out specific people
Do not wait in a specific place where the specific person will pass at a specific time
Do not lay in wait for that specific vehicle before they strike just at the right time

The court did not accept that those were the facts.
You obviously disagree with the courts.
Good effort though, but ultimately a fine example of how ignorance of the facts can lead you astray.
For instance. The courts found that they did not choose a victim, since they did not intend to cause serious harm, either to David Wilkie or the scab. That pretty much torpedoes the rest of your argument.
does logic this mean raol moat will never be classed as murderer as he will never face a trial or the courts dunno

I think it means that the courts never make mistakes and once they have made a decision it should be accepted as absolute truth by the rest of us.
worship

:worship::worship::worship: rotflmao

I think not, except nothing, trust no one lol

Young Caine: Master, must I always serve the law?
Master Kan: Hear the law; serve justice,

17 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev

Nice to see you again Rob
But do you have any evidence of thuggish behaviour, unless you have evidence I will have to dismiss this as here-say :giggle:

i`m still about blue just incredibly busy at the moment with expansion wave

ohhhh i like expansions wink

17 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
I took that one sentence to illustrate the broad brush you were painting with.
Your repetition of the same point does not address the key issue; you are are describing as thugs men who did not intend to cause serious harm. That's what the courts decided.

The courts decided there was no intent to kill and murder the taxi driver, so they reduced it to manslaughter, thats what the court decided and this is what they were punished for.
I am describing two men who were responsible for their own actions who took a block and threw it off a bridge into the path of an oncoming vehicle. This is not the actions of a law abiding citizen. The actions can rightly be described as thuggish, so thug sits pretty well to describe them IMO
Dave_Notts

17 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
I am describing two men who were responsible for their own actions who took a block and threw it off a bridge into the path of an oncoming vehicle. This is not the actions of a law abiding citizen. The actions can rightly be described as thuggish, so thug sits pretty well to describe them IMO

I cannot understand how anyone of even the slightest intelligence, cannot or will not accept that as fact.
Thugs pure and simple.

17 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

I took that one sentence to illustrate the broad brush you were painting with.
Your repetition of the same point does not address the key issue; you are are describing as thugs men who did not intend to cause serious harm. That's what the courts decided.

The courts decided there was no intent to kill and murder the taxi driver, so they reduced it to manslaughter, thats what the court decided and this is what they were punished for.
I am describing two men who were responsible for their own actions who took a block and threw it off a bridge into the path of an oncoming vehicle. This is not the actions of a law abiding citizen. The actions can rightly be described as thuggish, so thug sits pretty well to describe them IMO
Dave_Notts
But that's you moving back to your previous position of anyone who breaks the law is a thug. That's a very broad definition of a thug.

17 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
I am describing two men who were responsible for their own actions who took a block and threw it off a bridge into the path of an oncoming vehicle. This is not the actions of a law abiding citizen. The actions can rightly be described as thuggish, so thug sits pretty well to describe them IMO

I cannot understand how anyone of even the slightest intelligence, cannot or will not accept that as fact.
Thugs pure and simple.
How personal do you want to make this? My holding a different opinion to Dave isn't about my level of intelligence or his.

17 Sep 2010

On 30 November, Wilkie's fare was David Williams, who lived in Rhymney and worked at the Merthyr Vale mine, six miles away. Wilkie was driving the same route as he had done for the previous ten days. He was accompanied by two police cars and a motorcycle outrider, and had just turned on to the A465 road north of Rhymney at the "Asda roundabout" when two striking miners dropped a 46 lb concrete block from a bridge 27 feet over the road. Wilkie was killed instantly; Williams was only slightly hurt.
Why did he need police outriders if no thuggish threats existed
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, "My reaction is one of anger at what this had done to a family of a person only doing his duty and taking someone to work who wanted to go to work." Kim Howells, speaking for the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers, blamed the attack on the attempts to persuade miners to return to work. Arthur Scargill said he had been "deeply shocked by the tragedy" of Wilkie's death.
Wilkie lived with his fiancée, who was the mother of his 2-year-old daughter and was pregnant with a baby who was born six weeks later. He also had a 12-year-old daughter and a 5-year-old son by a previous partner. Funds were opened to help the family; among the donors was Paul Getty. The Bishop of Llandaff led Wilkie's funeral service; he called for "some sort of moratorium" and a return to work by the miners in return for an impartial board to investigate conditions in the coal industry.
The two men who caused Mr Wilkie's death, Dean Hancock and Russell Shankland, were found guilty of murder by a majority verdict on 16 May 1985 and sentenced to life imprisonment. A third man, Anthony Williams, had been present on the bridge but was found to have actively discouraged them from dropping a concrete block, and he was acquitted. The life sentences caused an outcry among the striking miners, who felt that the death of Wilkie was not a deliberate act; the strike had ended by the time the verdict was brought in, but 700 miners at Merthyr Vale walked out on hearing the news.
On appeal, their convictions were reduced to manslaughter, and their life sentences were replaced with eight-year gaol terms. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, explained that the crime would be murder if the death was a "natural consequence" of the miners' actions, but the legal phrase "natural consequence" was potentially misleading without further explanation. The appeal verdict of guilty to manslaughter was upheld in the House of Lords. Hancock and Shankland were released on 30 November 1989, which was coincidentally the fifth anniversary of David Wilkie's death.
To my untrained eye this was not so clear cut as Awayman might suggest

17 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
On 30 November, Wilkie's fare was David Williams, who lived in Rhymney and worked at the Merthyr Vale mine, six miles away. Wilkie was driving the same route as he had done for the previous ten days. He was accompanied by two police cars and a motorcycle outrider, and had just turned on to the A465 road north of Rhymney at the "Asda roundabout" when two striking miners dropped a 46 lb concrete block from a bridge 27 feet over the road. Wilkie was killed instantly; Williams was only slightly hurt.
Why did he need police outriders if no thuggish threats existed
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, "My reaction is one of anger at what this had done to a family of a person only doing his duty and taking someone to work who wanted to go to work." Kim Howells, speaking for the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers, blamed the attack on the attempts to persuade miners to return to work. Arthur Scargill said he had been "deeply shocked by the tragedy" of Wilkie's death.
Wilkie lived with his fiancée, who was the mother of his 2-year-old daughter and was pregnant with a baby who was born six weeks later. He also had a 12-year-old daughter and a 5-year-old son by a previous partner. Funds were opened to help the family; among the donors was Paul Getty. The Bishop of Llandaff led Wilkie's funeral service; he called for "some sort of moratorium" and a return to work by the miners in return for an impartial board to investigate conditions in the coal industry.
The two men who caused Mr Wilkie's death, Dean Hancock and Russell Shankland, were found guilty of murder by a majority verdict on 16 May 1985 and sentenced to life imprisonment. A third man, Anthony Williams, had been present on the bridge but was found to have actively discouraged them from dropping a concrete block, and he was acquitted. The life sentences caused an outcry among the striking miners, who felt that the death of Wilkie was not a deliberate act; the strike had ended by the time the verdict was brought in, but 700 miners at Merthyr Vale walked out on hearing the news.
On appeal, their convictions were reduced to manslaughter, and their life sentences were replaced with eight-year gaol terms. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, explained that the crime would be murder if the death was a "natural consequence" of the miners' actions, but the legal phrase "natural consequence" was potentially misleading without further explanation. The appeal verdict of guilty to manslaughter was upheld in the House of Lords. Hancock and Shankland were released on 30 November 1989, which was coincidentally the fifth anniversary of David Wilkie's death.
To my untrained eye this was not so clear cut as Awayman might suggest

And WIkipedia is a reliable source is it?
No matter, tell me what you think is different from what I said...

17 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
How personal do you want to make this? My holding a different opinion to Dave isn't about my level of intelligence or his.

My comment was not aimed at any one particular person.
It must be obvious that they were thugs, in fact it is as clear as water.
I think your judgments have been clouded because of your own personnel feeling, with regards to this particular dispute.
Thankfully the law also decided they were thugs, and treated them accordingly.
My own opinion is that not only are they thugs, but also murderers...the law in my opinion is an arse for not treating them as murderers.

17 Sep 2010

OK Awayman, I'm going to ask you once again. Do you regard the act of deliberately throwing a concrete block from a bridge into the path of a moving car to be an act of thuggery or not?
Pretty straightforward question, let's have a straightforward answer..yes or no?

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Max777
OK Awayman, I'm going to ask you once again. Do you regard the act of deliberately throwing a concrete block from a bridge into the path of a moving car to be an act of thuggery or not?
Pretty straightforward question, let's have a straightforward answer..yes or no?

Good luck if one is found Max.
For me it will not come with a straightforward reply.