Toby Ponsenby

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:35:17 GMT, RainbowWarrior wrote:

> "atec77" <atec77NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:g8b3q7$1h8$1@aioe.org...
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> RogerM wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>>> news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
>>>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be
>>>>>> charged with
>>>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on people
>>>>>> "dobbing"
>>>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>>>>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in security
>>>> cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.
>>>>
>>>> Roger
>>>
>>> I don't know that a time and date stamp would help. The problem, as I see
>>> it, is that a video will not usually be sufficiently good to allow the
>>> driver to be seen and identified.
>> doesn't need to be , the charges laid stay with the owner until proven
>> otherwise
>>>
>>> If the police just go to the owner later and demand to know who was
>>> hooning in the vehicle, the owner is likely to deny any knowledge. Unless
>>> there's a law that expressly makes the owner liable, then the police will
>>> have no case.
>> there is you silly bint .
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>
> And so many people fail to realise that although the video footage may not
> get you a conviction, it will get you noticed and probably at least a random
> roadside roadworthy check, while your thumbing your nose to the cops that
> they can't nick you for hooning.
>
> And the good thing is it's a little harder for someone else to falsely dob
> you in for hooning because they think your car is too loud.

****!!!
We're now going to discuss the ****en video HowTo.
Right.
What about whether scumsuckers out in the community are going for
"professional dob-in artist of the year" - for a Gong presented by the
forelock-tugging Governor - probably.
What about GovCo actively encouraging dobbing. On Anything, by the way.


Christ - I despair at the utterly ****ED culture this rubbish truly
represents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--
Toby

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly
and applying the wrong remedies."
-Groucho Marx.

Sylvia Else

Toby Ponsenby wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:21:41 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> Snapper wrote:
>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>
>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>
>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be charged with
>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>
>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on people "dobbing"
>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip without
>>> evidence.
>>>
>>>
>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> 10, 9, 8 , and so on - countdown to legislation - the obvious gambit
> will be the owner having to prove they are NOT the hoon, by supplying
> the name address etc of the real hoon..and so on.

It's possible, but I really don't see it happening.

A video isn't worth much without the person who took it being available
to give evidence. I cannot see that many people actually being willing
to spend a day hanging around a court just so that a hoon suffers a
temporary loss of their vehicle.

Sylvia.

atec77

Sylvia Else wrote:
> atec77 wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> atec77 wrote:
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> RogerM wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>>>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will
>>>>>>>> be charged with
>>>>>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on
>>>>>>>> people "dobbing"
>>>>>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip
>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>>>>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual
>>>>>>> hoon. Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in
>>>>>> security cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know that a time and date stamp would help. The problem, as
>>>>> I see it, is that a video will not usually be sufficiently good to
>>>>> allow the driver to be seen and identified.
>>>> doesn't need to be , the charges laid stay with the owner until
>>>> proven otherwise
>>>
>>> That's not a general rule. It applies only to specified offences.
>> just shows how uninformed you are , hooning and traffic offences are
>> , so tell me how would it not apply in that situation
>
> It doesn't evey apply to all traffic offenses.
>
but you didnt repudiate my statement it applies to sufficient numbers of
offences to provide a lever
Instead as usual you wandered of on some bullshite tangent

atec77

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:21:41 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be
>>>> charged with
>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on
>>>> people "dobbing"
>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip
>>>> without
>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> 10, 9, 8 , and so on - countdown to legislation - the obvious gambit
>> will be the owner having to prove they are NOT the hoon, by supplying
>> the name address etc of the real hoon..and so on.
>
> It's possible, but I really don't see it happening.
it does happen with monotonous regularity just like your pointless drivel
>
> A video isn't worth much without the person who took it being available
> to give evidence.
So whats your point as your wrong in most situations again

I cannot see that many people actually being willing
> to spend a day hanging around a court just so that a hoon suffers a
> temporary loss of their vehicle.
nfi as usual you silly bint
>
> Sylvia.

Snapper

I wrote wrote...

> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be charged with
> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
Further to this post of mine. Ms. Nixon, our Chief Commish, must've read this
post..

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...07-661,00.html

> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on people "dobbing"
> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip without
> evidence.

And again, this is reflected in the above story.

But then she talks about the hoon hotline. Again, this requires those who call
in to be prepared to give evidence and to be cross examined if it went to court
and their "evidence" was required to secure a conviction.

Thing is, I wonder how many people, when the cops rock up to question the
drivers at their homes, cave in on the spot and dob themselves in.

Here's a couple of videos from a US university law school. Laws may differ in
some aspects but the principle's the same:

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/28...d-cop-agr.html

Same videos but in larger format. Res ain't that crashhot, though.

Prof Speaks:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02514885833865

Cop Speaks:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...22229458915912

Clocky

"Toby Ponsenby" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:u05g72leui4r.t7ykw4650vrq.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:35:17 GMT, RainbowWarrior wrote:
>
>> "atec77" <atec77NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:g8b3q7$1h8$1@aioe.org...
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> RogerM wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>>>> news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be
>>>>>>> charged with
>>>>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> "dobbing"
>>>>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>>>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>>>>>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in
>>>>> security
>>>>> cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger
>>>>
>>>> I don't know that a time and date stamp would help. The problem, as I
>>>> see
>>>> it, is that a video will not usually be sufficiently good to allow the
>>>> driver to be seen and identified.
>>> doesn't need to be , the charges laid stay with the owner until proven
>>> otherwise
>>>>
>>>> If the police just go to the owner later and demand to know who was
>>>> hooning in the vehicle, the owner is likely to deny any knowledge.
>>>> Unless
>>>> there's a law that expressly makes the owner liable, then the police
>>>> will
>>>> have no case.
>>> there is you silly bint .
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> And so many people fail to realise that although the video footage may
>> not
>> get you a conviction, it will get you noticed and probably at least a
>> random
>> roadside roadworthy check, while your thumbing your nose to the cops that
>> they can't nick you for hooning.
>>
>> And the good thing is it's a little harder for someone else to falsely
>> dob
>> you in for hooning because they think your car is too loud.
>
> ****!!!
> We're now going to discuss the ****en video HowTo.
> Right.
> What about whether scumsuckers out in the community are going for
> "professional dob-in artist of the year" - for a Gong presented by the
> forelock-tugging Governor - probably.
> What about GovCo actively encouraging dobbing. On Anything, by the way.
>
>
> Christ - I despair at the utterly ****ED culture this rubbish truly
> represents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What do you suggest we do about the increasing hooning problem?

Toby Ponsenby

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:33:31 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> "Toby Ponsenby" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:u05g72leui4r.t7ykw4650vrq.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:35:17 GMT, RainbowWarrior wrote:
>>
>>> "atec77" <atec77NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:g8b3q7$1h8$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> RogerM wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>>>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be
>>>>>>>> charged with
>>>>>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> "dobbing"
>>>>>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip
>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>>>>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>>>>>>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in
>>>>>> security
>>>>>> cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know that a time and date stamp would help. The problem, as I
>>>>> see
>>>>> it, is that a video will not usually be sufficiently good to allow the
>>>>> driver to be seen and identified.
>>>> doesn't need to be , the charges laid stay with the owner until proven
>>>> otherwise
>>>>>
>>>>> If the police just go to the owner later and demand to know who was
>>>>> hooning in the vehicle, the owner is likely to deny any knowledge.
>>>>> Unless
>>>>> there's a law that expressly makes the owner liable, then the police
>>>>> will
>>>>> have no case.
>>>> there is you silly bint .
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> And so many people fail to realise that although the video footage may
>>> not
>>> get you a conviction, it will get you noticed and probably at least a
>>> random
>>> roadside roadworthy check, while your thumbing your nose to the cops that
>>> they can't nick you for hooning.
>>>
>>> And the good thing is it's a little harder for someone else to falsely
>>> dob
>>> you in for hooning because they think your car is too loud.
>>
>> ****!!!
>> We're now going to discuss the ****en video HowTo.
>> Right.
>> What about whether scumsuckers out in the community are going for
>> "professional dob-in artist of the year" - for a Gong presented by the
>> forelock-tugging Governor - probably.
>> What about GovCo actively encouraging dobbing. On Anything, by the way.
>>
>>
>> Christ - I despair at the utterly ****ED culture this rubbish truly
>> represents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> What do you suggest we do about the increasing hooning problem?

What increasing hooning problem?
What we have going on is as old as transport.


FFS, reckless driving etc etc were put on the disgusting statutes
because of people misbehaving using horses as motive power.

Please be welcome to attempt to PROVE IN ANY WAY that we have an
increasing hooning problem cf any period in the past.

You can't - of course but I'm at least not asking you to prove a
negative:-)

This is GovCo 'working it's way' through any and all forms of civil
'disobedience' (as defined by GovCo traitorous MarketingJerks) one
victim group at a time, and the general population is bought and sold on
the Scams involved with it's own money.

Dumb and Dumber:
Created by the State.
Set up into categories by the State.
Bullied by the state in those select categories.
To the cheers of Dumb and Dumber category suburban consuming
long-suffers.
And as always, supported by Dumb and Dumber Category 'Useful Idiots'

Note - this is NOT a NannyState we've allowed to have slithered to the
surface of the sewerage pond.
It's a BullyState.

FWIW, the very last category of victims left standing to be Bullied WILL
BE the Useful Idiots.

But Bullied they WILL BE.

--
Toby

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly
and applying the wrong remedies."
-Groucho Marx.

Toby Ponsenby

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:25:48 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:21:41 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be charged with
>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on people "dobbing"
>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip without
>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> 10, 9, 8 , and so on - countdown to legislation - the obvious gambit
>> will be the owner having to prove they are NOT the hoon, by supplying
>> the name address etc of the real hoon..and so on.
>
> It's possible, but I really don't see it happening.

That's the point - you probably didn't 'see' the speed camera
prostitution of the law happening, either.
But it's precisely what you're being set up for right about now.

And it's absolutely as clear as crystal and if anything, easier to
predict because the precedent is there for all to see.

>
> A video isn't worth much without the person who took it being available
> to give evidence. I cannot see that many people actually being willing
> to spend a day hanging around a court just so that a hoon suffers a
> temporary loss of their vehicle.

I can.
And I will.
Soon.

>
> Sylvia.

Toby Ponsenby

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:37:37 +1000, Snapper wrote:

> I wrote wrote...
>
>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be charged with
>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
> Further to this post of mine. Ms. Nixon, our Chief Commish, must've read this
> post..
>
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...07-661,00.html
>
>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on people "dobbing"
>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip without
>> evidence.
>
> And again, this is reflected in the above story.
>
> But then she talks about the hoon hotline. Again, this requires those who call
> in to be prepared to give evidence and to be cross examined if it went to court
> and their "evidence" was required to secure a conviction.
>
> Thing is, I wonder how many people, when the cops rock up to question the
> drivers at their homes, cave in on the spot and dob themselves in.
>
> Here's a couple of videos from a US university law school. Laws may differ in
> some aspects but the principle's the same:
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/28...d-cop-agr.html
>
> Same videos but in larger format. Res ain't that crashhot, though.
>
> Prof Speaks:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02514885833865
>
> Cop Speaks:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...22229458915912

Please save me the trouble - the videos mean?

--
Toby

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen
heroes
and I see many of them in the audience here today
? our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

Barack Obama - 2008 speech at Las Cruces, New Mexico

RainbowWarrior

"Toby Ponsenby" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:u05g72leui4r.t7ykw4650vrq.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:35:17 GMT, RainbowWarrior wrote:
>
>> "atec77" <atec77NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:g8b3q7$1h8$1@aioe.org...
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> RogerM wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>>>> news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be
>>>>>>> charged with
>>>>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> "dobbing"
>>>>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>>>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>>>>>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in
>>>>> security
>>>>> cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger
>>>>
>>>> I don't know that a time and date stamp would help. The problem, as I
>>>> see
>>>> it, is that a video will not usually be sufficiently good to allow the
>>>> driver to be seen and identified.
>>> doesn't need to be , the charges laid stay with the owner until proven
>>> otherwise
>>>>
>>>> If the police just go to the owner later and demand to know who was
>>>> hooning in the vehicle, the owner is likely to deny any knowledge.
>>>> Unless
>>>> there's a law that expressly makes the owner liable, then the police
>>>> will
>>>> have no case.
>>> there is you silly bint .
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> And so many people fail to realise that although the video footage may
>> not
>> get you a conviction, it will get you noticed and probably at least a
>> random
>> roadside roadworthy check, while your thumbing your nose to the cops that
>> they can't nick you for hooning.
>>
>> And the good thing is it's a little harder for someone else to falsely
>> dob
>> you in for hooning because they think your car is too loud.
>
> ****!!!
> We're now going to discuss the ****en video HowTo.
> Right.
> What about whether scumsuckers out in the community are going for
> "professional dob-in artist of the year" - for a Gong presented by the
> forelock-tugging Governor - probably.
> What about GovCo actively encouraging dobbing. On Anything, by the way.
>
> Christ - I despair at the utterly ****ED culture this rubbish truly
> represents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Toby

Yep the act of video taping people in the acts of car theft, burglarly and
assualt is just more govco dob-in encouragement and should also be banned