"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:
I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

An argument which is of course complete drivel.

eh? surely this is always the case. Lets replace speed with murder.

Do you think that it is drivel to say:

It is better to discourage murder than to simply peanilise the murderer?

I would hope not, now why does the statement become , not just
less reasonable but completely untrue if I change the crime?

tim



Colin McKenzie