You should also ensure that your insurance covers you for assault
causing actual bodily harm. If it doesn't then it's probably best not
to try this as it could be very expensive indeed.

Most people would know that (as a matter of public policy) you cannot
insure against a criminal act carried out intentionally. I do hope the
Lycra is not restricting the blood supply.

But I do agree it is an action best taken by people with little or
nothing to lose. I have, for example, a little list of crossings I
intend to visit with my stout walking stick if I ever have the "best put
your affairs in order a.s.a.p." talk with the doctor.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:27:45 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

You should also ensure that your insurance covers you for assault
causing actual bodily harm. If it doesn't then it's probably best not
to try this as it could be very expensive indeed.

Most people would know that (as a matter of public policy) you cannot
insure against a criminal act carried out intentionally.

That was very much the point I was making. It is the moral equivalent
of using a baseball bat on shoplifters. It might be superficially
satisfying but it is disproportionate and illegal.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:27:45 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

You should also ensure that your insurance covers you for assault
causing actual bodily harm. If it doesn't then it's probably best
not to try this as it could be very expensive indeed.

Most people would know that (as a matter of public policy) you cannot
insure against a criminal act carried out intentionally.

That was very much the point I was making. It is the moral equivalent
of using a baseball bat on shoplifters. It might be superficially
satisfying but it is disproportionate and illegal.

Guy

the cyclist won't lose, their own household insurance will cover any losses
they suffer.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:40:10 -0000, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:27:45 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

You should also ensure that your insurance covers you for assault
causing actual bodily harm. If it doesn't then it's probably best
not to try this as it could be very expensive indeed.

Most people would know that (as a matter of public policy) you cannot
insure against a criminal act carried out intentionally.

That was very much the point I was making. It is the moral equivalent
of using a baseball bat on shoplifters. It might be superficially
satisfying but it is disproportionate and illegal.

Guy

the cyclist won't lose, their own household insurance will cover any losses
they suffer.



Indeed - I understand that it is usually the fridge freezer insurance that
comes in to play if you are a cyclist, for some obscure historical reason.

Well - that is what we have effectively been told.

--

Total number of posts to URC from
IP Address:80.254.146.36 over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence?
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

That was very much the point I was making. It is the moral equivalent
of using a baseball bat on shoplifters. It might be superficially
satisfying but it is disproportionate and illegal.

You are not allowing for the possibilty that a walking stick might be
inserted in the spokes by accident. I would hope a jury might bear in
mind that an elderly chap crossing the road with a walking stick cannot
be expected to ensure it does not go through the wheel of a cyclist
ignoring the pedestrian crossing, red lights, one-way road etc. And
given the averaae age of jurors these days I would also hope that some
would understand the difficulties.

They might also share the view that a cyclist riding at speed through
red lights at a pedestrian is morally more akin to an armed robber than
a shoplifter.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:44:35 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

That was very much the point I was making. It is the moral equivalent
of using a baseball bat on shoplifters. It might be superficially
satisfying but it is disproportionate and illegal.

You are not allowing for the possibilty that a walking stick might be
inserted in the spokes by accident. I would hope a jury might bear in
mind that an elderly chap crossing the road with a walking stick cannot
be expected to ensure it does not go through the wheel of a cyclist
ignoring the pedestrian crossing, red lights, one-way road etc. And
given the averaae age of jurors these days I would also hope that some
would understand the difficulties.

They might also share the view that a cyclist riding at speed through
red lights at a pedestrian is morally more akin to an armed robber than
a shoplifter.


Spot on.

On 20/11/2011 13:37, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:27:45 -0000, wrote:

You should also ensure that your insurance covers you for assault
causing actual bodily harm. If it doesn't then it's probably best not
to try this as it could be very expensive indeed.

Most people would know that (as a matter of public policy) you cannot
insure against a criminal act carried out intentionally.

That was very much the point I was making. It is the moral equivalent
of using a baseball bat on shoplifters. It might be superficially
satisfying but it is disproportionate and illegal.

What would be "proportionate"?

Other than letting them continue to get away with it.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:37:41 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:27:45 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

You should also ensure that your insurance covers you for assault
causing actual bodily harm. If it doesn't then it's probably best not
to try this as it could be very expensive indeed.

Most people would know that (as a matter of public policy) you cannot
insure against a criminal act carried out intentionally.

That was very much the point I was making.


Now then Porky : of course you were. It is amazing the amount of "incorrect"
legal advice you have to post - to "make a point" :-)

I suppose if the point you are trying to make, is that you are a ****wit, then
the posts are on the right lines.


--

Total number of posts to URC from
IP Address:80.254.146.36 over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence?
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:08:17 +0000, Judith wrote:




Now then Porky :

The reproductive system is complex; leeches are hermaphroditic and cross-
fertilizing.



--


snip



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Nov 20, 1:27*pm, "Robin" wrote:
You should also ensure that your insurance covers you for assault
causing actual bodily harm. If it doesn't then it's probably best not
to try this as it could be very expensive indeed.

Most people would know that (as a matter of public policy) you cannot
insure against a criminal act carried out intentionally. *I do hope the
Lycra is not restricting the blood supply.

But I do agree it is an action best taken by people with little or
nothing to lose. *I have, for example, a little list of crossings I
intend to visit with my stout walking stick if I ever have the "best put
your affairs in order a.s.a.p." talk with the doctor.

I would go on a series of luxury holidays if I had such news, not go
around assaulting other people.
Still, it would be your own time you would be wasting.

--
Simon Mason