Two young boys have been hit and killed by a London Underground (LU)
train in Barking in east London.

British Transport Police (BTP) said they were part of a group of four
boys who had been writing graffiti in a depot late on Friday night.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6258337.stm

wrote:

Two young boys have been hit and killed by a London Underground (LU)
train in Barking in east London.

Good. They weren't young boys , they were in their twenties and were
vandalising a train. I'd call that a result.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Two young boys have been hit and killed by a London Underground (LU)
train in Barking in east London.

Good. They weren't young boys , they were in their twenties and were
vandalising a train. I'd call that a result.

B2003



Two more scumbags dead. Glad to hear it.

Trixie wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

Two young boys have been hit and killed by a London Underground (LU)
train in Barking in east London.
Good. They weren't young boys , they were in their twenties and were
vandalising a train. I'd call that a result.

B2003



Two more scumbags dead. Glad to hear it.



Agreed. I'm increasingly seeing SWT's Desiro trains running around here
covered in graffiti and it just looks disgusting. How would these people
like it if we came round to their house and covered the front of it in
paint, and then scratched our names into their living room windows?

These "artists" are not contributing anything to our society.

Train 2 Scum 0.

(And no, I'm not a middle-aged fuddy duddy. I'm 28 and was brought up to
respect the property of other people).

Cheers

Steve M

Boltar wrote:
Good. They weren't young boys , they were in their twenties and were
vandalising a train. I'd call that a result.

You know you're going to get the do-gooders coming on saying "But these
poor kids have a family.. they didn't deserve to die.. would you
suggest killing someone for stealing a chocolate bar in a corner shop"
etc, don't you?

It's clear that these people knew what they were doing. I was in
America last week and there was an accident where two 17 year olds were
killed on motorcycles, having been drinking and street racing. I was
quite surprised to see that the media and even friends blamed them for
their stupidity. Rather than saying 'Poor lads' or 'it was a tragic
accident' or blamed someone else (the bike manufacturers or something),
they were quite clear - a stupid 'accident' that wouldn't have happened
if they hadn't been idiots.

Perhaps it's time we started to think the same way about these things
(it doesn't mean you don't have sympathy for the family, especially if
they didn't know what their kids were doing). You just know that over
here, there will be an inquiry and a family will possibly end up suing,
and winning, compensation from LUL, the driver or maybe the security
guard/s for scaring them and making them panic...

All in all, it seems like rather effective crime prevention. Two people
who won't be out tonight damaging property.

Jonathan

Jonathan Morris wrote:
All in all, it seems like rather effective crime prevention. Two people
who won't be out tonight damaging property.

I am going to add that I feel for the driver, and possibly the security
staff if they witnessed the collision. These are the people we SHOULD
be feeling sympathy for.

Jonathan

Jonathan Morris wrote:
Perhaps it's time we started to think the same way about these things
(it doesn't mean you don't have sympathy for the family, especially if
they didn't know what their kids were doing). You just know that over
here, there will be an inquiry and a family will possibly end up suing,
and winning, compensation from LUL, the driver or maybe the security
guard/s for scaring them and making them panic...

You think that the UK is *more* nannyish and litigious than the US?
That's an impressive disconnect from reality.

In real life, there will not be an enquiry, nobody will sue anyone and
no compensation will be awarded - I'd happily bet £500 on that, if
anyone's up for it.

Despite occasional Political Correctness Gone Mad rants in the Daily
Wail, it is simply not the case in the UK that criminals are awarded
compensation for the injuries they acquire during their crimes.

The only exception is if they are injured by a criminal or criminally
negligent act committed by someone else - and, because you're always
allowed to use reasonable force to stop people from committing crimes,
this rarely happens. You'd need to (e.g., props to Mr Martin, etc.)
shoot a fleeing child in the back for it to be treated as anything
other than reasonable self defence.

Sorry for the rant - it just bothers me that so many people have such a
factually incorrect view of the way in which our legal system
operates...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"John B" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jonathan Morris wrote:
Perhaps it's time we started to think the same way about these things
(it doesn't mean you don't have sympathy for the family, especially if
they didn't know what their kids were doing). You just know that over
here, there will be an inquiry and a family will possibly end up suing,
and winning, compensation from LUL, the driver or maybe the security
guard/s for scaring them and making them panic...

You think that the UK is *more* nannyish and litigious than the US?
That's an impressive disconnect from reality.

In real life, there will not be an enquiry, nobody will sue anyone and
no compensation will be awarded - I'd happily bet £500 on that, if
anyone's up for it.

Despite occasional Political Correctness Gone Mad rants in the Daily
Wail, it is simply not the case in the UK that criminals are awarded
compensation for the injuries they acquire during their crimes.

The only exception is if they are injured by a criminal or criminally
negligent act committed by someone else - and, because you're always
allowed to use reasonable force to stop people from committing crimes,
this rarely happens. You'd need to (e.g., props to Mr Martin, etc.)
shoot a fleeing child in the back for it to be treated as anything
other than reasonable self defence.

Sorry for the rant - it just bothers me that so many people have such a
factually incorrect view of the way in which our legal system
operates...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

What child ?
Tony Martin is a hero who killed a pikey scumbag in the dark and who
shouldn't have been on his property.
These two also got exactly what they deserved. Good riddance to them I hope
some more of these vandals get chopped up by trains.

Trixie wrote:
[quoting fixed - JB]
The only exception is if they are injured by a criminal or criminally
negligent act committed by someone else - and, because you're always
allowed to use reasonable force to stop people from committing crimes,
this rarely happens. You'd need to (e.g., props to Mr Martin, etc.)
shoot a fleeing child in the back for it to be treated as anything
other than reasonable self defence.

What child ?

In law, a 16-year-old is a child. If you don't like that, why not stand
for Parliament and try and get it changed?

Tony Martin is a hero who killed a pikey scumbag in the dark and who
shouldn't have been on his property.

Tony Martin is a sad, deluded, slighly mad person. A court of law found
that, beyond reasonable doubt, he knowingly shot a fleeing child in the
back. He was eventually acquitted of murder on the grounds of
diminished responsibility. And who cares about the ethnic origin of the
child he killed? (well, racists might, I suppose).

If you believe that the civil offence of trespassing justifies the
murder of the trespasser, then why not stand for Parliament and try and
get that enshrined in law? Or perhaps you could move to one of the
states in the US where this is already the case; don't let the door hit
you on your way out.

These two also got exactly what they deserved. Good riddance to them I hope
some more of these vandals get chopped up by trains.

Death *deserved* for minor vandalism? Why not put that in your
manifesto for Parliament too? "I support lowering the age of majority
to 16, and imposing the death penalty for tresspassing and vandalism".
I reckon you'd get loads of votes. I'm also glad that you want more
train drivers to go through the horrible ordeal of killing someone
(what proportion of drivers never return to work after a one-under
incident? It's non-trivial, ISTR.)

Overall, poor trolling, could do better, but you did get me to rise to
the bait. I'll give you a C+.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:
You think that the UK is *more* nannyish and litigious than the US?
That's an impressive disconnect from reality.

Well, that's what I thought too. Maybe they're gaining a sense of
reality?

In real life, there will not be an enquiry, nobody will sue anyone and
no compensation will be awarded - I'd happily bet £500 on that, if
anyone's up for it.

An interview on Sky News had a police officer saying they were
convinced there was no chase going on, suggesting people are already
beginning to question whether the security guards might have 'caused'
the incident.

My comments were of course not just about this once incident.

Jonathan