In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 23:51:11 on Mon,
12 May 2008, John Rowland
remarked:
I don't understand who these PCSO people are. While I have met some very
admirable and intelligent (normal) coppers, I have also met one in
particular who, while a nice bloke, reminded me of Benny from Crossroads
or Randy from My Name Is Earl. If *he* was bright enough to become a
normal copper and these PCSOs aren't, they must be on the verge of
needing help to cross the road.

I have yet to consciously see a male PCSO. All the ones round my way are
young women, and often very petite (assuming that's a PC [hoho] way to
describe their build).


There's a few of the male variety in Southampton. Though I have to agree the
female ones do tend to be petite.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Fri, 09 May 2008 11:32:40 +0100, David Hansen wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:16:00 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
wrote this:-

[...]
Over the past year, I can recall one situation I observed where I felt
that a motorist had potentially caused danger to a cyclist. It would be
four or five where the cause of the danger was the cyclist.

How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist?

I'm confused. Where did Chris claim the cyclist was causing danger to
the motorist?

My own read of his sentence was that the cyclist's actions were
causing danger to *the cyclist*.

--
Ross.
* Opinions are my own; my employer has disowned me again.
* Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my first name to e-mail me.

AD: http://www.merciacharters.co.uk for rail enthusiast tours in Europe

On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:03:16 +0100 someone who may be Ross
wrote this:-

How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist?

I'm confused. Where did Chris claim the cyclist was causing danger to
the motorist?

My own read of his sentence was that the cyclist's actions were
causing danger to *the cyclist*.

That is certainly another way of reading the sentence. However, in
his reply Chris then went on to give an example of where he thought
a cyclist could have caused danger to a motorist (as well as the
cyclist themselves in that case).

However, while most things are possible there is a generalisation
which is true. Cyclists generally endanger themselves, while
motorists generally endanger others. Society recognises this in the
different treatment given to the two groups, though one can argue
about whether the treatments are different enough.

Blaming the victim for wearing the wrong sort of clothes, which is
what the helmet lobby do (despite their denials when confronted with
this), does nothing to improve the situation due to the
ineffectiveness of the clothing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7372906.stm
is but one example. The story is a toned down version of events, but
it is worth noting that the motorist wasn't even aware that someone
had been killed. There have been a similar crashes in London.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
[PCSOs]
There's a few of the male variety in Southampton. Though I have to agree the
female ones do tend to be petite.

All the PCSOs in our SNT are male. They're petite, though.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

On Tue, 13 May 2008, Mike Bristow wrote:

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
[PCSOs]
There's a few of the male variety in Southampton. Though I have to agree the
female ones do tend to be petite.

All the PCSOs in our SNT are male. They're petite, though.

I was section 44'd by a PCSO. She was female and petite, and so was her
colleague.

I am in favour of petite women in uniforms, but see no reason why they
shouldn't be real police. The one who stopped me has apparently since
signed up to becomes a real policewoman.

There's a cycle policewoman who i often see on the Critical Mass rides.
She's very petite, but makes up for it in volume of shouting.

tom

--
What's hit's history; what's missed's mystery.

In article ,
Mike Roebuck wrote:

On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:08:08 +0100, Sam Wilson
wrote:

In article ,
Mike Roebuck wrote:

The accepted usenet convention is that a sig. should not exceed four
lines.

Some people get upset if they are exceeded.
--
[1] Regards
[2]
[3] Mike
[4]
[5] mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

But what the heck - there are fewer characters there than a single, full
80 character line.

Yes - I hadn't noticed that an extra blank line had crept in.

I've fixed it now.

Oh, dear. I was joking, really... :-)

Sam