Foxton from Above

[mross]

But the 70 limit does stop people driving at 90.

[Jerra]

9 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Not sure what you mean by 'apply the same idea'. I'm making an observation about how it is. 

And yes the same observation applies to speeding. 99.99% of cases of speeding result in no victim. I regularly drive on the motorway surrounded by motorists doing more than 70mph with no effect on anyone. Millions of victimless crimes occur every day occur on our roads.

It is the way you say "need prosecuting" which implies doing something against the law is acceptable providing you don't  damage anybody.  Perhaps that wasn't your intention but that is how it reads to me.

[MtB]

22 hours ago, Jerra said:

It is the way you say "need prosecuting" which implies doing something against the law is acceptable providing you don't  damage anybody.  Perhaps that wasn't your intention but that is how it reads to me.

 

I can't see me saying 'need prosecuting' anywhere in the post you quote. Or in any of my other posts. 

But if I did, I probably meant 'need prosecuting in the eyes of the authorities'.

[nicknorman]

My inputs to this thread were nothing about moralising, merely about informing. If I were to decide to exceed the speed limit I would do so keeping a good lookout for speed cameras / radar guns / police cars, as well as considering if I was putting anyone else at significant risk. If I exceeded the speed limit whilst being completely unaware of the concept of speed limits, I would be foolish, and glad if someone pointed out their existence to me.

[Jerra]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I can't see me saying 'need prosecuting' anywhere in the post you quote. Or in any of my other posts. 

But if I did, I probably meant 'need prosecuting in the eyes of the authorities'.

I can't (obviously) give apost number but at 17:17 on the 17th you said:

Indeed. 99.99% of infringements truly are a victimless crime. It's the 0.01% that need prosecuting. Unlike say theft, where every offence has a victim. 

That is post 21 on page 2.

[MtB]

On 21/03/2017 at 11:48, Jerra said:

I can't (obviously) give apost number but at 17:17 on the 17th you said:

Indeed. 99.99% of infringements truly are a victimless crime. It's the 0.01% that need prosecuting. Unlike say theft, where every offence has a victim. 

That is post 21 on page 2.

 

Ok point scored.

MtB: 0
Jerra: 1

Well done!

...Now what?

[Jerra]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ok point scored.

MtB: 0
Jerra: 1

Well done!

...Now what?

There is no now what.   I told you how I read it you explained what you intended, why should there be either a now what or points.

[Kwacker]

Nobody has mentioned the real crime here, the sound track ;o)

(Boat) lift music

Great video by the way of one of my most favourite places.

[rusty69]

On 20/03/2017 at 19:20, zenataomm said:

zenataomm .... spelt zenataomm

On the subject of zenataomm, I see Mr Pirsig has recently passed away. 

[zenataomm]

50 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

On the subject of zenataomm, I see Mr Pirsig has recently passed away. 

He did indeed.

[sirweste]

On 3/21/2017 at 10:14, mross said:

But the 70 limit does stop people driving at 90.

You've clearly not been on the road with my big blue rocketship van have you

Also, nice video enjoyed it

[ditchcrawler]

On 2017-3-18 at 15:56, pig said:

Drone haters look away!

 

Just read a blog about drones at Foxton http://www.oleanna.co.uk/2017/04/dont-mind-us-23rd-april.html

[WotEver]

11 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Just read a blog about drones at Foxton http://www.oleanna.co.uk/2017/04/dont-mind-us-23rd-april.html

They have a point. 

[pig]

Well some people don't like dogs.....

[WotEver]

55 minutes ago, pig said:

Well some people don't like dogs.....

Dogs can be kept on a leash in order to avoid hassling people. 

[pig]

I've seen more dogs off lead on the towpath than drones flying illegally.

[nicknorman]

9 minutes ago, pig said:

I've seen more dogs off lead on the towpath than drones flying illegally.

However flying drones over Foxton with people around is a criminal offence. Other criminal offences may be being committed somewhere but that doesnt make flying a drone over people at Foxton any less of a criminal offence. Perhaps you also think that since some people exceed the alcohol drink driving limit, or speed limit, there is no reason for you to obey those, or any other laws? It would make an interesting defence in court.

[matty40s]

3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Just read a blog about drones at Foxton http://www.oleanna.co.uk/2017/04/dont-mind-us-23rd-april.html

I think this post needs moving to the "nasty cats killing baby birds in hedges" post.

 

Might have known Nick would come out of his snow hole to drone on about legalities of drones.

[pig]

3 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I think this post needs moving to the "nasty cats killing baby birds in hedges" post.

 

Might have known Nick would come out of his snow hole to drone on about legalities of drones.

He's been polishing his chopper. Fnarr fnarr 

[nicknorman]

21 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I think this post needs moving to the "nasty cats killing baby birds in hedges" post.

 

Might have known Nick would come out of his snow hole to drone on about legalities of drones.

It's just that I have the intelligence and knowledge to see that some day, sometime soon, someone like mr pig is going to be made an example of by means of a criminal prosecution and prison sentence, despite their protestations that they didn't realise they were criminals and they weren't doing anyone any harm, and other people break the law sometimes etc etc. If I am a bad person for trying to warn against it then so be it.

Edited April 25, 2017 by nicknorman

[nicknorman]

18 minutes ago, pig said:

He's been polishing his chopper. Fnarr fnarr 

On the other hand, perhaps a spell in prison would be a good thing.

Edited April 25, 2017 by nicknorman

[Ray T]

Never mind yer drones, get one of these: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/this-is-the-flying-car-backed-by-googles-co-founder/ar-BBAjtGh?OCID=ansmsnnews11

"The Flyer basically looks like a giant drone, with the driver sitting on top. It falls under the ultralight category, according to Federal Aviation Administration regulations. However, owners won't need a pilot's license to operate one."

According to the Kitty Hawk site, the machine is 'safe, tested and legal to operate in the US', as long as it is flown in 'uncongested areas.'

 

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Ray T

[matty40s]

according to Nicknorman, you might get away with it on St Kilda in the Winter Months.

[nicknorman]

7 minutes ago, matty40s said:

according to Nicknorman, you might get away with it on St Kilda in the Winter Months.

Err no I didn't say that, although I agree you probably would although there's a fair chance that the drone and or you would end up in the Atlantic.

There are plenty of places and ways in which you can "get away with it" - by complying with the relevant laws. But I don't really know why I'm telling you this as you are only interested in pisstaking, not imparting useful information.

[Horace42]

On 21/03/2017 at 11:15, nicknorman said:

My inputs to this thread were nothing about moralising, merely about informing. If I were to decide to exceed the speed limit I would do so keeping a good lookout for speed cameras / radar guns / police cars, as well as considering if I was putting anyone else at significant risk. If I exceeded the speed limit whilst being completely unaware of the concept of speed limits, I would be foolish, and glad if someone pointed out their existence to me.

On the assumption there are laws of the road, a unilateral decision to break them (eg. go faster) surely requires every other road user sticking to all the laws to enable you to go at your speed in a safe manner.