A Day in court...

That like Chips becoming Fries?

 

Not in my experience, sorry, and I've had a bit to do with these on
both sides of the dock The several VROs (violence restraint
orders) i've been granted over the years I'm most grateful for. And
I've had an awful lot of observation of magistrates in the Family
Court. All magistrates I've ever observed have been admirable people.
But after saying that, it is the institution that we must cherish. Can
you possibly imagine if we didn't have a court system to appeal to to
solve our intractable problems? Our "Rule of Law" is one ot the most
precious things our society enjoys, IMHO.

Well a fish is the last one to realise that he lives in water.

So what form of public administration would you prefer?

No need, you've confirmed that you want another form of regulation of
our society. I've subsequently asked what form this would take.

Some is, and some is tradition, and some is enforcing the gravitas of
that institution to impress on folk not to take it lightly. It IS
important, believe me!

The title itself? Or the fact that there is a title at all? Would you
suggest that we refer to judicial officers in Her Majesty's Court as
Mate and Missus? Perhaps this would come to be seen by future
generations as "wank" as well. You see you really do need a respectful
title for those who are acting for the institutions that we would do
well to cherish and protect. Greater minds than ours have imagined how
we would be without these institutions, and believe me, it is not
something to be wished on our worst enemies.
The conventions serve to preserve the institutions, and you dispense
with them at your peril.

What straw man? You are decrying the trappings of our respected
institutions, and I'm trying to explain how they fit in and why we
should be careful not to trivialise some of this. Sure, some appears
to be a bit over-the-top. Like bowing to the bench (when occupied)
when you are leaving or entering a court, But to do so, certainly
increases the awe and the importance of these places in the minds of
the average punter.

It's a hangover from the court system, but how does it affect you? It
is a convention that surely does not even affect the average citizen.

Did I not write:

"As our "rule of law" is what comes between us and utter barbarism and
oppression, I tend to honour the institution, and therfore honour the
officiers of that institution, not necessarily because they personally
deserve our respect, but because of what they represent. A bit like
when you salute an officer in the army. You are not saluting the
person, but the badge and what it represents." ?

See above.

I pointed out similarities, and you disagreed that there were any. You
should perhaps explain why the similarities I pointed out are invalid.
Or else I'll ignore your bald assertion.

Huh? I pointed out some similarities and you said they did not exist,
apparently, and now you say I have to point out the similarities
again? How WHAT exactly works?

Well I have, and I'm telling you from personal experience and training
that when you salute an officer, you are not saluting the man, you are
saluting the badge and what it stands for. You might think the officer
is a total shit, personally, but you salute nevertheless, coz you are
saluting the "Office of the Queen". That's how we were trained in this
man's army. Your source of contrary information?

But no explanation again? Shaking hands is a convention between two
people, no representations at all, AFAICS. It originated from showing
an empty hand without a weapon. Where is this representation that you
claim?

So you didn't read it again? So you are prepared to comment on what I
said without reading and understanding it? Hokay!

Yes, it is probably a silly wank, but life is full of silly wanks,
like asking how you are when you really have no interest, and shaking
hands and saying hello, and saying G'day, and Goodbye, and so many
things that smooth the intercourse between people in a large society.
If you study anthropology, you may learn that very crowded societies
have a huge number of these "silly wank" things that you decry. That
is how they have gotten to the present without killing each other
Sparsely populated societies are usually fighting and killing their
relatively distant neighbours. Their "silly wank" things are ways of
dehumanising these distant barbarians. Which ones do you prefer?

Are you somehow frightened of my reply? Sounds like it.

 

Partially but it's far from perfect. In the absence of proof either way the
fine will usually stand. The court should require some sort of hard evidence
that the person was in fact speeding.

Michael

 

As often as you like, I was agreeing with you there...

Yeah, and I bet it wouldn't take me a whole hour either - but here's the
problem - you tell me "there are no quotas" and I believe you. But while
there are no quotas, there clearly is an expectation of you to book
_some_ of the lousy drivers out there that you see during your shift,
and that your boss has some idea of what a "reasonable" number of
tickets per shift is, and that you know damned well how many tickets he
expects from you. That might not actually be a quota, but it walks and
talks and smells like a quota... The cynical amongst us are conjuring up
scenarios where Constable Bent spends 6 hours of his 8 hour shift
munching donuts at Krispy Kreme, then heads over to his favourite hiding
spot, waits for one car to come past at 15 over, then proceeds to write
out an entire shifts worth of tickets to whatever car happens to be
coming along next regardless of their actual speed... Now I don't think
this is common, but you'll be hard pressed to convince me something like
it has _never_ happened... I will admit, it's never happened to me and
I've never had a credible 1st hand report of it happening to anyone
else. I've never actually been dealt with by police in anything except a
completely professional manner except for the time (googleable in
aus.moto) where a group of four of us got pulled over and shouted at for
a while for doing the speed limit on the Old Road (and there was no
suggestion he did it for any "quota" reasons, but he _did_ end up
writing a ticket out for the idiot riding a 750 on his P's)...

Yep - it was a (perhaps lame) attempt at being funny... (hence the
smiley)

big

 

Yep, but not as rapid as"French Fries" becoming "Freedom Fries"

 

In a perfect world, I would agree, like photographic evidence sworn
before a Justice that a parking infingement has been committed.
And similar video evidence for littering and on and on, but this would
bog the system down, I would imagine. So we choose the lesser of two
evils and compromise with taking the word of selected people called
"officers".

Can you suggest a better system?

I was once in an accident where a vehicle came through a red light and
T-boned me.The insurance company was trying to apportion blame on me
for doing the speed limit, and not slowing down for the green traffic
lights. The magistrate dismissed this as nonsense saying that if
everyone slowed down for green traffic lights in this day and age, the
whole traffic system would bog down and become chaos. Modern
pragmatism in the law, methinks.

 

There are more than one. Some better/worse than others. [ <= select
preferred option ]

 

Even you should be able to bullshit better than that pathetic effort.

Irrelevant whether that form of address has anything to do
with what a magistrate's court can and does deliver, fool.

Irrelevant whether that form of address has anything to do
with what a magistrate's court can and does deliver, fool.

Irrelevant whether that form of address has anything to do
with what a magistrate's court can and does deliver, fool.

Irrelevant whether that form of address has anything to do
with what a magistrate's court can and does deliver, fool.

Irrelevant whether that form of address has anything to do
with what a magistrate's court can and does deliver, fool.

Wota fucking wanker.

The current one works fine.

That is an entirely separate issue to whether there is any
point in that form of address with a magistrate's court, fuckwit.

Like hell I ever have.

And I have rubbed your nose in the fact that it was just another
of your stupid ignorant guesses that delivers egg all over your
pathetic excuse for a face, time after time after time.

That form of address has sweet **** all to do with how
effectively that particular institution works and even a
terminal fuckwit such as yourself should be able to grasp
that the antic those fuckwit pollys get up to in parliament
is the complete antithesis of 'gravitas', fuckwit.

Keep desperately digging, you'll be out in china any day now.

I wouldnt believe a silly little fuckwit like you even
if you claimed the sun would be rising tomorrow.

There is no need for one for a court to be effective.

I clearly said right from the start that it makes
a hell of a lot more sense not to use any title
at all when adressing the magistrate, fuckwit.

Even you should be able to manage that if someone was actually
stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

Very like the current generations as well.

Wrong. They will continue to work fine
without any form of address used at all.

Having fun thrashing yet another straw man are you wanker ?

Complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.

More complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.

That most recent change mentioned at the top has had NO
effect what so ever on how effectively those institutions work.

Pathetic, really.

I was sneering at one tiny detail that wankers choose to do.

That is an entirely separate issue to whether there is any
better approach on the institution's fundamental purpose, fuckwit.

You're just thrashing straw men.

Completely silly in fact.

Bullshit it does.

In spades with the stupid crap used with politicians title wise.

That has no effect whatever on how people regard elected politicians.

Bullshit it is.

Irrelevant to whether its a completely silly wank.

Irrelevant to whether its a completely
silly wank that is completely irrelevant to
the viability of a parliamentary democracy.

Just an assertion on the SIMILARITYS, fuckwit.

See above.

You ASSERTED the similaritys.

You're lying again.

Or I'll rub your nose in the fact that YOU made
the stupid assertion, YOU get to do the elaborating.

You have always been, and always will
be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

You ASSERTED that there are similaritys.

You're lying again.

You're lying again.

Pathetic, really.

Completely irrelevant whether you have or have not.

You already said that.

Wota fucking wanker.

Whoopy fucking do.

Wota fucking wanker.

You dont bother with one yourself. You just wank yourself blinder.

Focus on the word LIKE, fuckwit.

Duh. And it clearly aint relevant today, fuckwit.

You're lying again.

No need. It stays mindlessly silly shit no matter how often its read.

You're lying again.

No reason anyone should bother with silly wanks.

Wota fucking wanker.

Irrelevant to whether that stops us killing each other today.

Wrong again.

Yet another stupid irrelevant question.

Pathetic, really.

 

[snip]

So we can call you Al, then? ;-)

And my sympthies are with you - a male outnumbered in his own house by
blonde females - it's a nightmare I tells ya! ;-)

Neil
---
Neil Fisher / Bob Young
Thundercords
personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
Looking for spark plug leads?
Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au

 

Hey, of course I'll book what deserves to be booked. That's
what I get paid for. But, I decide, noone else.

If I turn up at the end of the shift (which happens regularly)
or with just one or two tickets, not a word is said to me.
They wouldn't dare. As I've said before, I would just dare
them (the bosses) to challenge me about the amount of
tickets I get. I have the perfect response ready for them.
"How many would you like me to get?"

How would I know? Probably back in the 60's and 70's yeh.
no way, these days. Certainly not since I've been in the job.
(1987)

So, you agree he deserved it.

They all know I speak to you guys on usenet, and am
convinced I'm mad because some of the good points
out of the arguments on here are raised with them and
I'm sure they get quite annoyed by it )

Spooky

 

Fries, as far as I'm concerned, are various bits of non-descript
offal, fried in a pan with lots of fat and salt to be fed to the
desperately-hungry and mal-nourished.

 

Your word can be accepted pro tem, as you seem so knowledgeable about it.

 

What an angry, empty little man Rod Speed is!
Full of noise and fury and insult, but with zero content.

As I have too much spare time at the moment, I will demonstrate some
of this below:

Nothing there, sorry, folks.

My argument is that the forms of address DO matter in institutions.
Start chipping away at the conventions, and pretty soon you will be
throwing out babies with bathwater and wishing for the return of the
good old days. You appear to want change for change's sake.
What is the problem with retaining the conventions? You just don't
like them?

You seem to decry any addresses, and then find an irresistable need to
address folk as "Fuckwit" Do you see how silly you look?

See above

See above.
I see you are related to the parrots?
They look the silliest, IMHO

So you don't like forms of address? Look how silly you have made
yourself.

See above.
Scratch, Cocky!

What a FISH!

Yet you want to dispense with its conventions? That's why I asked if
you were an anarchist. You seem to want to dispense with institutional
conventions that you don't see an immediate need for, and of course
ALL institution have these. Even here, you insist on your childish
appellations while denouncing others.

More childish appellations? Some form of address is necessary, even
though you, like the fish in water, can't see it. My argument is that
the present one is fine for the purposes of showing respect for our
institutions. You wasnt to dispense with all forms, yet show even here
that you require some.

Well by erroding our present instirutions and their conventions, that
is a reasonable assumption, but then only you can tell what you mean.
If you saay you are happy with the present insatitutions, then you
have a funny way of showing it by chipping away at the forms of
respect that go with these institutions.

Wow, what an angry little man!

Look, you attack the conventions of our present system and also
denigrate the personnel by doing so, and I ask what different system
you would prefer. If you are happy how it is, I wonder what all your
noise is.

More irrational anger, more childish appellations? Wow!
My opinion, and obviously thazt of the institutions is that is has
much to do with how the institutions operate. If they are not heldinn
high esteem by our society, they are on the slippery slope to being
waterered down and eventually dispensed with.

That;'s original. Pity its got no relevance!

You really should get that "little man" anger seen to

So what is wrong with it? Better than the ones you seem to feel the
need of using here, or is that just your uncontrollable anger?
If you can get through a court hearing with no form of address, then
you are either sailing close to contempt of court, or haven't much to
say. Or are you advocating that we should refer to magistrates and
judges as Knights of the Realm (Sir) or bawdy house proprietors
(Madam)?

I disagree. See above. It would be incredibly difficult to avoid all
forms of address in a court.

I personally have never seen a court in operation where forms of
address were not esential just for plain courtesy reasons.
Doing so often results in a perception of disrespect IMHO.
Many self representers try to avoid all formds and get awfully muddled
and confused , not knowing what to do. Unfortunately TV has
popularised the "Your Honour" schtik and most folk end upbefore a
magistrate with obvious confuaio and embarrassment. As the court wants
to fairly get at the truth, I can see the point in changing the "Your
Worship" schtik to the same as judges, just to simplify for the
benefit of the overwhelmed punter.
Of course, I hope you weren't under the misapprehension that these
forms of address had anything to do with the meanings of the
constituent words? Just like Sir and Ma'am?

More anger? You managed to avoid the appelation that time. Perhaps
next time?

So you've realised that history repeats itself? The young have always
tried to "throw babies out with bathwater" and it is the conventions
and traditions that uphold the strengths of out institutions
throughout the ages.

And you know this how? Have a look at "100 Centre Street" and see how
well the American courts work. Sheesh!

More anger...

More anger...

More anger. You really don't have much substantive to say, do you!

And if you hadn't noticed, that change was not what you are
advocating. You are advocating NO form of address in courts, remember?

Non sequiturs now?

Thereby denigrating all those in the institutions, as well as those
who adhere to the conventions of the institutions as "wankers". OK.

More childish appellations?
More anger?
The institutions fundamental purpose is to administer the law,
hopefuly dispense justice. Treating the officers of this institution
as "wankers" is surely not conducive to this fundamental purpose. Well
not in my opinion, anyhow.

Another empty response?

In your opinion, but notice, a democracy takes into account more than
your angry, empty, childish, little opinion.

That too must go? Really, you just don't get it, do you.

I know it does. That's why it is done, Doh!

Where? You realy do let this insignificant little protocol get under
your skin. Perhaps its that anger problem you have?

Probably not, but who uses it? I thing you are protesting too much.

So if it does not come from the English Royal Court, please tell me
where it DID originate from. I won't hold my breath waiting for any
substantive response from you.

Why? If it has no effect on you, why are you whinging about it? That
anger, again, I'll wager.

Who said it was? I'm wondering why you are whinging about it so much.
sounds like you have some hidden psychologicalfixatio about it.
I have rarely ever heard of titles other than Mr, Mrs, and Senator, if
you are a member of the Senate.

Exadctly, and you claimed I'd only asserted:
"A bit like when you salute an officer in the army. "
Whereas, I'd mentioned the similarities.
Now where is your refutation of the similarities I'd mentioned?
You just asserted that it was NOT like it.
I have demonstrated why it is. Make with your refutations of these or
remain quiet on the matter.

That's right, and you claimed there weren't any.

No, you wrote: "Nothing like in fact."
Do you not understand the words that you write?

You DON'T understand the words that you write. Hokay!

Which is why you are responding on this 400+ line thread?
Sad, really

You said there were none (" Nothing like in fact.") and then called me
a liar when I said so. Go figure!

See above. Your rantings are all on the record, unfortunately for your
attempt at twisting your way out of a sticky corner

Which is patently a lie, no matter how often repeated.
Your words are all there for everyone to see.

More non-sequiturs? Trouble reading and trouble writing. Sad!

Except that I know first hand how soldiers are trained.
You're looking sillier and sillier!

And you seem to need it repeating. You obviously don't understand it.

Who? The Australian Armed Forces? I'm just quoting them.

You sound jealous? Believe me, there is no need.

More empty non-sequitur. Why can you not bring yourself to admit that
you run off at the mouth and have no back up for the empty nonsense
you spout?

I've elaborated and explained every point I've made. Show me one I
haven't and I'll explain. You just go into paroxysms of abuse.

More empty, childish anger?

They are UNLIKE, as I explained. Saluting an officer is
representational of saluting the Crown, as addressing court officers
appropriately is showing respect to the Crown/institution as well.
Shaking hands is just a greeting convention in our society and is not
representational of respect or greeting of anyone or anything else
apart from the two individuals involved. Are you a bit slow?
Your name is a bit of a misnomer?

Of course it is! It is a commonly agreed convention. Do you withdraw
your hand when being introduced to a stranger? Probably, from the
confused anger you have shown here.

More non-sequitur? You really should try to stay on track. Perhaps
that rage of yours is making you blind to the argument.

You said a representational address was the same as an
address/greeting with no representation that I can see, and when I ask
where the representation that you infer is, you fly off the handle
with calls of "Liar."

So why do you comment on it as if it says something that it doesn't?
You really should get that anger seen to. It's not good for you!

You've just said so. You are becoming delusional. I've seen that in
pathologically angry people. The eventually become paranoid!

Appellation with nothing else? How self-contradictory can you get?

And you are the arbiter? When you can't even follow plain English and
must resort to empty childish insult? No thanks, I'll make my own
mind up.

More anger. Perhaps if you just tried a tiny bit of explanation, you
would feel better? You are making no sense at present.

Huh? Are you discussing "silly wank" things?
You are drifting again...

And again, you make a bald assertion with no explanation or example.
You know what that's worth?

I guess you have drifted so far that you have forgotten what the
discussion is about. It is about dispensing with some institutional
conventions of our society because you can't see any sense in them.
I'm drawing a parallel with other cultures, coz as you already know, a
fish is the last one to realise that he lives in water.

And to finish up, a final non-sequitur from you.
You really are scared of my response

 

D'oh! I looked again and found it in the dictionary at the end of the ARR.

It also defines "motor vehicle" which those scooters would fall under.

So my question was answered. I only had to RTFM. Dammit.

 

Got to watch out for those perations, we all know the damage a real severe
peration can cause.

Boxer

 

And we all believe its all in the name of road safety and the income to the
State Governments has nothing to do with it.

And then there is the one about the three bears.

Boxer

 

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, fuckwit.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, fuckwit.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, fuckwit.

All you have actually 'demonstrated' is that you're a fucking wanker.

Leaves your puerile shit for dead, fuckwit.

Thats just your CLAIM, not a shred of 'argument' was ever seen from you.

Utterly mindless pig ignorant drivel. Stop calling elected
politicians 'honorable' and not only wont that result in the
sky falling, even someone as stupid as you should notice
that parliament doesnt change a bit, if someone as actually
stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
quite a few armys dont bother with the sort of wanky
saluting that you claim is crucial and that they do somehow
manage to have a quite effective military system anyway.

Best get your seems machinery seen to, wanker.

I already told you, fuckwit.

Guess again.

Just the fuckwits, fuckwit. Just a statement of fact.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
hardly any elected politicians are actually 'honourable', fuckwit.

Pathetic, really.

See above

See above

You're lying again. You've clearly wanked yourself completely blind.

You have always been, and always will be, completely
and utterly irrelevant. Your hairy opinion in spades.

Nothing like what I said there, fuckwit.

Pathetic, really.

See above

Let go of your dick, wanker.

Wota fucking wanker.

Must be one of those rocket scientist fuckwits.

Wota fucking wanker.

Wota fucking wanker.

Wota fucking wanker.

Wota fucking wanker.

Wota fucking wanker.

Wota fucking wanker.

Pity you have done no more than ASSERT that there
is any need what so ever to 'show respect', in spades
with elected politicians who havent earned that.

No one 'shows respect' to complete fucking wankers like you, fuckwit.

You're lying again.

Like hell it is, fuckwit.

Already done that, fuckwit.

Wota fucking wanker.

Calling elected politicians 'honorable' when they are nothing of
the kind has absolutely NOTHING to do with recognising that a
parliamentary democracy is the most effective approach, fuckwit.

Wota fucking wanker.

Just some of them, fuckwit.

You're lying again.

More fool you. I have never ever said that
I even want a different SYSTEM, fuckwit.

So stupid that it cant even work out that what was being
discussed was the FORM OF ADDRESS USED FOR MAGISTRATES.

Wota fucking wanker.

You're lying again on that last.

Wota fucking wanker.

Elected politicians are already right down there with
used car salefools and prostitutes and journalists.

There aint the slightest possibility that we will be binning the
parliamentary democracy that is the best approach yet invented,
just because we stop calling them 'honorable', fuckwit.

You're lying again.

Wota fucking wanker.

See above.

See above.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

You're lying again.

See above.

Your problem.

See above.

See above.

You really do need to do something about that eyesight, fuckwit.

You have always been, and always will be, completely
and utterly irrelevant. Your hairy opinion in spades.

And they wouldnt if the stupid archaic system had not been retained.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to
work out that the jurisdictions where that archaic
pommy system has never been used manage fine.

See above.

See above.

Wota fucking wanker.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Wota fucking wanker.

Wota fucking wanker.

Pity that I'm very likely considerably older than you, fuckwit.

Utterly mindless pig ignorant drivel. Stop calling elected
politicians 'honorable' and not only wont that result in the
sky falling, even someone as stupid as you should notice
that parliament doesnt change a bit, if someone as actually
stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
quite a few armys dont bother with the sort of wanky
saluting that you claim is crucial and that they do somehow
manage to have a quite effective military system anyway.

It should be obvious even to someone as stupid as you.

Utterly mindless pig ignorant drivel. Stop calling elected
politicians 'honorable' and not only wont that result in the
sky falling, even someone as stupid as you should notice
that parliament doesnt change a bit, if someone as actually
stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
quite a few armys dont bother with the sort of wanky
saluting that you claim is crucial and that they do somehow
manage to have a quite effective military system anyway.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

You in spades, wanker.

Completely irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim
that if we change, the courts will be gone in no time.

Must be one of those rocket scientist fuckwits.

Pathetic, really.

You're lying again.

And fuckwits in your case.

Record's stuck.

Must be one of those rocket scientist fuckwits.

You're lying again.

Have fun explaining how various courts world wide
manage fine without that pathetic wanky stuff.

You have always been, and always will be, completely
and utterly irrelevant. Your opinion in spades.

Pathetic, really.

Yours in spades, fuckwit.

Yep, no point in kissing some child molester bishop's ring either.

Pathetic, really.

Like hell you do.

Its just the completely silly wank like wigs etc that have been
flushed where they belong with magistrates courts etc.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Those stupid wankers, like I said.

Wota fucking wanker.

Wota fucking wanker.

Guess which pathetic little drug crazed wanker has just lost its 'wager'

Who said anyone did ?

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Best get those ears tested then, wanker.

Try listening to parliament sometime when you've got your hearing aid.

You're lying again.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

You're lying again.

Go and **** yourself.

You're lying again.

Which aint the same thing, fuckwit.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Wota fucking wanker.

Just rubbing your nose in the facts, fuckwit.

Yep, you certainly are that.

You're lying again.

Nothing like the same thing.

I call a liar a liar and a fuckwit a fuckwit.

You get to like that or lump it.

See above.

Your lying in spades.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

You're lying again.

Your lies in spades.

Pathetic, really.

Pathetic, really.

Completely and utterly irrelevant to whether
that stuff is crucial for a viable military system.

Pathetic, really.

Pathetic, really.

Wota fucking wanker.

Best get those ears tested, wanker.

See above.

Wota fucking wanker.

Wota fucking wanker.

You're lying again.

Not even capable of doing anything other than wanking yourself blind.

You're lying again.

You just wank yourself blinder.

You're lying again.

And it works fine when we dont let silly little wankers behave like that.

Your pathetic excuse for a nick aint.

The weapon originas is completely irrelevant today, fuckwit.

You just wank yourself blinder.

You just wank yourself blinder.

You're lying again.

Because you've wanked yourself blind.

You're lying again.

You're lying again.

You're wanking again.

I'll say so most time you lie.

You're wanking again.

Must be one of those rocket scientist lying fuckwit wankers.

You're wanking again.

You're wanking again.

You're wanking again.

Not a shred of evidence that you've actually got one.

Ear to ear steaming dog shit on the other hand...

More wanking.

More wanking.

More wanking.

More wanking.

More wanking.

More wanking.

 

Or standard portion becoming regular.

I get asked whether I want regular fries, and I reply that I don't care
what shape they are.

Sylvia.

 

..and we know exactly which one you are, don't we!

So, he was exceeding the speed limit.

There's nothing to stop him going to Court and saying
"I don't admit to 73, but I do admit being over the
speed limit". You really dont pay attention do you?
Once in Court, the actual speed alleged is of little
consequence when there is a discrepancy of only a
few k's. The prosecution are required to prove that
the speed limit was exceeded. I think we've established
this, right?

So, when it is clear you do not know what you are talking
about, all you have to do is ask, instead of guessing.

ROFLMAO you idiot. You mean he's only a
little bit guilty?
Can you not work something out clearly in your
head? I'ts really quite simple. Over the speed limit
is a breach. The numbers dont matter in Court
for such a trivial speed difference.

I know exactly what he is saying. He reckons he wasn't
doing 73 as alleged but concedes he was over the speed limit.
Guilty of an exceed speed limit offence.

I'll try to put it in plain english for you. See if you can keep up.
An on the spot infringement is issued and categorised by the
amount over the speed limit, IE: under 15, over 15, over 30
and over 45. Obviously the monetary penalty increases with
each category. Well, here's a news bulletin for you. Once you
(in this case UB) plead not guilty to an exceed speed limit
infringement notice, and it goes to Court, those categories no
longer exist! The offence is purely exceeding the speed limit.
So, whether he was 1 over of 100 over, it is dealt with the same,
under Rule 20 Of the Australian Road Rules, 1999. (NSW for Bernds'
benefit). The Magistrate does not have different categories
of penalties for the different speed categories 15,30,45 etc.
He can award a $1 fine or a $2000 fine.

Are you comprehending this? One more time for the
dummies. Once in Court, the infringement notice is NOT
categorised by an amount over the speed limit. It is simply just
exceeding the speed limit.

If you didn't get it this time, get someone to explain it to
you, ffs.

The trouble here, is that I'm thinking like a Cop going to Court,
and you're thinking like normal Jo Blo who has'nt got a clue,
or just plainly doesn't understand the exceed speed limit offence
in Court.

I dont get upset about it. I quite enjoy it. I've lost
only one (1) court matter in 18 years. I only get upset
at people knowing they comitted an offense and blatantly
lieing about it. I can tell the difference between an outright lie
and a mistaken belief that they didn't do anything wrong.

When he's admitted speeding, yes I do.

See all I've expalined above. Hope you're feeling a little
bit silly by now too.

You could not get much more accurate, or clear!

You can't help it, can you?. Always a little dig.

No, and why would you? Stop assuming I would do that.

There's no benefit to a cop in making up a speeding ticket though.

Spooky