Re: Vic MP caught drink driving again

[Ext User(Arthur Brain)]

dechucka wrote:
> "Wanwo" <bjoh2004@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:449a33d1$0$20954$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

> > Carolyn Hirsh picked up last night for DUI

> > Previous: 2004 Lost her license for drink driving,
> > 6 months later picked up for driving while disqualifed.

> seems to have a problem with the turps. She was only recently allowed back
> into the Labor Party after being kicked out over her previous episode. IMHO
> she will now be sitting on the cross benches but probably should be sitting
> in gaol

Why?

Who suffered injury or loss as a result of her actions?

[Ext User(Arthur Brain)]

D Walford wrote:


> No one but herself this time but when you consider the statistics on
> drink driving it was only luck that prevented her from killing or
> injuring someone.

Are you sure about that?

How do "statistics" make people responsible for something they haven't
in fact done?

> Hope her license is cancelled for an extremely long time.

For a totally arbitrary offence which caused no damage or injury to
anybody?

Welcome to 1984.....

[Ext User('Arf)]

D Walford wrote:
> Arthur Brain wrote:
> > D Walford wrote:

> >> No one but herself this time but when you consider the statistics on
> >> drink driving it was only luck that prevented her from killing or
> >> injuring someone.


How do statistics tell you what one individual was going to do?

Please provide concrete examples of infallible predictions that your
statistics allow you to make in order to punish people for crimes they
were defnitely going to commit, before they commit them...

> > How do "statistics" make people responsible for something they haven't
> > in fact done?

> So you think its ok to drive when you are intoxicated?

Moral judgments are what make Saudi Arabia such an unpleasant place to
live in.

What I want to know is exactly what injury or losses were actually
caused by her, which allows you fundamentalists to demand that she be
punished?

[Ext User(F Murtz)]

D Walford wrote:
> Arthur Brain wrote:
>
>> D Walford wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No one but herself this time but when you consider the statistics on
>>> drink driving it was only luck that prevented her from killing or
>>> injuring someone.
>>
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> How do "statistics" make people responsible for something they haven't
>> in fact done?
>>
> So you think its ok to drive when you are intoxicated?
>
>>> Hope her license is cancelled for an extremely long time.
>>
>>
>> For a totally arbitrary offence which caused no damage or injury to
>> anybody?
>>
>
> See above.
>
>> Welcome to 1984.....
>>
> Welcome to reality or are you still in your fictitious fantasy land.
>
>
>
>
> Daryl
Although Drink drivers Probably have more accidents statistically the
total drink driver accident rate is not very high as a percentage
It is safer not to drink and drive but to assume that every
driver is going to have an accident if they have a drink is patently
stupid

[Ext User(Kwyjibo)]

"'Arf" <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1150987537.621096.140400@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com
> D Walford wrote:
>> Arthur Brain wrote:
>>> D Walford wrote:
>
>>>> No one but herself this time but when you consider the statistics
>>>> on drink driving it was only luck that prevented her from killing
>>>> or injuring someone.
>
>
> How do statistics tell you what one individual was going to do?
>
> Please provide concrete examples of infallible predictions that your
> statistics allow you to make in order to punish people for crimes they
> were defnitely going to commit, before they commit them...

WTF are you rabbiting on about?
She DID break the law. There is no need for any 'prediction'.


>
>>> How do "statistics" make people responsible for something they
>>> haven't in fact done?
>
>> So you think its ok to drive when you are intoxicated?
>
> Moral judgments are what make Saudi Arabia such an unpleasant place to
> live in.
>
> What I want to know is exactly what injury or losses were actually
> caused by her,

Her repeated failure to obey the law will probably result in a by-election
which will result in a fiscal loss to all Victorian taxpayers.

>which allows you fundamentalists to demand that she be
> punished?

--
Kwyj

[Ext User(Arthur Brain)]

Kwyjibo wrote:

> She DID break the law. There is no need for any 'prediction'.

Who did she injure and/or whose property did she damage?

Or was she guilty of a thought crime which you fundamentalists have
deemed to be an offence?

I don't understand exactly what her crime can have been if there is no
victim?

[Ext User(JD)]

Arthur Brain wrote:

>
> Kwyjibo wrote:
>
>> She DID break the law. There is no need for any 'prediction'.
>
> Who did she injure and/or whose property did she damage?
>
> Or was she guilty of a thought crime which you fundamentalists have
> deemed to be an offence?
>
> I don't understand exactly what her crime can have been if there is no
> victim?

The law books are full of laws against crimes which have no victims, without
even starting on the acts which are made crimes because the act has a high
probability of having a victim (such as this case), so I don't think your
protest has any legal basis, and before you start on crimes such as drink
driving you should look at all the laws that make crimes out of actions
that have no victims and could not possibly have any victims.

But regardless of the legal situation, the member in question would seem to
be incredibly stupid, which is a political crime, not a legal crime.
JD

[Ext User(Arthur Brain)]

JD wrote:
> Arthur Brain wrote:
>
> >
> > Kwyjibo wrote:
> >
> >> She DID break the law. There is no need for any 'prediction'.
> >
> > Who did she injure and/or whose property did she damage?
> >
> > Or was she guilty of a thought crime which you fundamentalists have
> > deemed to be an offence?

> > I don't understand exactly what her crime can have been if there is no
> > victim?

> The law books are full of laws against crimes which have no victims, without

Like what, for example?


> even starting on the acts which are made crimes because the act has a high
> probability of having a victim (such as this case),

I've been drink-driving for 19 years and have never caused damage to
injury to anybody.

So much for prosecution by probability - seems patently unjust to me.

[Ext User(dechucka)]

"Arthur Brain" <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1151011142.733740.202410@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> JD wrote:
>> Arthur Brain wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Kwyjibo wrote:
>> >
>> >> She DID break the law. There is no need for any 'prediction'.
>> >
>> > Who did she injure and/or whose property did she damage?
>> >
>> > Or was she guilty of a thought crime which you fundamentalists have
>> > deemed to be an offence?
>
>> > I don't understand exactly what her crime can have been if there is no
>> > victim?
>
>> The law books are full of laws against crimes which have no victims,
>> without
>
> Like what, for example?

discharging a firearm in a piblic place and in fact many of the firearm laws
ie possession of an unlicensed firearm

lighting a fire during a total fire ban

numerous of the traffic laws

possession of drugs



tfe

[Ext User(dechucka)]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449AB2B3.80507@hotmail.com...
>D Walford wrote:
>> Arthur Brain wrote:
>>
>>> D Walford wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> No one but herself this time but when you consider the statistics on
>>>> drink driving it was only luck that prevented her from killing or
>>>> injuring someone.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> How do "statistics" make people responsible for something they haven't
>>> in fact done?
>>>
>> So you think its ok to drive when you are intoxicated?
>>
>>>> Hope her license is cancelled for an extremely long time.
>>>
>>>
>>> For a totally arbitrary offence which caused no damage or injury to
>>> anybody?
>>>
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>> Welcome to 1984.....
>>>
>> Welcome to reality or are you still in your fictitious fantasy land.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Daryl
> Although Drink drivers Probably have more accidents statistically the
> total drink driver accident rate is not very high as a percentage
> It is safer not to drink and drive but to assume that every
> driver is going to have an accident if they have a drink is patently
> stupid


Of course it is but your chances of having an accident after driving drunk
is higher, that mat be OK if you are the person killed but it is the other
roadusers that need to be looked after

[Ext User(Ben Thomas)]

Arthur Brain wrote:
> I've been drink-driving for 19 years and have never caused damage to
> injury to anybody.

How much over the 0.05 limit are you when you drive, usually?

Ben

[Ext User(Arthur Brain)]

Ben Thomas wrote:
> Arthur Brain wrote:

> > I've been drink-driving for 19 years and have never caused damage to
> > injury to anybody.

> How much over the 0.05 limit are you when you drive, usually?

Dunno, usually, but I have been breathalysed twice at 0.15, so I guess
that's probably the going rate.

Presumably, some people can't even get out of the carpark at 0.06.

We're all different - applying to me the same arbitrary limit you apply
to a 40-kg 17-year-old teenage girl seems like a pretty poorly
thought-out plan.

[Ext User(Arthur Brain)]

dechucka wrote:

> Of course it is but your chances of having an accident after driving drunk
> is higher,

Speak for yourself, maybe - you don't know that's true for me.

For all any of us know, the chances of *me* having an accident while
drink-driving is lower than it is when I'm sober.

> that mat be OK if you are the person killed but it is the other
> roadusers that need to be looked after

They can wrap themselves in bubble-wrap if they find the world too
scary......I will guarantee you that plenty of *them* have a far
greater chance of having an accident sober than I am, sober or drunk.
Shall we prosecute them for that?
Or does this crime-by-probability only apply if it co-incides with the
personal fundamentalist beliefs of the Wesleyans and other wowsers?
Hmmm?

Sure you're not being taken for a ride here?

[Ext User(Arthur Brain)]

D Walford wrote:
> Arthur Brain wrote:
> > Ben Thomas wrote:
> >> Arthur Brain wrote:
> >
> >>> I've been drink-driving for 19 years and have never caused damage to
> >>> injury to anybody.
> >
> >> How much over the 0.05 limit are you when you drive, usually?
> >
> > Dunno, usually, but I have been breathalysed twice at 0.15, so I guess
> > that's probably the going rate.
> >
> > Presumably, some people can't even get out of the carpark at 0.06.
> >
> > We're all different - applying to me the same arbitrary limit you apply
> > to a 40-kg 17-year-old teenage girl seems like a pretty poorly
> > thought-out plan.
> >
> And you appear to be an expert on poorly thought out plans.

As a professional analyst - yes, I know a poorly thought out plan when
I see one.

[Ext User(dechucka)]

"Arthur Brain" <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1151015250.302949.200210@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Ben Thomas wrote:
>> Arthur Brain wrote:
>
>> > I've been drink-driving for 19 years and have never caused damage to
>> > injury to anybody.
>
>> How much over the 0.05 limit are you when you drive, usually?
>
> Dunno, usually, but I have been breathalysed twice at 0.15, so I guess
> that's probably the going rate.
>
> Presumably, some people can't even get out of the carpark at 0.06.
>
> We're all different - applying to me the same arbitrary limit you apply
> to a 40-kg 17-year-old teenage girl seems like a pretty poorly
> thought-out plan.

your weight has got nothing to do with how effected you are at a certain
blood alcohol level. Your comments on this whole subject are very poorly
thought out

[Ext User(dechucka)]

"Arthur Brain" <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1151015791.651165.307980@r2g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>
> dechucka wrote:
>
>> Of course it is but your chances of having an accident after driving
>> drunk
>> is higher,
>
> Speak for yourself, maybe - you don't know that's true for me.

actually I do

>
> For all any of us know, the chances of *me* having an accident while
> drink-driving is lower than it is when I'm sober.


no

>
>> that mat be OK if you are the person killed but it is the other
>> roadusers that need to be looked after
>
> They can wrap themselves in bubble-wrap if they find the world too
> scary......I will guarantee you that plenty of *them* have a far
> greater chance of having an accident sober than I am, sober or drunk.
> Shall we prosecute them for that?

but you have a greater chance of having an accident drunk than when you are
sober

> Or does this crime-by-probability only apply if it co-incides with the
> personal fundamentalist beliefs of the Wesleyans and other wowsers?
> Hmmm?
>
> Sure you're not being taken for a ride here?


There are many things which are against the law based on what you call "
crime by probability ". One can only hope that is you continue to drink and
drive you get caught and they take away your lecense and/or you go to gaol
or when you have an accident it is only a single vechicle MVA
>

[Ext User(Arthur Brain)]

D Walford wrote:

> Tell that to the next of kin of the victim of your drink driving

Like I'm trying to say - there is no victim of my drink driving.

Anybody could cause an accident which causes injury and/or damage, and
plenty of them do.

Lots of them don't do it whilst drunk, and lots of them have driven a
lot less than I have when they cause an accident.

So the whole idea of the supposedly increased probability of me
crashing when drunk is ludicrous, when it is plain to see that even
that "increased" probability is a lesser probability than the
probability of crashing that plenty of sober drivers have.

So while you're nervously checking all around you for that imaginary
drunk that you think is going to take you out - it is in fact the very
real BAD DRIVER (drunk or otherwise) who is going to do it.

And the cops could get all the bad drivers off the road if they just
hung about a roundabout and cancelled the licence of anybody who
clearly can't figure out how to safely go through a roundabout. That
would save a lot of lives.

Besides, I can't think of anything more true-blue aussie than driving
home shit-faced from the pub - it is a cultural tradition where I'm
from.

Bloody uni-wnkers trying to destroy our culture with their limp-wristed
pooffy attitude to life.

[Ext User(Ben Thomas)]

Arthur Brain wrote:
> Ben Thomas wrote:
>> Arthur Brain wrote:
>
>>> I've been drink-driving for 19 years and have never caused damage to
>>> injury to anybody.
>
>> How much over the 0.05 limit are you when you drive, usually?
>
> Dunno, usually, but I have been breathalysed twice at 0.15, so I guess
> that's probably the going rate.
>
> Presumably, some people can't even get out of the carpark at 0.06.
>
> We're all different - applying to me the same arbitrary limit you apply
> to a 40-kg 17-year-old teenage girl seems like a pretty poorly
> thought-out plan.
>

It needs to be simple, so they set one limit for everybody, that suits
the lowest common denominator. In the same way the speed limit are set,
IMHO.

It won't hurt you not to drink alcohol - there are other ways of having
fun.

I can't believe you would deliberately have more than enough drinks to
go over the limit then drive your car knowing full well that you might
get caught and lose your license. Why take the risk?

Ben

[Ext User(Arthur Brain)]

dechucka wrote:

> There are many things which are against the law based on what you call "
> crime by probability ". One can only hope that is you continue to drink and
> drive you get caught and they take away your lecense and/or you go to gaol
> or when you have an accident it is only a single vechicle MVA

Look, my ancestors came to this country in chains to slave away for the
British - you *really* don't think I have ever confused the real world
(ie me driving a car) with the world of bloody red tape and bureaucracy
(ie having licences).

I believe in freedom. *And* I've never caused an accident, because I
respect *other* people's freedoms, too.

So I don't need laws, anyway. It's the spirit of Eureka.

[Ext User(artie morty)]

On 22 Jun 2006 15:36:31 -0700, "Arthur Brain"
<arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>dechucka wrote:
>
>> Of course it is but your chances of having an accident after driving drunk
>> is higher,
>
>Speak for yourself, maybe - you don't know that's true for me.
>
>For all any of us know, the chances of *me* having an accident while
>drink-driving is lower than it is when I'm sober.
>
>> that mat be OK if you are the person killed but it is the other
>> roadusers that need to be looked after
>
>They can wrap themselves in bubble-wrap if they find the world too
>scary......I will guarantee you that plenty of *them* have a far
>greater chance of having an accident sober than I am, sober or drunk.
>Shall we prosecute them for that?
>Or does this crime-by-probability only apply if it co-incides with the
>personal fundamentalist beliefs of the Wesleyans and other wowsers?
>Hmmm?
>
>Sure you're not being taken for a ride here?

I would be interested to hear your opinion if it was your child, wife,
family member or friend lying dead on the road, killed because some
stupid drunken 'Arthur Brain wannabe' thought he had the right to
drink and drive, and found out too late he was wrong.

If you want to kill yourself - go ahead.

Who gives a shit about you.

But to knowingly put others at risk while you are pissed and driving
is pathetic.

One would hope that if the situation ever did occur and you do kill
someone while you are driving over the limit - the family of the
person or persons you killed will have a copy of the posts you have
made to this group - can present them to a judge and have you
prosecuted for premeditated murder.

To knowingly drive after drinking booze, with your cavalier attitude,
is a first hand indication that you do not deserve the right to drive.

Unfortunately, bastards like you never die. It is the people you hit
and kill, and their families, that suffer.

You really are a jerk.

How about changing you usenet name to 'Arthur Brainless'. It is a much
better indication of your level of mentality.

Artie...