Brit police to get worse
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Fighter Plane
Next: Nature in the city photo contest
From: George Kerby on 26 Jul 2010 20:16 On 7/26/10 2:53 PM, in article _5udnUXKNYUhetDRnZ2dnUVZ7t6dnZ2d(a)pipex.net, "Alan Dunlop-Walters" <alansworld(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 26/07/2010 19:13, George Kerby wrote: >> >> >> >> On 7/26/10 10:45 AM, in article >> 35a0c6b6-4200-4267-a903-32bd1b51b4b1(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, "RichA" >> <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> More uneducated, unemployed looney's to add to "special constables" >>> who are already such a pain when it comes to photography. >> >> Both of which you know nothing about. >> > Wrong. It knows all about unemployed. If it was employed it couldn't > possibly find the time to post all the shite it posts here. > > Agreed. But I was referring to photography and law enforcement, not uneducated and unemployed, both of which are on 'RichA's' resume. I should have been more specific, I guess...
From: George Kerby on 26 Jul 2010 20:18 On 7/26/10 4:18 PM, in article 201007261418578930-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-26 14:09:14 -0700, Paul Heslop <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> said: > >> ray wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:45:24 -0700, RichA wrote: >>> >>>> Just when you thought they couldn't, imagine this nightmare of an idea: >>>> >>>> BBC: >>>> the proposed introduction of police reservists - a pool of volunteers to >>>> undertake police duties >>>> >>>> More uneducated, unemployed looney's to add to "special constables" who >>>> are already such a pain when it comes to photography. >>> >>> It's been my general observation that if you take exception to the laws, >>> it's better to direct your enmity at those who MAKE the laws than those >>> who ENFORCE the laws. >> >> he's not a brit, he just uses us as something else to have a dig at. > > This conjures up visions of a Pythonesque invasion of Canada by a squad > of "Special Constables", with the mission to track down Rich, and > contain Canadian photographers so they do not threaten security at > British railway stations. > > What would they do in Grand Fenwick? What would John Candy do?
From: Savageduck on 26 Jul 2010 21:07 On 2010-07-26 17:18:28 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: > > > > On 7/26/10 4:18 PM, in article > 201007261418578930-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-26 14:09:14 -0700, Paul Heslop <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> said: >> >>> ray wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:45:24 -0700, RichA wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just when you thought they couldn't, imagine this nightmare of an idea: >>>>> >>>>> BBC: >>>>> the proposed introduction of police reservists - a pool of volunteers to >>>>> undertake police duties >>>>> >>>>> More uneducated, unemployed looney's to add to "special constables" who >>>>> are already such a pain when it comes to photography. >>>> >>>> It's been my general observation that if you take exception to the laws, >>>> it's better to direct your enmity at those who MAKE the laws than those >>>> who ENFORCE the laws. >>> >>> he's not a brit, he just uses us as something else to have a dig at. >> >> This conjures up visions of a Pythonesque invasion of Canada by a squad >> of "Special Constables", with the mission to track down Rich, and >> contain Canadian photographers so they do not threaten security at >> British railway stations. >> >> What would they do in Grand Fenwick? > > What would John Candy do? He would stay buried. Since you missed the "Duchy of Grand Fenwick" reference, that was to the 1950's satire "The Mouse that Roared" and the subsequent 1959 Peter Sellers movie of the same name. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: George Kerby on 26 Jul 2010 21:38 On 7/26/10 8:07 PM, in article 2010072618075150073-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-26 17:18:28 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: > >> >> >> >> On 7/26/10 4:18 PM, in article >> 201007261418578930-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2010-07-26 14:09:14 -0700, Paul Heslop <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> >>> said: >>> >>>> ray wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:45:24 -0700, RichA wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Just when you thought they couldn't, imagine this nightmare of an idea: >>>>>> >>>>>> BBC: >>>>>> the proposed introduction of police reservists - a pool of volunteers to >>>>>> undertake police duties >>>>>> >>>>>> More uneducated, unemployed looney's to add to "special constables" who >>>>>> are already such a pain when it comes to photography. >>>>> >>>>> It's been my general observation that if you take exception to the laws, >>>>> it's better to direct your enmity at those who MAKE the laws than those >>>>> who ENFORCE the laws. >>>> >>>> he's not a brit, he just uses us as something else to have a dig at. >>> >>> This conjures up visions of a Pythonesque invasion of Canada by a squad >>> of "Special Constables", with the mission to track down Rich, and >>> contain Canadian photographers so they do not threaten security at >>> British railway stations. >>> >>> What would they do in Grand Fenwick? >> >> What would John Candy do? > > He would stay buried. > > Since you missed the "Duchy of Grand Fenwick" reference, that was to > the 1950's satire "The Mouse that Roared" and the subsequent 1959 Peter > Sellers movie of the same name. You don't get any bacon, big boy.
From: Savageduck on 26 Jul 2010 21:56
On 2010-07-26 18:38:56 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: > > > > On 7/26/10 8:07 PM, in article > 2010072618075150073-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-26 17:18:28 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/26/10 4:18 PM, in article >>> 201007261418578930-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2010-07-26 14:09:14 -0700, Paul Heslop <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> >>>> said: >>>> >>>>> ray wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:45:24 -0700, RichA wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Just when you thought they couldn't, imagine this nightmare of an idea: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BBC: >>>>>>> the proposed introduction of police reservists - a pool of volunteers to >>>>>>> undertake police duties >>>>>>> >>>>>>> More uneducated, unemployed looney's to add to "special constables" who >>>>>>> are already such a pain when it comes to photography. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's been my general observation that if you take exception to the laws, >>>>>> it's better to direct your enmity at those who MAKE the laws than those >>>>>> who ENFORCE the laws. >>>>> >>>>> he's not a brit, he just uses us as something else to have a dig at. >>>> >>>> This conjures up visions of a Pythonesque invasion of Canada by a squad >>>> of "Special Constables", with the mission to track down Rich, and >>>> contain Canadian photographers so they do not threaten security at >>>> British railway stations. >>>> >>>> What would they do in Grand Fenwick? >>> >>> What would John Candy do? >> >> He would stay buried. >> >> Since you missed the "Duchy of Grand Fenwick" reference, that was to >> the 1950's satire "The Mouse that Roared" and the subsequent 1959 Peter >> Sellers movie of the same name. > > You don't get any bacon, big boy. Nevermind. -- Regards, Savageduck |