You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Woman hurt in explosion at UK vehicle agency
2007-02-07
LONDON (Reuters) - A woman was injured on Wednesday in an explosion at Britain's vehicle licensing agency, the third attack in three days on motoring-related organizations.
Three booms in three days makes it a terror attack. Likely domestic nutcase.
Police refused to confirm the nature of the explosion, but BBC News said a parcel bomb had exploded at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in Swansea, south Wales. "One female has been taken to hospital with injuries, which are not believed to be life-threatening," a police statement said. "A cordon has been put in place and nearby residents are being evacuated as a precautionary measure."

The DVLA said the injured woman handled its mail. The DVLA is a government agency that issues driving licenses and keeps records of vehicles and motorists. "Naturally these incidents are worrying. It is important that we allow police to get on with their investigation without undue speculation," Home Secretary (interior minister) John Reid said in a statement.

A letter bomb exploded at a business center in Berkshire, southern England, on Tuesday at the office of Vantis, a business services firm, injuring two men. Newspapers reported that the letter was addressed to "Speed Check Services" which supplies speed cameras to the police but was sent instead to its accountants.

On Monday, a woman was injured in a letter bomb explosion at the London headquarters of Capita, the firm managing London's congestion charge. The company collects 25 million payments a year from motorists who pay to drive into central London. The rash of explosions raised media speculation that it could be a campaign by a motorist, disgruntled by the rapid spread of traffic speeding cameras on Britain's roads.
Sounds like it. I'd guess Scotland Yard is going over lists of people with multiple tickets who wrote angry letters complaining
Motorists caught speeding by cameras paid more than 100 million pounds ($195 million) in fines in 2005. Drivers who are repeatedly caught speeding can be temporarily banned from driving. Tens of thousands of motorists a year are disqualified.
Posted by:Steve

#12  In Minnesota, the state supreme court declared these cameras illegal on the grounds that someone else could be driving a car licensed to you.

Al
Posted by: Frozen Al   2007-02-07 14:18  

#11  Oh, and like Frank G stated, they are a revenue enhancer big time. One smaller city around our parts (metro Atlanta) took in MILLIONS last year at just 1 intersection. For a city their size, that could about fund the entire police force and some other employees.
Posted by: BA   2007-02-07 14:10  

#10  Interesting you mention that, BigEd. Our State (GA) Rep. is proposing a bill that will ban red-light cameras at intersections. They're fairly new in the Atlanta area. Anyways, literally speaking, his basis is correct.

The bill would ban the red light cameras because the Constitution/Bill of Rights guarantees the accused the right to face their accuser. Thusly, you can't do that, because the "accuser" in this case is an object (camera). Doubt it'll fly (it's become a cash cow for the cities/counties around here), but it's an interesting argument.
Posted by: BA   2007-02-07 14:09  

#9  Frank G :

Red-light cameras cause more accidents than they "prevent". They are strictly for revenue enhancement under the guise of safety.

And my wife has enhanced the coffers of Los Angeles and Garden Grove (California) in the last 5 years...

We need a ballot initiative out here to ban the red-light cameras...
Posted by: BigEd   2007-02-07 11:22  

#8  IMHO it's "simply a screw job to collect money"
Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan   2007-02-07 10:21  

#7  Congestion reduction, pollution reduction, carbon reduction I think, Redneck Jim.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-02-07 10:20  

#6  Britain must have pretty lax bomb-control laws.
Posted by: eLarson   2007-02-07 09:46  

#5  The company collects 25 million payments a year from motorists who pay to drive into central London.

That's odd, why pay to go into london, is this some crude form of traffic regulation, or simply a screw job to collect money?
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-02-07 09:23  

#4  red-light cameras cause more accidents than tehy "prevent". They are strictly for revenue enhancement under the guise of safety
Posted by: Frank G   2007-02-07 09:06  

#3  I keep telling people the chances of motoring related injury are greater than those of being involved in a terrorism incident but will they listen? No.

And now they will have to pay.

/domestic nutjob in this probably called Clive or Cecil instead of you-know-what
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-02-07 09:03  

#2  Right. But when they catch this nutjob, I bet there'll be no outreach, consultation, special accomodations, task forces, policy reviews, employment initiatives, cultural sensitivity training, or sympathy for "legitimate grievances." It'll be life in clink and that's that.
Posted by: exJAG   2007-02-07 08:18  

#1  The UK population has "learnt" the lesson the state sent when it appeased the terrorist supporting Koranimals.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan   2007-02-07 07:59  

00:00