On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:10:37 +0100, John Hearns wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:02:27 +0000, Velvet wrote:

Nick Drew wrote:
"MSeries" wrote in message
...

Story on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/3884467.stm



I guess it's a bit insensitive, but how did the driver and passenger of the
car sustain injuries? I was a bit surprised to read that.

Nick



At a guess, I can think of two ways - either they hit, swerved, hit
something else, or something went through the windscreen (ick).
Hate to be cynical, but read the arcticle more closely.
There are no injuries to the policemen.

Reading the article closely, there were minor injuries to the policemen.

The article almost makes it sound like "this cyclist ran into a stationary
police car. The cyclist was killed, and the poor policeman are all shaken
up by the incident"

Reading the article closely, it says nothing about the circumstances of
the incident. How is assuming anything about it given the information
in the article helpful? Is it really not possible that, even were the
policement *entirely* to blame, they would not require treatment for shock?
Is it also not possible that they might not have been entirely to blame
for whatever happened? Reading the article partiularly closely, I fail
to see how it could have been more neutral in both content and tone.

Due sympathy and respect to this poor fellow, and his family who have now
been left husbandless or fatherless.

Reading the article closely, there is no indication that the man was either
a husband or a father. While this is entirely possible, are you not
perhaps reading more into the facts you have at your disposal than might
be justified by the content of the article you so cynically critique?

--
Trevor Barton