On 17/09/2020 01:09, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 22:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 21:00, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:41, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 19:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:

You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words
about and start understanding the law and the issues.

This is not a cycling group,

No, I haven't thought so for a long time, either.

not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words
to legal definitions.

If you are keen to see convictions for dangerous driving, you need
to realise that that is a legal matter.

I vote for this to be entered for stupid comment of the year.

Hardly.

Oh yes.

You didn't even *know* that "dangerous driving" is a legal construct,
hence your disinclination to think of it in a legal context.

The law does not have a monopoly on particular words.

You complained of there being few convictions for dangerous driving.

Then you try to say that you didn't mean that in a legal sense.

My precise phrase was -

"Though as we know, it is almost impossible to be convicted of dangerous
driving."

You started wittering on about there being no such thing as dangerous
driving unless the law finds culprit to be guilty.

You're claiming that the law has a monopoly on words.

What, pray, is a non-legal conviction of a crime?

You have just added a question mark after a string of random words.