Lorry driver gets a soaking

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 22:56:45 +0100
Tony Dragon wrote:

All I see is a cyclist attacking a driver, no view of what might have
happened before.

Cyclist squirting water at driver - technically an assault, but nothing
compared to the driver's reaction. Squirting cyclists with the
windscreen washer is a chav favourite trick, but pretty insignificant
really.

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 11:44:30 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2016 20:40, Simon Jester wrote:


But assault with a deadly weapon/ attempted murder is Ok with you?

Thank you for confirming that you do not come into the category of
"intelligent people".

It doesn't matter what you "think".


And off we go with the childish insult.

No matter what the primary road user did, the subsidised road user should face a minimum of a life driving ban and 20 years prison.

You will need to learn to speak in English (and in English words with
ordinary meanings) if you wish to engage with others on such topics.

Which of my words are not in the OED?

On 06/08/2016 16:28, Rob Morley wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:

All I see is a cyclist attacking a driver, no view of what might have
happened before.

Cyclist squirting water at driver - technically an assault,

No.

*Actually* an assault.

but nothing
compared to the driver's reaction. Squirting cyclists with the
windscreen washer is a chav favourite trick, but pretty insignificant
really.

What reaction?

The driver momentarily lost control of his vehicle on being assaulted by
a criminal but skilfully regained control within a second or two.

There is no jury (or magistrates' bench) who would draw a conclusion to
conflict with that. And you know that to be true.

On 06/08/2016 18:50, Simon Jester wrote:

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 11:44:30 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2016 20:40, Simon Jester wrote:

[having snipped the previous two lines which makes sense of the following:]

But assault with a deadly weapon/ attempted murder is Ok with you?

Thank you for confirming that you do not come into the category of
"intelligent people".
It doesn't matter what you "think".

And off we go with the childish insult.

No matter what the primary road user did, the subsidised road user should face a minimum of a life driving ban and 20 years prison.

You will need to learn to speak in English (and in English words with
ordinary meanings) if you wish to engage with others on such topics.

Which of my words are not in the OED?

Don't be so stupid.

I appreciate that to some extent, you cannot help that. But even *you*
know you are being silly.

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 9:52:09 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

I appreciate that to some extent, you cannot help that. But even *you*
know you are being silly.

And the childish insults continue.

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 9:49:02 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

The driver momentarily lost control of his vehicle on being assaulted by
a criminal but skilfully regained control within a second or two.


Yet the 'assault' took place while the motor vehicle was stationary.
Apparently the driver only lost control later when, conveniently, beside the victim.

There is no jury (or magistrates' bench) who would draw a conclusion to
conflict with that. And you know that to be true.

Exactly.

On 06/08/2016 22:24, Simon Jester wrote:

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 9:52:09 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

I appreciate that to some extent, you cannot help that [being
stupid - but Jester snipped that - again]. But even *you* know
you are being silly.

And the childish insults continue.

If you didn't behave so childishly it would not be necessary to point
that you are doing so.

Would it?

On 06/08/2016 22:50, Simon Jester wrote:

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 9:49:02 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

The driver momentarily lost control of his vehicle on being assaulted by
a criminal but skilfully regained control within a second or two.

Yet the 'assault' took place while the motor vehicle was stationary.

Wrong.

Apparently the driver only lost control later when, conveniently, beside the victim.

The real-time video shows no such thing.

There are two separate renditions, one in real-time and one is
slow-motion. You seem confused as to the difference.

There is no jury (or magistrates' bench) who would draw a conclusion to
conflict with that. And you know that to be true.

Exactly.

Of course.

Because it's the truth.

That criminal chav on the bike was even more stupid than you usually try
to make yourself look. And that's saying something.

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:59:57 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2016 22:50, Simon Jester wrote:


Exactly.

Of course.

Because it's the truth.

That criminal chav on the bike was even more stupid than you usually try
to make yourself look. And that's saying something.

And the childish insults just keep on coming.

On 06/08/2016 23:19, Simon Jester wrote:

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:59:57 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2016 22:50, Simon Jester wrote:

[In response to the commomsense observation that no court will convict
the victim of an assault for momentary loss of control when assaulted by
a chav on a bike, though Jester prefers to try to remove that context:]

Exactly.

Of course.
Because it's the truth.
That criminal chav on the bike was even more stupid than you usually try
to make yourself look. And that's saying something.

And the childish insults just keep on coming.

You're the one who acts daft.

It *is* an act, isn't it?