|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Loopy driver "faces jailtime"
On 04/07/2019 23:32, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 17:30, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 13:05, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 12:34, MrCheerful wrote: why was the cyclist obstructing faster moving traffic?Â* He should have just pulled over to let the guy through, making rude gestures and weaving around is bound to annoy someone. One of them caused harm and broke the law. Which one was it? It sounds as though they both broke the law. Doesn't it? No. You are wrong yet again (though you know that and are just being childish). Wilful obstruction of the highway is an offence. There probably is such an offence but you appear to be in fantasy land. There is no suggestion that Her Majesty found him guilty of such an offence. You're justifying a criminal's actions again. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Loopy driver "faces jailtime"
On 05/07/2019 00:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:32, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 17:30, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 13:05, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 12:34, MrCheerful wrote: why was the cyclist obstructing faster moving traffic?Â* He should have just pulled over to let the guy through, making rude gestures and weaving around is bound to annoy someone. One of them caused harm and broke the law. Which one was it? It sounds as though they both broke the law. Doesn't it? No. You are wrong yet again (though you know that and are just being childish). Wilful obstruction of the highway is an offence. There probably is such an offence but you appear to be in fantasy land. There is no suggestion that Her Majesty found him guilty of such an offence. You're justifying a criminal's actions again. No-one said he had been convicted. You're off on one of your fantasy trails again. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Loopy driver "faces jailtime"
On 05/07/2019 02:20, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 00:47, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 23:32, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 17:30, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 13:05, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 12:34, MrCheerful wrote: why was the cyclist obstructing faster moving traffic?Â* He should have just pulled over to let the guy through, making rude gestures and weaving around is bound to annoy someone. One of them caused harm and broke the law. Which one was it? It sounds as though they both broke the law. Doesn't it? No. You are wrong yet again (though you know that and are just being childish). Wilful obstruction of the highway is an offence. There probably is such an offence but you appear to be in fantasy land. There is no suggestion that Her Majesty found him guilty of such an offence. You're justifying a criminal's actions again. No-one said he had been convicted. Correct. Then he committed no offence. You're off on one of your fantasy trails again. Perhaps I made the mistake of imagining that the law of this land is innocent until proven guilty. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Loopy driver "faces jailtime"
On 05/07/2019 19:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/07/2019 02:20, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 00:47, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 23:32, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 17:30, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 13:05, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 12:34, MrCheerful wrote: why was the cyclist obstructing faster moving traffic?Â* He should have just pulled over to let the guy through, making rude gestures and weaving around is bound to annoy someone. One of them caused harm and broke the law. Which one was it? It sounds as though they both broke the law. Doesn't it? No. You are wrong yet again (though you know that and are just being childish). Wilful obstruction of the highway is an offence. There probably is such an offence but you appear to be in fantasy land. There is no suggestion that Her Majesty found him guilty of such an offence. You're justifying a criminal's actions again. No-one said he had been convicted. Correct. Then he committed no offence. You are committing the OJ Simpson fallacy. Remember: if "no conviction" means "no offence committed", than hardly anyone ever breaks a speed limit. You're off on one of your fantasy trails again. Perhaps I made the mistake of imagining that the law of this land is innocent until proven guilty. Substitute the (correct) word "unless" for "until", and you are almost correct for legal purposes. And so hardly any driver ever breaks a speed limit. Don't blame me. *You* started it. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Loopy driver "faces jailtime"
On 06/07/2019 00:35, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 19:48, TMS320 wrote: On 05/07/2019 02:20, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 00:47, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 23:32, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 17:30, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 13:05, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 12:34, MrCheerful wrote: why was the cyclist obstructing faster moving traffic?Â* He should have just pulled over to let the guy through, making rude gestures and weaving around is bound to annoy someone. One of them caused harm and broke the law. Which one was it? It sounds as though they both broke the law. Doesn't it? No. You are wrong yet again (though you know that and are just being childish). Wilful obstruction of the highway is an offence. There probably is such an offence but you appear to be in fantasy land. There is no suggestion that Her Majesty found him guilty of such an offence. You're justifying a criminal's actions again. No-one said he had been convicted. Correct. Then he committed no offence. You are committing the OJ Simpson fallacy. Remember: if "no conviction" means "no offence committed", than hardly anyone ever breaks a speed limit. You're off on one of your fantasy trails again. Perhaps I made the mistake of imagining that the law of this land is innocent until proven guilty. Substitute the (correct) word "unless" for "until", and you are almost correct for legal purposes. And so hardly any driver ever breaks a speed limit... .... and cyclists don't ride on pavements or go past red traffic lights. On the other hand, speeding is very easy measure objectively. Whereas just because Nugent believes that a cyclist doing 15mph while not having a safe place to move over is causing an obstruction does not mean it would pass any test of obstruction. Besides, since the driver stopped to assault the boy after mowing him down, shows there was no time pressure in the situation. There is no offence of causing a driver's willy to shrivel. Don't blame me. *You* started it. You will have to do better than that after telling somebody they are being childish. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Loopy driver "faces jailtime"
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 20:38:19 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
Besides, since the driver stopped to assault the boy after mowing him down, shows there was no time pressure in the situation. There is no offence of causing a driver's willy to shrivel. I don't know why you try and argue with someone who seeks to defend a driver getting getting out of their car and punching a child in the face. They are clearly not going to be convinced by any rational discourse. Ignore him/her and give us all a break. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Loopy driver "faces jailtime"
On 08/07/2019 07:03, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 20:38:19 +0100, TMS320 wrote: Besides, since the driver stopped to assault the boy after mowing him down, shows there was no time pressure in the situation. There is no offence of causing a driver's willy to shrivel. I don't know why you try and argue with someone who seeks to defend a driver getting getting out of their car and punching a child in the face. They are clearly not going to be convinced by any rational discourse. Ignore him/her and give us all a break. Has anyone in fact spoken a single word in defence of that person convicted of assault? Not that I can see. But perhaps you've seen something I haven't. My sole contribution on that subject was that the person convicted will probably get 12 months, and maybe more. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Loopy driver "faces jailtime"
On 08/07/2019 07:03, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 20:38:19 +0100, TMS320 wrote: Besides, since the driver stopped to assault the boy after mowing him down, shows there was no time pressure in the situation. There is no offence of causing a driver's willy to shrivel. I don't know why you try and argue with someone who seeks to defend a driver getting getting out of their car and punching a child in the face. They are clearly not going to be convinced by any rational discourse. Ignore him/her and give us all a break. Yes, he's like a wasp at a picnic table. It's difficult to get the right balance but you don't have to read it. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Loopy driver "faces jailtime"
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:07:17 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/07/2019 07:03, Ian Smith wrote: On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 20:38:19 +0100, TMS320 wrote: Besides, since the driver stopped to assault the boy after mowing him down, shows there was no time pressure in the situation. There is no offence of causing a driver's willy to shrivel. I don't know why you try and argue with someone who seeks to defend a driver getting getting out of their car and punching a child in the face. They are clearly not going to be convinced by any rational discourse. Ignore him/her and give us all a break. Yes, he's like a wasp at a picnic table. It's difficult to get the right balance but you don't have to read it. That's like saying I don't need to worry about the turd floating in the swimming pool becasue I don't need to look at it. As I said, give us all a break, please. -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Loopy driver "faces jailtime"
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:18:41 -0000 (UTC)
Ian Smith wrote: That's like saying I don't need to worry about the turd floating in the swimming pool becasue I don't need to look at it. As I said, give us all a break, please. When I checked for the first time in a a few days I was astounded at the amount of ******** in this group, then realised that I'd forgotten to apply my filters. click click ;-) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Be safe on the roads" warning after cyclist's lamp blinds driver | Mr Pounder Esquire | UK | 6 | November 6th 17 12:52 PM |
"Out of control" driver jailed for three years after driving into cyclist | Alycidon | UK | 2 | November 7th 15 03:53 PM |
"Drink-driver admits killing cyclist in crash". | Doug[_3_] | UK | 26 | July 8th 14 09:31 AM |
"Driver mounted the footpath and drove through a crowd of pedestrians" | Doug[_3_] | UK | 8 | September 22nd 10 04:07 PM |
"Bicycle officer pursues 'careless' driver in Suffolk" | Doug[_3_] | UK | 1 | May 15th 10 09:27 AM |