Killer motorist given a slap on the wrist, as usual.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

My point of view on any case like this has been stated in the past.

Where? Source? Quote? Why are you so reluctant to present your POV? Do
you fear that it might be challenged?

Perhaps if he were to post messageIDs to the posts in question?

On 14/04/2011 07:41, Doug wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:42 pm, Tony wrote:
On 13/04/2011 07:25, Doug wrote:



On Apr 11, 6:32 pm, Tony wrote:
On 11/04/2011 07:31, Doug wrote:

On Apr 8, 6:17 pm, Tony wrote:
On 08/04/2011 17:39, Doug wrote:

He had been previously banned from driving when he killed the girl and
did a runner.

"...Ibrahim was convicted of driving while disqualified and failing to
stop after the accident. He also had previous convictions."

So how could this get any worse?

From the BBC.

"A government bid to deport a failed asylum seeker who killed a 12-
year-old girl in a hit-and-run in Lancashire has been rejected by the
Court of Appeal.

Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd who was banned from driving, left
Amy Houston dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn in 2003.

The 33-year-old was jailed for four months but allowed to remain in
the UK, with his family, on his release..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-12021243

Isn't it about now that you say I admire the man& that I defend his
actions?

Isn't it about time you revealed your own point of view instead of
always trying to extract them from others?

My point of view is on record, as are your lies.

You have not stated your point of view on the above case yet. Instead
you have merely prevaricated, as usual.


My point of view on any case like this has been stated in the past.

Where? Source? Quote? Why are you so reluctant to present your POV? Do
you fear that it might be challenged?

Doug.

I'm not doing my work for you.
Try going to Google Groups & doing a search.

Doug wrote:

Where? Source? Quote?

What's the point of anyone giving you those, Doug?

You see, when I and others did in the "Euopean campaign to ensure that all
cosmetics sold in the EU are cruelty-free!" thread here just three days ago,
you just went silent. Why didn't you reply to apologise for all your errors
and for trying to stir people into rebellion over nothing?

Why are you so reluctant to present your POV? Do you fear that it might
be challenged?

I think that's a question you should be answering actually in the thread I
mentioned.

On 13/04/2011 17:40, Doug wrote:
On Apr 13, 12:48 pm, wrote:
"Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Isn't it about time you revealed your own point of view instead of
always trying to extract them from others?
My point of view is on record, as are your lies.
You have not stated your point of view on the above case yet.
As you have not yet stated your view on the fact that the judge was
acting to protect the motorist's human rights.

What human rights should a killer have, apart from a fair trial and a
proportionate punishment?...

The decison was made under Article 2, the right to life, and Article 8,
the right to respect for his family life. As a champion of human rights,
you should applaud that.

Colin Bignell

On 13/04/2011 12:48, Adrian wrote:
"Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Isn't it about time you revealed your own point of view instead of
always trying to extract them from others?

My point of view is on record, as are your lies.

You have not stated your point of view on the above case yet.

As you have not yet stated your view on the fact that the judge was
acting to protect the motorist's human rights.

To be more accurate, it's not his human rights that were being protected,
but the human rights of his (all British-born& nationality) family.

The decision is reported as being based upon both his right to life and
*his* right to a family life.

Colin Bignell

On Apr 14, 7:49*am, Doug wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:14*pm, JNugent wrote:



On 13/04/2011 17:40, Doug wrote:

On Apr 13, 12:48 pm, *wrote:
"Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere *gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Isn't it about time you revealed your own point of view instead of
always trying to extract them from others?
My point of view is on record, as are your lies.
You have not stated your point of view on the above case yet.
As you have not yet stated your view on the fact that the judge was
acting to protect the motorist's human rights.

What human rights should a killer have, apart from a fair trial and a
proportionate punishment?

To be more accurate, it's not his human rights that were being protected,
but the human rights of his (all British-born& *nationality) family.

Oh I see, so immigrant killers should be given a special dispensation
now for the sake of their families. What about the rights of the dead
victim's family?

Quite.

The parents of the dead teenage girl killed by that arrogant cyclist must
have been outraged that he could not be properly punished.

I'm so glad you agree.

Which cyclist and dead girl are you referring to? Fortunately cyclist
kill far fewer people than motorists and are much less dangerous.

I fully support an adequate punishment for any killer, instead of the
slaps on the wrist that are used at present. I find it incredible that
the loss of human lives in Britain should be treated so casually just
because so many are lost on roads.

How about responding to the thread about animal testing on cosmetics,
Doug? You've gone strangely silent on that, and I can't think why.

On 14/04/2011 07:41, Doug wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:42 pm, Tony wrote:
On 13/04/2011 07:25, Doug wrote:



On Apr 11, 6:32 pm, Tony wrote:
On 11/04/2011 07:31, Doug wrote:

On Apr 8, 6:17 pm, Tony wrote:
On 08/04/2011 17:39, Doug wrote:

He had been previously banned from driving when he killed the girl and
did a runner.

"...Ibrahim was convicted of driving while disqualified and failing to
stop after the accident. He also had previous convictions."

So how could this get any worse?

From the BBC.

"A government bid to deport a failed asylum seeker who killed a 12-
year-old girl in a hit-and-run in Lancashire has been rejected by the
Court of Appeal.

Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd who was banned from driving, left
Amy Houston dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn in 2003.

The 33-year-old was jailed for four months but allowed to remain in
the UK, with his family, on his release..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-12021243

Isn't it about now that you say I admire the man& that I defend his
actions?

Isn't it about time you revealed your own point of view instead of
always trying to extract them from others?

My point of view is on record, as are your lies.

You have not stated your point of view on the above case yet. Instead
you have merely prevaricated, as usual.


My point of view on any case like this has been stated in the past.

Where? Source? Quote? Why are you so reluctant to present your POV? Do
you fear that it might be challenged?

Doug.

You posted lies that I admired & defended the Brazilian motorists
involved with CM, I asked you to back up those lies, you have failed to
do so & failed to respond.
How about an answer or are you running scared?

On Apr 14, 7:41*am, Doug wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:42*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 13/04/2011 07:25, Doug wrote:

On Apr 11, 6:32 pm, Tony *wrote:
On 11/04/2011 07:31, Doug wrote:

On Apr 8, 6:17 pm, Tony * *wrote:
On 08/04/2011 17:39, Doug wrote:

He had been previously banned from driving when he killed the girl and
did a runner.

"...Ibrahim was convicted of driving while disqualified and failing to
stop after the accident. He also had previous convictions."

So how could this get any worse?

* *From the BBC.

"A government bid to deport a failed asylum seeker who killed a 12-
year-old girl in a hit-and-run in Lancashire has been rejected by the
Court of Appeal.

Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd who was banned from driving, left
Amy Houston dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn in 2003.

The 33-year-old was jailed for four months but allowed to remain in
the UK, with his family, on his release..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-12021243

Isn't it about now that you say I admire the man& * *that I defend his
actions?

Isn't it about time you revealed your own point of view instead of
always trying to extract them from others?

My point of view is on record, as are your lies.

You have not stated your point of view on the above case yet. Instead
you have merely prevaricated, as usual.

My point of view on any case like this has been stated in the past.

Where? Source? Quote? Why are you so reluctant to present your POV? Do
you fear that it might be challenged?

Doug.

Oh that's good from the person who will not reply when challenged &
never does anything that he promised to do.

Tell you what, why don't you start with 'Vinces Report' it's been a
while now, you must have written it.

On Apr 14, 1:59*pm, webreader wrote:
On Apr 14, 7:41*am, Doug wrote:



On Apr 13, 6:42*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 13/04/2011 07:25, Doug wrote:

On Apr 11, 6:32 pm, Tony *wrote:
On 11/04/2011 07:31, Doug wrote:

On Apr 8, 6:17 pm, Tony * *wrote:
On 08/04/2011 17:39, Doug wrote:

He had been previously banned from driving when he killed the girl and
did a runner.

"...Ibrahim was convicted of driving while disqualified and failing to
stop after the accident. He also had previous convictions."

So how could this get any worse?

* *From the BBC.

"A government bid to deport a failed asylum seeker who killed a 12-
year-old girl in a hit-and-run in Lancashire has been rejected by the
Court of Appeal.

Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd who was banned from driving, left
Amy Houston dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn in 2003.

The 33-year-old was jailed for four months but allowed to remain in
the UK, with his family, on his release..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-12021243

Isn't it about now that you say I admire the man& * *that I defend his
actions?

Isn't it about time you revealed your own point of view instead of
always trying to extract them from others?

My point of view is on record, as are your lies.

You have not stated your point of view on the above case yet. Instead
you have merely prevaricated, as usual.

My point of view on any case like this has been stated in the past.

Where? Source? Quote? Why are you so reluctant to present your POV? Do
you fear that it might be challenged?

Doug.

Oh that's good from the person who will not reply when challenged &
never does anything that he promised to do.

Tell you what, why don't you start with 'Vinces Report' it's been a
while now, you must have written it.

Vince's Report???

On 14/04/2011 16:57, maresh wrote:
On Apr 14, 1:59 pm, wrote:
On Apr 14, 7:41 am, wrote:



On Apr 13, 6:42 pm, Tony wrote:

On 13/04/2011 07:25, Doug wrote:

On Apr 11, 6:32 pm, Tony wrote:
On 11/04/2011 07:31, Doug wrote:

On Apr 8, 6:17 pm, Tony wrote:
On 08/04/2011 17:39, Doug wrote:

He had been previously banned from driving when he killed the girl and
did a runner.

"...Ibrahim was convicted of driving while disqualified and failing to
stop after the accident. He also had previous convictions."

So how could this get any worse?

From the BBC.

"A government bid to deport a failed asylum seeker who killed a 12-
year-old girl in a hit-and-run in Lancashire has been rejected by the
Court of Appeal.

Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd who was banned from driving, left
Amy Houston dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn in 2003.

The 33-year-old was jailed for four months but allowed to remain in
the UK, with his family, on his release..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-12021243

Isn't it about now that you say I admire the man& that I defend his
actions?

Isn't it about time you revealed your own point of view instead of
always trying to extract them from others?

My point of view is on record, as are your lies.

You have not stated your point of view on the above case yet. Instead
you have merely prevaricated, as usual.

My point of view on any case like this has been stated in the past.

Where? Source? Quote? Why are you so reluctant to present your POV? Do
you fear that it might be challenged?

Doug.

Oh that's good from the person who will not reply when challenged&
never does anything that he promised to do.

Tell you what, why don't you start with 'Vinces Report' it's been a
while now, you must have written it.

Vince's Report???

Oh yes... I'd forgotten about the Vince Report.

Doug was going to analyse Vince's various residential location options and
explain how it would be possible for Vince and Mrs Vince to:

(a) live together (important!),

(b) have jobs thirty miles (or so) apart and with

(c) both of them able to walk to work.

I can't remember when it was promised (it's measured in years) but it must be
finished by now, surely?

Were you ever a cobbler, Doug?