|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 05/09/2019 09:24, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/09/2019 07:47, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 12:06:28 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/2019 12:37, JNugent wrote: The report clearly states that the victim was on foot on the "pavement" (properly known as the "footway" for good and rather obvious reasons) and that the offender was also on the footway, on a bicycle. What did the "offender" do to the "victim"? He pushed her into the road. The report clearly states the victim was cycling along the road. Indeed, that is the way it was reported. I was enquiring about what happened in Nugent's alternative universe. "He pushed her into the road." So she was not "in the road". She was cycling on the footway. That's an offence. She is the offender. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
JNugent wrote:
On 05/09/2019 09:24, TMS320 wrote: On 05/09/2019 07:47, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 12:06:28 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/2019 12:37, JNugent wrote: The report clearly states that the victim was on foot on the "pavement" (properly known as the "footway" for good and rather obvious reasons) and that the offender was also on the footway, on a bicycle. What did the "offender" do to the "victim"? He pushed her into the road. The report clearly states the victim was cycling along the road. Indeed, that is the way it was reported. I was enquiring about what happened in Nugent's alternative universe. "He pushed her into the road." So she was not "in the road". She was cycling on the footway. That's an offence. She is the offender. You are replying to a couple of silly suicyclists that will do say anything to defend their silly hobby. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 9:24:07 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/09/2019 07:47, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 12:06:28 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/2019 12:37, JNugent wrote: The report clearly states that the victim was on foot on the "pavement" (properly known as the "footway" for good and rather obvious reasons) and that the offender was also on the footway, on a bicycle. What did the "offender" do to the "victim"? He pushed her into the road. The report clearly states the victim was cycling along the road. Indeed, that is the way it was reported. I was enquiring about what happened in Nugent's alternative universe. Why bother asking. In Nugents' world the cyclist is always at fault. Go easy on them otherwise it will be "I'll scwean and scweam and scweam until we're sick". |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 05/09/2019 12:15, JNugent wrote:
On 05/09/2019 00:06, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/2019 12:37, JNugent wrote: The report clearly states that the victim was on foot on the "pavement" (properly known as the "footway" for good and rather obvious reasons) and that the offender was also on the footway, on a bicycle. What did the "offender" do to the "victim"? The "victim" was threatened by the "offender's" dangerous behaviour, of course. (Note I have put back the quotes.) You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. There's a reason why cycling along footways is not allowed. Have a think and see whether you can guess what it is. But in any event, any citizen is entitled to point out that an offender's illegal behaviour is... er... illegal, and to remonstrate with the offender. That is true. That is not the same as attempted murder. Not that offending cyclists are susceptible to any sense of shame or social responsibility, of course. It certainly is not peculiar to cyclists. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 06/09/2019 00:20, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/09/2019 12:15, JNugent wrote: On 05/09/2019 00:06, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/2019 12:37, JNugent wrote: The report clearly states that the victim was on foot on the "pavement" (properly known as the "footway" for good and rather obvious reasons) and that the offender was also on the footway, on a bicycle. What did the "offender" do to the "victim"? The "victim" was threatened by the "offender's" dangerous behaviour, of course. (Note I have put back the quotes.) You can do as you like. It doesn't make cycling along the "pavement" lawful. You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. Ask the victim whether he was in danger from the illegal cycling, not me. He's the only one who can judge it. And he had a right to remonstrate at the very least. There's a reason why cycling along footways is not allowed. Have a think and see whether you can guess what it is. But in any event, any citizen is entitled to point out that an offender's illegal behaviour is... er... illegal, and to remonstrate with the offender. That is true. That is not the same as attempted murder. Have you got any other little gems from your CSE in "The Bleedin' Obvious" that you'd like to share? But preferably ones that have something to do with the case. Not that offending cyclists are susceptible to any sense of shame or social responsibility, of course. Â*It certainly is not peculiar to cyclists. No-one said it was. But as you know, it is very characteristic of far too many cyclists. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 06/09/2019 00:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/09/2019 00:20, TMS320 wrote: On 05/09/2019 12:15, JNugent wrote: On 05/09/2019 00:06, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/2019 12:37, JNugent wrote: The report clearly states that the victim was on foot on the "pavement" (properly known as the "footway" for good and rather obvious reasons) and that the offender was also on the footway, on a bicycle. What did the "offender" do to the "victim"? The "victim" was threatened by the "offender's" dangerous behaviour, of course. (Note I have put back the quotes.) You can do as you like. It doesn't make cycling along the "pavement" lawful. Whether or not they did something against the rules is irrelevant to final situation. You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. Ask the victim whether he was in danger from the illegal cycling, not me. He's the only one who can judge it. And he had a right to remonstrate at the very least. I was telling you not asking. There's a reason why cycling along footways is not allowed. Have a think and see whether you can guess what it is. The reason is a law going back to 1835. The basic idea being to provide an area that would be clear of animal ****. But in any event, any citizen is entitled to point out that an offender's illegal behaviour is... er... illegal, and to remonstrate with the offender. That is true. That is not the same as attempted murder. Have you got any other little gems from your CSE in "The Bleedin' Obvious" that you'd like to share? But preferably ones that have something to do with the case. Don't be stupid. Not that offending cyclists are susceptible to any sense of shame or social responsibility, of course. It certainly is not peculiar to cyclists. No-one said it was. It is clear enough. But as you know, it is very characteristic of far too many cyclists. They don't need to be better than everybody else. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 05/09/2019 23:38, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 05/09/2019 09:24, TMS320 wrote: On 05/09/2019 07:47, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 12:06:28 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/2019 12:37, JNugent wrote: The report clearly states that the victim was on foot on the "pavement" (properly known as the "footway" for good and rather obvious reasons) and that the offender was also on the footway, on a bicycle. What did the "offender" do to the "victim"? He pushed her into the road. The report clearly states the victim was cycling along the road. Indeed, that is the way it was reported. I was enquiring about what happened in Nugent's alternative universe. "He pushed her into the road." So she was not "in the road". She was cycling on the footway. That's an offence. She is the offender. You are replying to a couple of silly suicyclists that will do say anything to defend their silly hobby. Pounder is widely considered the most disgusting animal in the ocean, if not on earth. The eel-shaped creature uses four pairs of thin sensory tentacles surrounding its mouth to find food—including carcasses of much larger animals. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 06/09/2019 08:38, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/09/2019 00:31, JNugent wrote: On 06/09/2019 00:20, TMS320 wrote: On 05/09/2019 12:15, JNugent wrote: On 05/09/2019 00:06, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/2019 12:37, JNugent wrote: The report clearly states that the victim was on foot on the "pavement" (properly known as the "footway" for good and rather obvious reasons) and that the offender was also on the footway, on a bicycle. What did the "offender" do to the "victim"? The "victim" was threatened by the "offender's" dangerous behaviour, of course. (Note I have put back the quotes.) You can do as you like. It doesn't make cycling along the "pavement" lawful. Whether or not they did something against the rules is irrelevant to final situation. What "final situation"? You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. Ask the victim whether he was in danger from the illegal cycling, not me. He's the only one who can judge it. And he had a right to remonstrate at the very least. I was telling you not asking. That's even sillier than your previous position. There's a reason why cycling along footways is not allowed. Have a think and see whether you can guess what it is. The reason is a law going back to 1835. The basic idea being to provide an area that would be clear of animal ****. You're really scraping that barrel. But in any event, any citizen is entitled to point out that an offender's illegal behaviour is... er... illegal, and to remonstrate with the offender. That is true. That is not the same as attempted murder. Have you got any other little gems from your CSE in "The Bleedin' Obvious" that you'd like to share? But preferably ones that have something to do with the case. Don't be stupid. Not that offending cyclists are susceptible to any sense of shame or social responsibility, of course. It certainly is not peculiar to cyclists. No-one said it was. It is clear enough. But as you know, it is very characteristic of far too many cyclists. They don't need to be better than everybody else. And there is, as we all know, very little danger of that. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 8:38:21 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
Whether or not they did something against the rules is irrelevant to final situation. You are wasting your time. Nugents will never admit he is wrong. They will keep reducing the discussion to the tiny, tiny kernel of argument he has not lost and pretend that was what the argument was all about. There is no evidence in the report that the victim was cycling on the footway. 'Pushed into the road' could mean many things. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 06/09/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 8:38:21 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: Whether or not they did something against the rules is irrelevant to final situation. You are wasting your time. Nugents will never admit he is wrong. They will keep reducing the discussion to the tiny, tiny kernel of argument he has not lost and pretend that was what the argument was all about. There is no evidence in the report that the victim was cycling on the footway. 'Pushed into the road' could mean many things. It means the cyclist was not "in the road" in the first place. It cannot mean anything else, since one cannot be pushed from the road into the road. Not in ordinary English, at any rate. But you can twist and turn as much as you like. The cyclist was on the footway. Or maybe... perhaps... they were levitating above the road and were forced down onto the surface by the pedestrian. That would be one of the "many" things you are trying to insist that "pushed into the road" might mean. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Giro d'Italia Stage 3: Goss takes win as crash brings downCavendish and takes out leader Phinney too | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 0 | May 8th 12 12:43 PM |
Hands | gagtape | Unicycling | 13 | August 9th 07 12:00 AM |
Look Ma! No hands! | Paul Weaver | UK | 33 | August 4th 06 05:29 PM |
Look, Ma. No hands! | Henry | Recumbent Biking | 18 | August 13th 04 07:36 PM |
ok, hands up | jim beam | Techniques | 58 | September 13th 03 03:00 PM |