Cyclist killers in local paper.

Story of the two men jailed for killing a local cyclist:

http://qurl.net/iz

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

On Sat, 30 Jul, Simon Mason wrote:
Story of the two men jailed for killing a local cyclist:

http://qurl.net/iz


First few times, that gave a document moved screen enticing one to go
to http://www.warcity.nl/click.php?clan=Outblast which has some dutch
and an invitation to click a button which gives more dutch (at least,
it looks like it's probably dutch) and a link to go to
http://www.warcity.nl which is mostly dutch but a snippet of english -
"WarCity.nl is de Online Recruiting Game!"

At about the third attempt, it redirected to where it should have.
Odd.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
Story of the two men jailed for killing a local cyclist:

http://qurl.net/iz

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net


What gets my goat is the comment, "Humberside chief crown prosecutor Nigel
Cowgill said the death was an "appalling" accident." There is nothing
'accidental' about being stuck from behind by two twunts using city streets
as a race track, and one driver was already disqualified from driving and
the other hadn't even passed his test. But what the heck, it was only a
cyclist... :-(

Cheers, helen s

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:58:04 +0100, "wafflycat"
waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk wrote:


"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
Story of the two men jailed for killing a local cyclist:

http://qurl.net/iz

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net


What gets my goat is the comment, "Humberside chief crown prosecutor Nigel
Cowgill said the death was an "appalling" accident." There is nothing
'accidental' about being stuck from behind by two twunts using city streets
as a race track, and one driver was already disqualified from driving and
the other hadn't even passed his test.

Actually, there is.

They did not set out to hit the cyclist, nor intend to do so, so it was an
accident.

The law, however, does not allow someone to escape culpability merely because
something is an accident.

"Steven" wrote in message
...
What gets my goat is the comment, "Humberside chief crown prosecutor Nigel
Cowgill said the death was an "appalling" accident." There is nothing
'accidental' about being stuck from behind by two twunts using city
streets
as a race track, and one driver was already disqualified from driving and
the other hadn't even passed his test.

Actually, there is.

They did not set out to hit the cyclist, nor intend to do so, so it was an
accident.

The law, however, does not allow someone to escape culpability merely
because
something is an accident.


Thank you. I do wish people would stop trying to change the language.

While I think the prison sentences are appropriate. I think it is time we
introduced lifetime driving bans.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:10:21 GMT someone who may be
(Steven) wrote this:-

They did not set out to hit the cyclist, nor intend to do so,

Presumably the case, though I am not sure how you can say that with
certainty.

so it was an accident.

Incorrect. Using the roads as a race track is quite likely to cause
people to be killed or injured. Rather more likely than using the
roads responsibly.

Deciding to use the roads as a race track was presumably not
something they were forced to do. Thus the killing was not an
accident, but the likely result of a decision freely made.

I do get fed up of people trying to excuse people's actions by using
inappropriate words. Calling things which are not accidental
accidents is a particularly nasty example of this attempt to excuse
people's actions.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:54:20 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:10:21 GMT someone who may be
(Steven) wrote this:-

They did not set out to hit the cyclist, nor intend to do so,

Presumably the case, though I am not sure how you can say that with
certainty.

Oh, God, not another twunt who thinks that even the most obvious statement needs
a public enquirey to be taken as valid.

so it was an accident.

Incorrect.

Nope.

Using the roads as a race track is quite likely to cause
people to be killed or injured. Rather more likely than using the
roads responsibly.

You are mixing culpability with intent (again).

Buy yourself a dictionary and look up the relevant words.

Deciding to use the roads as a race track was presumably not
something they were forced to do. Thus the killing was not an
accident, but the likely result of a decision freely made.

I do get fed up of people trying to excuse people's actions by using
inappropriate words.

Well, if you actually took the trouble to understand the words in question, you
might spend a little less time getting fed up!

As a side effect, you would not make an ass of yourself on USENET.

Calling things which are not accidental
accidents is a particularly nasty example of this attempt to excuse
people's actions.

But that is not what happened here.

The morons didn't have the wit to forsee the result of their actions, and thus
that result was an accident, whether you like it or not.

I submit that on or about Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:59:31 +0100, the person
known to the court as "Robert" made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to the
following effect:

Thank you. I do wish people would stop trying to change the language.

Nobody is trying to change the language, but the word "accident" is
emotive, implying that an event could not be foreseen or prevented
(and yes, the formal definition does allow for a foreseeable but
undesired event, but we're talking here about what is understood by
the man on the Clapham omnibus, as it were).

Most fatal road traffic casualties are the result of negligence and it
is now common practice to use terms like "incident", "collision" and
"casualty" (e.g. the road traffic casualty stats have been renamed
Road Casualties Great Britain). This is slightly more acceptable to
victims and families.

In the specific case cited, though, the drivers drove without regard
to life. The standard of driving fell so far below normal and
acceptable standards as to stretch the definition of the word
"accident" well beyond breaking point, in my view. They had gone
beyond simple negligence and into recklessness.

Reckless conduct is an extreme departure form ordinary care; careless
to the point of being heedless of consequences. If a shotgun had been
involved instead of a car, the charge would almost certainly have been
manslaughter. Actually I think the charge should have been
manslaughter anyway, as in "The unlawful killing of a human being
without malice or premeditation, either express or implied".

The worse of the two was disqualified, uninsured, racing on a public
road at double the limit, and failed to stop after killing someone.
Accident, you think? Honestly?


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:51:42 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

I submit that on or about Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:59:31 +0100, the person
known to the court as "Robert" made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to the
following effect:

Thank you. I do wish people would stop trying to change the language.

Nobody is trying to change the language,

Yes they are, Guy.

You are.

As usual, you increasingly manic obsession with blame causes you to take a word
with a well known meaning and try and give it an attribute it simply doesn't
posess.

but the word "accident" is
emotive,

Only to those who do not understand its meaning.

implying that an event could not be foreseen or prevented

Thus all cycling accidents could be forseen and prevented by simply not cycling.

It won't wash, Guy. Give it up!

(and yes, the formal definition does allow for a foreseeable but
undesired event, but we're talking here about what is understood by
the man on the Clapham omnibus, as it were).

And the man on the CO, together with the vast majority of the rest of the
country is quite capable of understanding that an accident does not imply any
lack of culpability.

The worse of the two was disqualified, uninsured, racing on a public
road at double the limit, and failed to stop after killing someone.
Accident, you think? Honestly?

Yes.

It was an accident where two parties were held culable, and the nature of their
offence was *extremely* serious (the sentences seem scandalously light, to me).

Please, Guy, learn the difference between culpability and intent and stop
tilting at windmills.

I submit that on or about Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:51:12 +0100, the person
known to the court as "Robert" made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to the
following effect:

Nobody is trying to change the language, but the word "accident" is
emotive, implying that an event could not be foreseen or prevented
(and yes, the formal definition does allow for a foreseeable but
undesired event, but we're talking here about what is understood by
the man on the Clapham omnibus, as it were).

Yes she was, she was saying it wasn't an accident when clearly it was.

In this case the driving was sufficiently reckless that I don't think
it is reasonable to use the word accident. I think to do so is
insulting to the victim's family. It is an emotive term.

And since we will never agree on that, I'll leave it there.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken