Woman crushes neighbour's car

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:25:12 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:46:51 -0800 (PST), BrianW
wrote:

The evidence has to show that the defendant was grossly negligent -
it's a higher standard than ordinary negligence. The CPS will
decide whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution
before it gets before a jury.

Perhaps ordinary negligence should suffice, especially if it makes
drivers take more care.

Does your use of the word "drivers" include those who are driving al
types of road vehicle?

I would have no problem with a cyclist who killed while cycling being
charged with manslaughter.

Why do you think that a charge of manslaughter is preferable to the present
charge which carries a greater maximum penalty?

On 18 Jan, 22:14, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:54:31 -0000, "Brimstone"





wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:56 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

There has to be sufficient evidence to indicate that the offence had
been committed for the prosecution authorities to even take the case
to court.

Like killing four people while driving with defective tyres?

Have you any evidence that the tyres which you allege were defective were
directly responsible for causing these deaths that you refer to?

Indirectly responsible will do. �The vehicle should not have been on
the road.-

That's a novel approach to the legal issue of causation. Do you have
any legal authorities to back that up? Or did you just pluck it out
of your anus?

Tom Crispin wrote:

Please don't stop posting your diatribe. It always raises a smile on
my face when you manage to get so much wrong.

Perhaps now you understand the amusement that you provide for others.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:58:41 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:30:09 +0000,
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:05:47 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:42:01 +0000, Marc
wrote:

Well I'm a cyclist, with an interest in environmental matters, and I
find Dughs posts not only embarrarising but counter productive; anyone else?

I would put him on a par with Troll B, but his posts are marginally
better than Troll J's diatribe.


Now, now - that was not very nice was it?

The truth can be painful.

Did you encourage the kids in the photo to wear their helmets?

No.

I guess you must have done so - well done - and keep up the good work.

Wrong. It is a school rule, rather like some schools have ridiculous
rules about uniforms.


Hehehehehe.
Please don't stop posting your diatribe. It always raises a smile on
my face when you manage to get so much wrong.


Will do.

As the teacher who appears to have some responsibility at the school
for cycling - have you told the school and Governors that the "wear
a helmet rule" is ridiculous - or perhaps you don't think it is. Any
comment?

On 18 Jan, 22:24, "Brimstone" wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:54:31 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:56 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

There has to be sufficient evidence to indicate that the offence
had been committed for the prosecution authorities to even take
the case to court.

Like killing four people while driving with defective tyres?

Have you any evidence that the tyres which you allege were defective
were directly responsible for causing these deaths that you refer to?

Indirectly responsible will do.

Not in a court of law it won't.

�The vehicle should not have been on
the road.

That's beside the point. The fact is that it was. Now, answer the question,
"Have you any evidence that the tyres which you allege were defective were
directly responsible for causing these deaths that you refer to?"-

I do believe that Mr Crispin is a sock puppet of Gollum, AICMFP.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:50:06 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On 18 Jan 2009 22:22:40 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Tom Crispin gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

There are decisions before a case goes to court, you can not take every
accident to court.

It would be trivial to prosecute for manslaughter or murder every fatal
killing where a motorist has killed an innocent party.

Indeed it would.

It would also be utterly counter-productive, since the prosecutions would
undoubtedly be thrown out of court - with the side-effect that the driver
couldn't be then prosecuted for a different offence which there would be
a good chance of securing a conviction on.

With such sparkling insight, are you sure you're not a legal professional?

I have never claimed to be in the legal profession - but I do have a
sense of right and wrong.

Take this case.

==========

A restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a cyclist in
Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and banned from
driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on Wednesday.



Ah yes - that case - you were very unhappy about it.

Am I right in saying that you published the names and addresses of
the restaurants which you thought the defendant owned?

At the time it was said that it was to encourage vigilantes to take
their own action as you didn't think the punishment was appropriate.


judith

--


Compulsory helmet wearing is a 'safety measure' whose costs fall
entirely on the cyclist; no government is spending required. It is an
attractive quick fix.
Guy Chapman

wrote in message
...

Compulsory helmet wearing is a 'safety measure' whose costs fall
entirely on the cyclist; no government is spending required. It is an
attractive quick fix.

All right, how about this for a policy: "If you take all reasonable
precautions for your safety by wearing a seatbelt or a helmet, whichever is
relevant, the State will be responsible for trying to save your life. If, on
the other hand, you choose not to wear a seat belt or helmet, the State will
be entitled to wash its hands of you."

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:46:59 -0000, "Mortimer" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

Compulsory helmet wearing is a 'safety measure' whose costs fall
entirely on the cyclist; no government is spending required. It is an
attractive quick fix.

All right, how about this for a policy: "If you take all reasonable
precautions for your safety by wearing a seatbelt or a helmet, whichever is
relevant, the State will be responsible for trying to save your life. If, on
the other hand, you choose not to wear a seat belt or helmet, the State will
be entitled to wash its hands of you."





Ambulance turns up at accident - cyclist lying on floor - no helmet -
leave him there - serves him right.

Excellent - go with it.

On Jan 18, 11:57*pm, ziggy wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:46:59 -0000, "Mortimer" wrote:
wrote in message
.. .

Compulsory helmet wearing is a 'safety measure' whose costs fall
entirely on the cyclist; no government is spending required. It is an
attractive quick fix.

All right, how about this for a policy: "If you take all reasonable
precautions for your safety by wearing a seatbelt or a helmet, whichever is
relevant, the State will be responsible for trying to save your life. If, on
the other hand, you choose not to wear a seat belt or helmet, the State will
be entitled to wash its hands of you."

Ambulance turns up at accident - cyclist lying on floor *- no helmet -
leave him there - serves him right.

Excellent - go with it.

Why stop there? Fire crew turn up, driver is in burning car but not
wearing Nomex suit, fire crew stands back and toasts marshmallows on
his corpse.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:14:33 -0800 (PST), BrianW
wrote:

On 18 Jan, 22:18, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:46:51 -0800 (PST), BrianW

wrote:
The evidence has to show that the defendant was grossly negligent -
it's a higher standard than ordinary negligence. ?The CPS will decide
whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution before it
gets before a jury.

Perhaps ordinary negligence should suffice, especially if it makes
drivers take more care.

Really? So you'd be in favour of applying the civil law definition of
negligence (failure to take reasonable care towards a person to whom
you owe a duty of care) to all killings. Gosh, the jails will fill up
rather quickly.

Or perhaps you are only in favour of such a move in respect of killer
drivers? If so, I offer you "causing death by dangerous driving" and
"causing death by careless driving".

Are you another of these people, like Doug, who likes to criticise
things without bothering to find out anything about it? It would seem
so ...

A man who shot and killed his son was charged with manslaughter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1494...-fox-hunt.html

Why should killing with a car be treated differently from killing with
a gun?