Car used as weapon.

On 25/06/2012 21:26, Squashme wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2012 4:11:16 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/06/2012 11:41, Mrcheerful wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 25/06/2012 00:21, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2012 16:05, Nightjar wrote:
On 24/06/2012 12:35, JNugent wrote:
...
How did he happen to be on the bonnet of the car?

He was swept onto it when she drove the car off with him standing in
front of
it.

You saw that on the video, I assume.

I wonder why the report didn't say it? It's an obviously important
element of the story. The report simply placed him on the bonnet of a
car without an explanation....

Doug didn't quote this bit:

The incident happened after Mr Webster refused to buy a painting she
had offered for sale. He told her it was not suitable for his antique
shop and McGuigan left the shop.

She backed her car into the shop, and when Mr Webster went outside to
remonstrate with McGuigan he was swept up onto the bonnet. The car was
driven off as he stood in front of it.

Colin Bignell

the bit I read said that he deliberately stood in front in order to prevent
her driving away.

Does it explain what right he had to do that, or how doing so would be a wise
action with or without a right to do it?

Are you suggesting that he had no right to do it? Should not people do what seems right, even though it sometimes may involve personal risk?

Your last question can only be answered by reminding you of the difference
between rational, considered, thought on the one hand and rashness on the other.

As to "rights", I simply asked whether he had a right to try to prevent the
lady in the car from leaving the location. If he did, it'd be interesting to
know whence comes that right, because it might well be useful in certain
other circumstances (to the extent that it can be exercised without fatal or
other serious consequences).

*If* he "thought" that she was drunk and he still stood in front of her car...

...well, that seems foolhardy. I wouldn't do it, and I
don't expect you would either.

Not that it excuses the woman concerned.

On Jun 25, 9:26*pm, Squashme wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2012 4:11:16 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/06/2012 11:41, Mrcheerful wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 25/06/2012 00:21, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2012 16:05, Nightjar wrote:
On 24/06/2012 12:35, JNugent wrote:
...
How did he happen to be on the bonnet of the car?

He was swept onto it when she drove the car off with him standing in
front of
it.

You saw that on the video, I assume.

I wonder why the report didn't say it? It's an obviously important
element of the story. The report simply placed him on the bonnet of a
car without an explanation....

Doug didn't quote this bit:

The incident happened after Mr Webster refused to buy a painting she
had offered for sale. He told her it was not suitable for his antique
shop and McGuigan left the shop.

She backed her car into the shop, and when Mr Webster went outside to
remonstrate with McGuigan he was swept up onto the bonnet. The car was
driven off as he stood in front of it.

Colin Bignell

the bit I read said that he deliberately stood in front in order to prevent
her driving away.

Does it explain what right he had to do that, or how doing so would be a wise
action with or without a right to do it?

Are you suggesting that he had no right to do it? Should not people do what seems right, even though it sometimes may involve personal risk?

Only if he has been permitted or authorised by the landowner.
Permission is sometimes implied. As the encounter was on private land
then one would need to establish the wish of the landowner to judge
whether permission had been given or could be thought implied.

On Jun 25, 9:17*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 24, 9:17 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
Usual slap on the wrist for the driver. Would such a driver bother
about a cyclist getting in her way

Only if he refused to buy her paintings I suspect.

and yet she is still allowed on our roads,

Yet another error, Doug.

"She has also been banned from driving for two years and must retake
a driving test before she is allowed back on the road."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cGuigan-drove-....

Why don't you ever check your facts before you write your nonsense?

I used a different source.

As I said, why don't you ever check your facts before before you write
your nonsense?

According to your source the driver was high on speed at the time!

No it doesn't. *Can't you even read?

You are the one with the reading problem, as usual.

The headline clearly states...

"Angry customer who drove away with furious antique shop owner
clinging to her bonnet escapes jail after judge hears she was high on
speed".

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1ysXM5YLT


It just gets worse and worse doesn't it.

Obviously not.

Obviously it does if and when you learn to read your own sources
properly.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:17 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:

Usual slap on the wrist for the driver. Would such a driver bother
about a cyclist getting in her way

Only if he refused to buy her paintings I suspect.

and yet she is still allowed on our roads,

Yet another error, Doug.

"She has also been banned from driving for two years and must
retake a driving test before she is allowed back on the road."

Why don't you ever check your facts before you write your nonsense?

I used a different source.

As I said, why don't you ever check your facts before before you
write your nonsense?

According to your source the driver was high on speed at the time!

No it doesn't. Can't you even read?

You are the one with the reading problem, as usual.

The headline clearly states...

"Angry customer who drove away with furious antique shop owner
clinging to her bonnet escapes jail after judge hears she was high on
speed".

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1ysXM5YLT

Except that (a) it's not a headline, (b) it only says 'a judge heard',
whether what he heard was true or not, (c) it had nothing to do with any
of the charges brought against her, and (d) it had nothing to do with
anything she was convicted of or punished for.

It's typical Mail style innuendo. Hinting darkly but not daring to say
directly.

In any case, do you think there are any motorists here who condone her
actions? Or condemn her sentence?

On Jun 26, 8:59*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:17 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Usual slap on the wrist for the driver. Would such a driver bother
about a cyclist getting in her way

Only if he refused to buy her paintings I suspect.

and yet she is still allowed on our roads,

Yet another error, Doug.

"She has also been banned from driving for two years and must
retake a driving test before she is allowed back on the road."

Why don't you ever check your facts before you write your nonsense?

I used a different source.

As I said, why don't you ever check your facts before before you
write your nonsense?

According to your source the driver was high on speed at the time!

No it doesn't. Can't you even read?

You are the one with the reading problem, as usual.

The headline clearly states...

"Angry customer who drove away with furious antique shop owner
clinging to her bonnet escapes jail after judge hears she was high on
speed".

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cGuigan-drove-...

Except that (a) it's not a headline, (b) it only says 'a judge heard',
whether what he heard was true or not, (c) it had nothing to do with any
of the charges brought against her, and (d) it had nothing to do with
anything she was convicted of or punished for.

It's typical Mail style innuendo. *Hinting darkly but not daring to say
directly.

It is a rare occasion, they are probably spot on.


In any case, do you think there are any motorists here who condone her
actions? *Or condemn her sentence?

On Jun 26, 8:59*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:17 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Usual slap on the wrist for the driver. Would such a driver bother
about a cyclist getting in her way

Only if he refused to buy her paintings I suspect.

and yet she is still allowed on our roads,

Yet another error, Doug.

"She has also been banned from driving for two years and must
retake a driving test before she is allowed back on the road."

Why don't you ever check your facts before you write your nonsense?

I used a different source.

As I said, why don't you ever check your facts before before you
write your nonsense?

According to your source the driver was high on speed at the time!

No it doesn't. Can't you even read?

You are the one with the reading problem, as usual.

The headline clearly states...

"Angry customer who drove away with furious antique shop owner
clinging to her bonnet escapes jail after judge hears she was high on
speed".

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cGuigan-drove-...

Except that (a) it's not a headline,

Yes it is.

(b) it only says 'a judge heard',
whether what he heard was true or not,

We don't know whether she was actually 'high on speed' at the time,
but the report says:

'Judge Jonathan Durham-Hall QC said it was with ‘obvious reluctance’
that he handed out a suspended sentence but a psychiatric report
stated that McGuigan would relapse into substance abuse if she was
jailed.

'The court heard that McGuigan, from Colne, Lancshire, has now turned
her back on seven years of drink and amphetamine abuse.
[...]
'A psychiatric report stated she maybe on the bi-polar spectrum, but
now she is in a steady relationship and has stopped taking drugs and
drink she is able to manage her condition better.'

So, combined with her reported rather manic driving behaviour at the
time, not an entirely unreasonable imputation by the Mail.

(c) it had nothing to do with any
of the charges brought against her, and

Yes it had.

(d) it had nothing to do with
anything she was convicted of or punished for.

Yes it had.

It's typical Mail style innuendo. *Hinting darkly but not daring to say
directly.


As opposed to the NW style, in the above post at least, of daring to
say directly, but getting it more-or-less completely wrong.

Wot are you high on, Norman? Should we be calling for a psychiatric
report?


In any case, do you think there are any motorists here who condone her
actions? *Or condemn her sentence?

pensive hamster wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:59 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:17 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Usual slap on the wrist for the driver. Would such a driver
bother about a cyclist getting in her way

Only if he refused to buy her paintings I suspect.

and yet she is still allowed on our roads,

Yet another error, Doug.

"She has also been banned from driving for two years and must
retake a driving test before she is allowed back on the road."

Why don't you ever check your facts before you write your
nonsense?

I used a different source.

As I said, why don't you ever check your facts before before you
write your nonsense?

According to your source the driver was high on speed at the time!

No it doesn't. Can't you even read?

You are the one with the reading problem, as usual.

The headline clearly states...

"Angry customer who drove away with furious antique shop owner
clinging to her bonnet escapes jail after judge hears she was high
on speed".

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cGuigan-drove-...

Except that (a) it's not a headline,

Yes it is.

Yes it is! But it doesn't matter.

(b) it only says 'a judge heard',
whether what he heard was true or not,

We don't know whether she was actually 'high on speed' at the time,

Exactly. Doug took it as gospel, however, as he is wont to do with
anything he wants to believe.

but the report says:

'Judge Jonathan Durham-Hall QC said it was with ‘obvious reluctance’
that he handed out a suspended sentence but a psychiatric report
stated that McGuigan would relapse into substance abuse if she was
jailed.

'The court heard that McGuigan, from Colne, Lancshire, has now turned
her back on seven years of drink and amphetamine abuse.
[...]
'A psychiatric report stated she maybe on the bi-polar spectrum, but
now she is in a steady relationship and has stopped taking drugs and
drink she is able to manage her condition better.'

So, combined with her reported rather manic driving behaviour at the
time, not an entirely unreasonable imputation by the Mail.

I don't know how you can possibly come to that conclusion based on what
she did. It may be that she was. It may be that she wasn't. The owner
of the shop actually thought she was drunk, and he was there. There's a
bit of a difference between being high on speed and being drunk, isn't
there?

(c) it had nothing to do with any
of the charges brought against her, and

Yes it had.

Not according to the report. It says she pleaded guilty to grievous
bodily harm and dangerous driving. Not a word about driving while unfit
through drugs as far as I can see.

Do you have a better report that proves your point?

(d) it had nothing to do with
anything she was convicted of or punished for.

Yes it had.

Really? Not according to the report.

It's typical Mail style innuendo. Hinting darkly but not daring to
say directly.

As opposed to the NW style, in the above post at least, of daring to
say directly, but getting it more-or-less completely wrong.

I don't think so. At least not unless you can produce any evidence that
I have.

Wot are you high on, Norman? Should we be calling for a psychiatric
report?

If you want. What do you think it would conclude?

On Jun 26, 8:59*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:17 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Usual slap on the wrist for the driver. Would such a driver bother
about a cyclist getting in her way

Only if he refused to buy her paintings I suspect.

and yet she is still allowed on our roads,

Yet another error, Doug.

"She has also been banned from driving for two years and must
retake a driving test before she is allowed back on the road."

Why don't you ever check your facts before you write your nonsense?

I used a different source.

As I said, why don't you ever check your facts before before you
write your nonsense?

According to your source the driver was high on speed at the time!

No it doesn't. Can't you even read?

You are the one with the reading problem, as usual.

The headline clearly states...

"Angry customer who drove away with furious antique shop owner
clinging to her bonnet escapes jail after judge hears she was high on
speed".

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cGuigan-drove-...

Except that (a) it's not a headline,

Your reading problem seems to be getting worse. Either that or you are
using the wrong link. It is clearly in very large, bold headlines.

(b) it only says 'a judge heard',

So? Do you expect the judge to be a witness to the crime?

whether what he heard was true or not, (c) it had nothing to do with any
of the charges brought against her, and (d) it had nothing to do with
anything she was convicted of or punished for.

But plenty to do with her driving ability.

It's typical Mail style innuendo. *Hinting darkly but not daring to say
directly.

In any case, do you think there are any motorists here who condone her
actions? *Or condemn her sentence?

The problem is her punishment is insufficient, in common with many
other motorists who drive dangerously and out lives at risk with their
car-weapons.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:59 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:17 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:

According to your source the driver was high on speed at the time!

No it doesn't. Can't you even read?

You are the one with the reading problem, as usual.

The headline clearly states...

"Angry customer who drove away with furious antique shop owner
clinging to her bonnet escapes jail after judge hears she was high
on speed".

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cGuigan-drove-...

Except that (a) it's not a headline,

Your reading problem seems to be getting worse. Either that or you are
using the wrong link. It is clearly in very large, bold headlines.

You're absolutely right, Doug! And on such a massively important point
too!

That's the first time ever, isn't it?

(b) it only says 'a judge heard',

So? Do you expect the judge to be a witness to the crime?

No, I expect the Mail perhaps to say who told him and what evidence
there was, so we can assess its credibility rather than just suck it up
as gospel as the Mail wants us to, and as you obviously have.

whether what he heard was true or not, (c) it had nothing to do with
any of the charges brought against her, and (d) it had nothing to do
with anything she was convicted of or punished for.

But plenty to do with her driving ability.

There's absolutely no evidence either that she was high on speed or that
it affected her driving ability. The owner of the shop thought she was
drunk. There's a bit of a difference between being hyper on speed and
slowed to a crawl by drink, wouldn't you say?

It's typical Mail style innuendo. Hinting darkly but not daring to
say directly.

In any case, do you think there are any motorists here who condone
her actions? Or condemn her sentence?

The problem is her punishment is insufficient, in common with many
other motorists who drive dangerously and out lives at risk with their
car-weapons.

You won't find anyone here who thinks she received anything more than
she deserved.

On Jun 26, 6:56*pm, "Norman Wells" wrote:
[...]
Except that (a) it's not a headline,

Yes it is.

Yes it is! *But it doesn't matter.

It is hard to see anything on Usenet as of any great importance, save
perhaps to the participants.


(b) it only says 'a judge heard',
whether what he heard was true or not,

We don't know whether she was actually 'high on speed' at the time,

Exactly. *Doug took it as gospel, however, as he is wont to do with
anything he wants to believe.

You don't think you might be a bit wont to believe that Doug is always
wrong, even when he isn't?


but the report says:

'Judge Jonathan Durham-Hall QC said it was with obvious reluctance
that he handed out a suspended sentence but a psychiatric report
stated that McGuigan would relapse into substance abuse if she was
jailed.

'The court heard that McGuigan, from Colne, Lancshire, has now turned
her back on seven years of drink and amphetamine abuse.
[...]
'A psychiatric report stated she maybe on the bi-polar spectrum, but
now she is in a steady relationship and has stopped taking drugs and
drink she is able to manage her condition better.'

So, combined with her reported rather manic driving behaviour at the
time, not an entirely unreasonable imputation *by the Mail.

I don't know how you can possibly come to that conclusion based on what
she did. *It may be that she was. *It may be that she wasn't. *The owner
of the shop actually thought she was drunk, and he was there. *There's a
bit of a difference between being high on speed and being drunk, isn't
there?

I don't know. Drink can make some people a bit hyper or over-excited,
so perhaps it is not always easy to tell the difference.

(c) it had nothing to do with any
of the charges brought against her, and

Yes it had.

Not according to the report. *It says she pleaded guilty to grievous
bodily harm and dangerous driving. *Not a word about driving while unfit
through drugs as far as I can see.


So actually you are only complaining about the final three words of
the Mail headline, which indulge in speculation as to the cause of her
dangerous driving. Really it is a bit presumptious of the Mail to
suggest that, following a reported seven years of drink and
amphetamine abuse, she might have been 'high on speed' at the time.

Perhaps you could write to Mr Dacre, admonishing him and his minions
for their careless headline writing.


Do you have a better report that proves your point?

I'm not sure that I would claim to be making any significant point in
this thread. I am merely idling away a summer's day, by poking you
with a stick for my own amusement.


(d) it had nothing to do with
anything she was convicted of or punished for.

Yes it had.

Really? *Not according to the report.

Apart from the 'A woman who risked the life of an antiques shop owner
by driving away with him grasping onto her car bonnet escaped jail
after a judge heard [that a psychiatric report had stated that
McGuigan would relapse into substance abuse if she was jailed] part of
the headline, which accurately reflects the report.


It's typical Mail style innuendo. Hinting darkly but not daring to
say directly.

As opposed to the NW style, in the above post at least, of daring to
say directly, but getting it more-or-less completely wrong.

I don't think so. *At least not unless you can produce any evidence that
I have.

Wot are you high on, Norman? Should we be calling for a psychiatric
report?

If you want. *What do you think it would conclude?

Not having any medical training, I am reluctant to speculate as to
what such a report might conclude. Though I imagine it would be a
fascinating document.