Pounder seems to have missed this one

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-news-20112019

I wonder why?

It couldn't possibly be because it involves a motorist driving on the pavement. That would be against his religion.

And it happened in Preston where all motorists are Angels.

On 20/11/2019 20:17, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-news-20112019

I wonder why?

It couldn't possibly be because it involves a motorist driving on the pavement. That would be against his religion.

And it happened in Preston where all motorists are Angels.

It really is about time that driving up onto the footway in an attempt
to murder a victim who is on foot was made illegal, isn't it?

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 12:37:18 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2019 20:17, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-news-20112019

I wonder why?

It couldn't possibly be because it involves a motorist driving on the pavement. That would be against his religion.

And it happened in Preston where all motorists are Angels.

It really is about time that driving up onto the footway in an attempt
to murder a victim who is on foot was made illegal, isn't it?

Is there some point you are failing to make?

On 21/11/2019 20:19, Simon Jester wrote:

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 12:37:18 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2019 20:17, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-news-20112019

I wonder why?
It couldn't possibly be because it involves a motorist driving on the pavement. That would be against his religion.
And it happened in Preston where all motorists are Angels.

It really is about time that driving up onto the footway in an attempt
to murder a victim who is on foot was made illegal, isn't it?

Is there some point you are failing to make?

No, but there is *certainly* one that you are consistently and
continually failing to see, or at the very least, failing to acknowledge.

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 8:25:02 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2019 20:19, Simon Jester wrote:

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 12:37:18 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2019 20:17, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-news-20112019

I wonder why?
It couldn't possibly be because it involves a motorist driving on the pavement. That would be against his religion.
And it happened in Preston where all motorists are Angels.

It really is about time that driving up onto the footway in an attempt
to murder a victim who is on foot was made illegal, isn't it?

Is there some point you are failing to make?

No,

So you admit your post was pointless, then why bother posting it?

but there is *certainly* one that you are consistently and
continually failing to see, or at the very least, failing to acknowledge.

In which case you should have no problem pointing it out since we are pointing at points.

On 21/11/2019 20:52, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 8:25:02 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2019 20:19, Simon Jester wrote:

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 12:37:18 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2019 20:17, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-news-20112019

I wonder why?
It couldn't possibly be because it involves a motorist driving on the pavement. That would be against his religion.
And it happened in Preston where all motorists are Angels.

It really is about time that driving up onto the footway in an attempt
to murder a victim who is on foot was made illegal, isn't it?

Is there some point you are failing to make?

No,

So you admit your post was pointless, then why bother posting it?

You are pathetic... that was pure kindergarten playground stuff you
tried to deploy there...

but there is *certainly* one that you are consistently and
continually failing to see, or at the very least, failing to acknowledge.

In which case you should have no problem pointing it out since we are pointing at points.

Have another read of the story.

I accept that there are parallels with several cycling cases we have
heard about recent years, notably of the "I'm not stopping - so get out
of my way" variety.

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 9:14:26 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2019 20:52, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 8:25:02 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 21/11/2019 20:19, Simon Jester wrote:

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 12:37:18 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2019 20:17, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-news-20112019

I wonder why?
It couldn't possibly be because it involves a motorist driving on the pavement. That would be against his religion.
And it happened in Preston where all motorists are Angels.

It really is about time that driving up onto the footway in an attempt
to murder a victim who is on foot was made illegal, isn't it?

Is there some point you are failing to make?

No,

So you admit your post was pointless, then why bother posting it?

You are pathetic... that was pure kindergarten playground stuff you
tried to deploy there...

It seemed necessary given your 'maturity'.


but there is *certainly* one that you are consistently and
continually failing to see, or at the very least, failing to acknowledge.

In which case you should have no problem pointing it out since we are pointing at points.

Have another read of the story.

I accept that there are parallels with several cycling cases we have
heard about recent years, notably of the "I'm not stopping - so get out
of my way" variety.

Please cite these cases.

On 21/11/2019 22:13, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 9:14:26 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

I accept that there are parallels with several cycling cases we have
heard about recent years, notably of the "I'm not stopping - so get out
of my way" variety.

Please cite these cases.

He doesn't think it through. It takes 3 seconds to say the phrase. If
attempted in the heat of the moment it would turn into "I'm not.... oomph".

On 22/11/2019 14:12, TMS320 wrote:

On 21/11/2019 22:13, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 9:14:26 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

I accept that there are parallels with several cycling cases we have
heard about recent years, notably of the "I'm not stopping - so get out
of my way" variety.

Please cite these cases.

He doesn't think it through. It takes 3 seconds to say the phrase. If
attempted in the heat of the moment it would turn into "I'm not.... oomph".

You are both well aware of the cases. You are just being childish, as
per usual.

On 22/11/2019 16:40, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2019 14:12, TMS320 wrote:

On 21/11/2019 22:13, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 9:14:26 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

I accept that there are parallels with several cycling cases we have
heard about recent years, notably of the "I'm not stopping - so get out
of my way" variety.

Please cite these cases.

He doesn't think it through. It takes 3 seconds to say the phrase. If
attempted in the heat of the moment it would turn into "I'm not....
oomph".

You are both well aware of the cases. You are just being childish, as
per usual.

You raised it so it's up you to deliver.

Even if you can, what about the 100 drivers a day that run pedestrians
over. You have proof they never do it?