Woman crushes neighbour's car

On 18 Jan, 13:44, Conor wrote:
In article bd383c49-9756-483c-96e0-cc5446459e38
@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, Doug says...

Shall I tell you why I cross post to urc? Because the motorists who
dominate both newsgroups keep on vilifying cyclists and try to imply
that bicycles are just as dangerous as cars, which is utter rubbish.

No, you do it to cause trouble, you hypocritical **** stained old ****.
You hate the people in uk.r.c as much as those in uk.t because
they're as equally ****ed off with the **** you come out with as we
are.

Probably more so, for the reason you give below:

You are as equally unwelcome as a mouthpiece for them as you are
for every other cause you claim to have supported.

Conor wrote:
In article bd383c49-9756-483c-96e0-cc5446459e38
@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, Doug says...

Shall I tell you why I cross post to urc? Because the motorists who
dominate both newsgroups keep on vilifying cyclists and try to imply
that bicycles are just as dangerous as cars, which is utter rubbish.

No, you do it to cause trouble, you hypocritical **** stained old ****.
You hate the people in uk.r.c as much as those in uk.t because they're
as equally ****ed off with the **** you come out with as we are. You
are as equally unwelcome as a mouthpiece for them as you are for every
other cause you claim to have supported.

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

Marc wrote:
Conor wrote:
In article bd383c49-9756-483c-96e0-cc5446459e38
@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, Doug says...

Shall I tell you why I cross post to urc? Because the motorists who
dominate both newsgroups keep on vilifying cyclists and try to imply
that bicycles are just as dangerous as cars, which is utter rubbish.

No, you do it to cause trouble, you hypocritical **** stained old
****. You hate the people in uk.r.c as much as those in uk.t because
they're as equally ****ed off with the **** you come out with as we
are. You are as equally unwelcome as a mouthpiece for them as you are
for every other cause you claim to have supported.

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

Counter productive is being kind.

--
Tony the Dragon

On 18 Jan, 18:42, Marc wrote:
Conor wrote:
In article bd383c49-9756-483c-96e0-cc5446459e38
@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, Doug says...

Shall I tell you why I cross post to urc? Because the motorists who
dominate both newsgroups keep on vilifying cyclists and try to imply
that bicycles are just as dangerous as cars, which is utter rubbish.

No, you do it to cause trouble, you hypocritical **** stained old ****.
You hate the people in uk.r.c as much as those in uk.t because they're
as equally ****ed off with the **** you come out with as we are. You
are as equally unwelcome as a mouthpiece for them as you are for every
other cause you claim to have supported.

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 used to cycle a lot, and relied on cycling and rail for transport,
as I didn't own a car. Even then, I thought Gollum was a dumb,
counterproductive old turd. I still cycle and use trains, although I
also own a car. I've changed my mind about Gollum though. I now
think he's a dumb, counterproductive old ****.

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.

The Daily Wail's photo of the Mercedes mounting the Chrysler was very
amusing, though I put it down to an unfortunate mishap rather than
evidence of an incompetent motorist.

Doug also has some valid points.

Motorists who kill should face manslaughter charges. It defies all
sense of justice that a motorist with four bald tyres who killed four
cyclists was fined for having bald tyres, and the killed effectively
ignored.

Can you imagine a scaffolder whose scaffolding collapsed killing four
pedestrians facing a fine for having faulty scaffolding, and the
killing ignored? No - the scaffolder would face charges of criminal
negligence and manslaughter.

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.

The Daily Wail's photo of the Mercedes mounting the Chrysler was very
amusing, though I put it down to an unfortunate mishap rather than
evidence of an incompetent motorist.

Doug also has some valid points.

Motorists who kill should face manslaughter charges. It defies all
sense of justice that a motorist with four bald tyres who killed four
cyclists was fined for having bald tyres, and the killed effectively
ignored.

Can you imagine a scaffolder whose scaffolding collapsed killing four
pedestrians facing a fine for having faulty scaffolding, and the
killing ignored? No - the scaffolder would face charges of criminal
negligence and manslaughter.

Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:13:41 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

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.

The Daily Wail's photo of the Mercedes mounting the Chrysler was very
amusing, though I put it down to an unfortunate mishap rather than
evidence of an incompetent motorist.

Doug also has some valid points.

Motorists who kill should face manslaughter charges. It defies all
sense of justice that a motorist with four bald tyres who killed four
cyclists was fined for having bald tyres, and the killed effectively
ignored.

Can you imagine a scaffolder whose scaffolding collapsed killing four
pedestrians facing a fine for having faulty scaffolding, and the
killing ignored? No - the scaffolder would face charges of criminal
negligence and manslaughter.

Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:13:41 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

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.

The Daily Wail's photo of the Mercedes mounting the Chrysler was
very amusing, though I put it down to an unfortunate mishap rather
than evidence of an incompetent motorist.

Doug also has some valid points.

Motorists who kill should face manslaughter charges. It defies all
sense of justice that a motorist with four bald tyres who killed
four cyclists was fined for having bald tyres, and the killed
effectively ignored.

Can you imagine a scaffolder whose scaffolding collapsed killing
four pedestrians facing a fine for having faulty scaffolding, and
the killing ignored? No - the scaffolder would face charges of
criminal negligence and manslaughter.

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.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:13:41 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

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.

The Daily Wail's photo of the Mercedes mounting the Chrysler was very
amusing, though I put it down to an unfortunate mishap rather than
evidence of an incompetent motorist.

Doug also has some valid points.

Motorists who kill should face manslaughter charges. It defies all
sense of justice that a motorist with four bald tyres who killed four
cyclists was fined for having bald tyres, and the killed effectively
ignored.

Can you imagine a scaffolder whose scaffolding collapsed killing four
pedestrians facing a fine for having faulty scaffolding, and the
killing ignored? No - the scaffolder would face charges of criminal
negligence and manslaughter.
Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

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

--
Tony the Dragon

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?