Another pavement attack on a person using a car as a weapon.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 14 Oct, 20:23, Mike Ross wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:29:30 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

snips

"A 23-year-old man has been jailed after he mowed down a man in his
car, leaving him seriously hurt.

James Blundell, of Urmston, deliberately hit the man at speed outside
the Tim Bobbin Pub near his home in Flixton Road in September 2009.

Minshull Street Crown Court heard his victim was left needing
extensive surgery for a split bowel and has lost his job, home and
car.

Blundell was jailed for 15 months. He admitted assault and dangerous
driving..."

WHHAAAT! Only 15 months?

For once I agree with Doug. It seems strange that he wasn't charged with
GBH,
wounding, or attempted murder.

Mike

Because he was intentionally merely using a car as a weapon instead of
a blunt instrument, knife or gun. Also I have little doubt that the
judge was a fellow motorist, with all that it implies.

I'm baffled Doug, what's the implication of the judge, or any other court
official, being a motorist? You surely don't think that just because the
offender used a car and the judge drives to and from work that the judge
will have sympathy for him, do you?

On 15 Oct, 08:27, "Brimstone" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

On 14 Oct, 20:23, Mike Ross wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:29:30 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

snips

"A 23-year-old man has been jailed after he mowed down a man in his
car, leaving him seriously hurt.

James Blundell, of Urmston, deliberately hit the man at speed outside
the Tim Bobbin Pub near his home in Flixton Road in September 2009.

Minshull Street Crown Court heard his victim was left needing
extensive surgery for a split bowel and has lost his job, home and
car.

Blundell was jailed for 15 months. He admitted assault and dangerous
driving..."

WHHAAAT! Only 15 months?

For once I agree with Doug. It seems strange that he wasn't charged with
GBH,
wounding, or attempted murder.

Mike

Because he was intentionally merely using a car as a weapon instead of
a blunt instrument, knife or gun. Also I have little doubt that the
judge was a fellow motorist, with all that it implies.

I'm baffled Doug, what's the implication of the judge, or any other court
official, being a motorist? You surely don't think that just because the
offender used a car and the judge drives to and from work that the judge
will have sympathy for him, do you?

Yes. I also believe that our whole justice system also suffers from a
similar bias. Its not called a 'car-centric society' for nothing.

Now, when are we going to read anything at all about your own
viewpoints, whatever they are, instead of your eternal questions aimed
at me and others? Why are you so evasive and what are you trying to
hide?


UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Oct 12, 5:41*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 12/10/2010 07:29, Doug wrote:

Good job it wasn't a cyclist victim this time. Doesn't this clearly
demonstrate though how lightly the deliberate use of a car as a weapon
is punished?

"A 23-year-old man has been jailed after he mowed down a man in his
car, leaving him seriously hurt.

James Blundell, of Urmston, deliberately hit the man at speed outside
the Tim Bobbin Pub near his home in Flixton Road in September 2009.

Minshull Street Crown Court heard his victim was left needing
extensive surgery for a split bowel and has lost his job, home and
car.

Blundell was jailed for 15 months. He admitted assault and dangerous
driving..."

WHHAAAT! Only 15 months? Supposing he had been deliberately using a
knife as a weapon instead? Nowhere is safe from these motorists, they
kill, injure and smash houses and shops with relative impunity. The
justice system is skewed in their favour, probably because virtually
everyone connected with the so-called justice system is a motorist.

Mo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-11519621

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
*http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

If it wasn't a cyclist, then why are you posting it, and anyway you are
on record for condoning physical harm so that just makes you a hypocrit.

--
Tony Dragon

I would like to see where I have said I agree with physical harm.

RoadPeice
http://www.roadpeace.net/
For road crash victims.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I would like to see where I have said I agree with physical harm.

Just the other day you studiously avoided condemning a deliberate attempt
to murder a mounted police officer.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

I'm baffled Doug, what's the implication of the judge, or any other
court official, being a motorist? You surely don't think that just
because the offender used a car and the judge drives to and from work
that the judge will have sympathy for him, do you?

Yes.

C'mon, Brim - he's given that answer and line of logic often enough in
the past that it's not a surprise now...

Don't forget that, in Duhgworld, a "motorist" is anybody not named Bollen.

On 15 Oct, 08:41, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I would like to see where I have said I agree with physical harm.

Just the other day you studiously avoided condemning a deliberate attempt
to murder a mounted police officer.

Who did? Not me. Are you trying yet again to blame the messenger?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:45:30 -0700, Doug boggled us with:

On 15 Oct, 08:41, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I would like to see where I have said I agree with physical harm.

Just the other day you studiously avoided condemning a deliberate
attempt to murder a mounted police officer.

Who did? Not me. Are you trying yet again to blame the messenger?

You did. You were asked if you condenmed it, you failed to answer.




--
Mike P

On 15 Oct, 08:47, Mike P wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:45:30 -0700, Doug boggled us with:

On 15 Oct, 08:41, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I would like to see where I have said I agree with physical harm.

Just the other day you studiously avoided condemning a deliberate
attempt to murder a mounted police officer.

Who did? Not me. Are you trying yet again to blame the messenger?

You did. You were asked if you condenmed it, you failed to answer.

You both seem to have the wrong Doug. Do try to pay attention to which
poster is which.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

I would like to see where I have said I agree with physical harm.

Just the other day you studiously avoided condemning a deliberate
attempt to murder a mounted police officer.

Who did? Not me.

Yes, you.

Are you trying yet again to blame the messenger?

No, Duhg - you were asked for YOUR opinion on the piece YOU posted. You
weaseled and refused to actually commit yourself.

I invite you again.

What was YOUR opinion of those actions?
- Laudable and necessary?
- Indifference?
- Condemnation and disgust?

C'mon, pick one of the three - or weasel and avoid. Your call.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

I would like to see where I have said I agree with physical harm.

Just the other day you studiously avoided condemning a deliberate
attempt to murder a mounted police officer.

Who did? Not me. Are you trying yet again to blame the messenger?

You did. You were asked if you condenmed it, you failed to answer.

You both seem to have the wrong Doug. Do try to pay attention to which
poster is which.

Bwahahahahahahaha....

How about you remove any doubt, then?