driver uses car as weapon, driver gets life

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Oct 16, 11:11 am, "Brimstone"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

On Oct 15, 8:03 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:
It's good to see that a car driver, using a car as a weapon, has got
his
just desserts, life with a minimum of eighteen years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...r-driver-who-m...

"A driver who deliberately mowed down and killed a man after following
his
cab home from a club was jailed for 18 years today.

Louis Tate, 24, of North Acton, west London, was found guilty at the
Old
Bailey of murdering father-of-three Garry Frater, 32, following a
retrial.

Mr Frater died on May 30 last year after being struck by a Ford Fiesta
near
his home in Burnt Oak, north London.

Tate had claimed the death was the result of an accident, but he was
convicted on an 11-1 majority.

Mr Frater was crushed under the vehicle after it accelerated back over
him
and deliberately drove over him again before driving off, jurors were
told.

Mr Frater and friends had been followed as they took a minicab home
from
a
club in Watford, Hertfordshire, 10 miles away.

They had got into the cab but did not realise they had been followed
until
they arrived, said Mark Heywood, prosecuting.

There had been words earlier after a woman in Mr Frater's party was
approached by Tate and his friend.

Mr Heywood said: "Garry Frater was run down in the road.

"That car was used as a weapon. It proved effectively lethal."

Judge Richard Hawkins jailed Tate for life with a minimum term of 18
years.
"

I'm just a bit surprised that no one else has posted it.

Just wait until it goes to appeal, he will get a much lighter sentance

You really are sick Doug. Even when someone is proven to have used a car
as
a weapon and gets a decent jail sentence you still have to deride it.

Time will tell, he will be out in under 8 years.

How do you work that out? Can't you read, the sentence was "a minimum of
eighteen"?

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2010 15:20, Doug wrote:
On Oct 15, 10:34 pm, wrote:
On Oct 15, 8:03 pm, wrote:

It's good to see that a car driver, using a car as a weapon, has got
his
just desserts, life with a minimum of eighteen years.

Good.

Still not enough, he will get out in less than 8 years, mainly because
those who hear his appeal will be motorists.

Why do you persist in this ridiculous claim that motorists are in some
sort of conspiracy to treat other motorists leniently? IME there is no
greater critic of motorists than other motorists.

Don't you know? The whole world is against Doug. It doesn't matter how good
or otherwise they are, he's against them.

On 16/10/2010 16:06, Brimstone wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2010 15:20, Doug wrote:
On Oct 15, 10:34 pm, wrote:
On Oct 15, 8:03 pm, wrote:

It's good to see that a car driver, using a car as a weapon, has
got his
just desserts, life with a minimum of eighteen years.

Good.

Still not enough, he will get out in less than 8 years, mainly because
those who hear his appeal will be motorists.

Why do you persist in this ridiculous claim that motorists are in some
sort of conspiracy to treat other motorists leniently? IME there is no
greater critic of motorists than other motorists.

Don't you know? The whole world is against Doug. It doesn't matter how
good or otherwise they are, he's against them.


"Infamy! Infamy!...they've all got it infamy".

Bod

Doug wrote:
On Oct 15, 10:34 pm, BrianW wrote:
On Oct 15, 8:03 pm, "Brimstone"
wrote:

It's good to see that a car driver, using a car as a weapon, has
got his just desserts, life with a minimum of eighteen years.

Good.

Still not enough, he will get out in less than 8 years, mainly because
those who hear his appeal will be motorists.

Do you believe that all of the eleven jurors who convicted him were
non-motorists, Doug?

And do you believe that the judge who sentenced him to 'life with a minimum
of 18 years' was also a non-motorist?

Let's see. If 90% of the adult population are what you call 'motorists',
there is only a 10% chance that any one individual chosen at random will be
a non-motorist. The chances of getting 12 people out of 13 who are
non-motorists are about 1 in 100,000,000,000, ie to all intents and purposes
non-existent.

So, where does that leave your footling hypothesis that motorists are all
lenient on other motorists?

Doug wrote:

In case you did not notice, he could have hit a cyclist, which makes
it on topic.

But he didn't, which makes it off topic.


But he could have which makes it on topic, why do you refuse to
understand?

Your words could have opened a hole in space-time through which killer
robots could penetrate our continuum and exterminate all life on Earth
thus making you the biggest leader of genocide in human history.

Should we act as if this were true and have you executed for potential
crimes against humanity?

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Still not enough, he will get out in less than 8 years, mainly because
those who hear his appeal will be motorists.

Why do you persist in this ridiculous claim that motorists are in some
sort of conspiracy to treat other motorists leniently? IME there is no
greater critic of motorists than other motorists.

Indeed, and motorists criticism of other motorists is, in my experience,
deeper and more searching than any criticism they make of cyclists.
Duhng perpetually excuses ****-poor cycling and has never, to my
knowledge, condemned red light jumping, pavement cycling or any of the
myriad of offences commited by a *majority* of cyclists. The vast
majority of motorists condemn any motorist who puts their own life or
the life of others at risk. But Duhg constantly excuses law breaking,
glorifies violence, and is an apologist for cyclists who routinely put
themselves and others at risk.

The term "hypocrite" barely begins to cover Dugglearse Bollen.

On Oct 16, 3:55*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/10/2010 15:20, Doug wrote:

On Oct 15, 10:34 pm, *wrote:
On Oct 15, 8:03 pm, *wrote:

It's good to see that a car driver, using a car as a weapon, has got his
just desserts, life with a minimum of eighteen years.

Good.

Still not enough, he will get out in less than 8 years, mainly because
those who hear his appeal will be motorists.

Why do you persist in this ridiculous claim that motorists are in some
sort of conspiracy to treat other motorists leniently? IME there is no
greater critic of motorists than other motorists.

Colin Bignell

Because it has been prover time & time again, just use Google & you
will get the answers.

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

On Oct 16, 3:57*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/10/2010 15:50, Adrian wrote:



*gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

You really are sick Doug. Even when someone is proven to have used a
car as a weapon and gets a decent jail sentence you still have to
deride it.

Time will tell, he will be out in under 8 years.

How do you figure that, since he's been jailed for life with a MINIMUM OF
EIGHTEEN YEARS?

He cannot even begin to apply for parole until 2028. _Begin to apply
for_. Not get. Anyway, it's a life sentence. Even if/when he is released,
he will be on life licence. He can be recalled to prison for the
slightest reason. Until he dies.

Please don't try to confuse Doug with facts that don't fit in with his
prejudices.

Colin Bignell

There are obviously two types of facts, yours & the truth.

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

On Oct 16, 4:42*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Doug wrote:
In case you did not notice, he could have hit a cyclist, which makes
it on topic.

But he didn't, which makes it off topic.

But he could have which makes it on topic, why do you refuse to
understand?

Your words could have opened a hole in space-time through which killer
robots could penetrate our continuum and exterminate all life on Earth
thus making you the biggest leader of genocide in human history.

Should we act as if this were true and have you executed for potential
crimes against humanity?

Yet another typical motorist answer, anything to avoid the truth.

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

On Oct 16, 4:42*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Still not enough, he will get out in less than 8 years, mainly because
those who hear his appeal will be motorists.

Why do you persist in this ridiculous claim that motorists are in some
sort of conspiracy to treat other motorists leniently? IME there is no
greater critic of motorists than other motorists.

Indeed, and motorists criticism of other motorists is, in my experience,
deeper and more searching than any criticism they make of cyclists.
Duhng perpetually excuses ****-poor cycling and has never, to my
knowledge, condemned red light jumping, pavement cycling or any of the
myriad of offences commited by a *majority* of cyclists. The vast
majority of motorists condemn any motorist who puts their own life or
the life of others at risk. But Duhg constantly excuses law breaking,
glorifies violence, and is an apologist for cyclists who routinely put
themselves and others at risk.

The term "hypocrite" barely begins to cover Dugglearse Bollen.

Source?

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