Car used as weapon.

pensive hamster wrote:
On Jun 26, 6:56 pm, "Norman Wells" wrote:

(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?

I always give the reasons for thinking what I do.

This is a discussion forum. Do feel free to join in if you have
anything to say.

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.

Yes it is. She was just as likely to have been drunk. In fact she is
more likely to have been drunk because the owner of the shop who was
there at the time and can presumably recognise the signs said he thought
she was.

If the Mail has evidence of what it insinuates, then they should say
what it is. If they don't, they should stick to the facts and avoid the
weaselly sort of snide allegations in the article.

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.

So, why is the Mail so definite, and why does it single out speed?

(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.

Yes it is, unless they have hard evidence of that. The words 'after
judge hears she was high on speed' implies that some proof of that had
been provided and accepted, whereas I don't think it had.

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

It's not careless, it's utterly deliberate. It's designed to be
misleading.

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.

That's what discussion groups are about, I thought.

(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.

No connection with her being 'high on speed' at the time, as far as I
can see.

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.

What point would it serve then? You wouldn't be able to understand it.

On Jun 27, 3:40*pm, "Norman Wells" wrote:
[...]

No connection with her being 'high on speed' at the time, as far as I
can see.


Perhaps the Mail was indulging in a bad pun on the dual meaning of
'speed'. That is, 'high on speed' could mean 'drugged up on
amphetamines', or 'intoxicated with the performance of her her Peugeot
307, despite the aerodynamic hindrance of an antique dealer clinging
to the bonnet.'

I'm suprised they didn't work in a mention of ' Whizz kid Mandy,
42 ...'

[...]

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.

What point would it serve then? *You wouldn't be able to understand it.


I'm sure I could look up any difficult words on the Internet.

On Jun 27, 8:57*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
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?

You are often wrong and this is just another exaple of 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.

So now you ae trying to make excuses for the fact that you were wrong?

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?

Still trying to make excuses for being wrong? The evidence was the
headline.

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.

How do you know? Of course a majority here are motorists, like you,
and will obviously be on the defensive.

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

Doug wrote:
On Jun 27, 8:57 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:

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?

Still trying to make excuses for being wrong? The evidence was the
headline.

OK, we'll add that to the list then. You think headlines in the Mail
are evidence, even when they don't actually say what you you allege.

You obviously think that 'after a judge heard' confirms the fact
alleged.

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.

How do you know? Of course a majority here are motorists, like you,
and will obviously be on the defensive.

Who's on the defensive? And why on earth do you think they are?