Rhyl Inquest Continues...

  • Thread starter Helen Deborah Vecht
  • Start date



On 23 Jun, 17:01, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, The
> other view point, there is one you know...
>
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > On 23 Jun, 12:42, John Hearns <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> >> > Having read them both the highways engineer is clearly incompetent and
> >> > irresponsible, but I don't in the least feel that exculpates the
> >> > driver.
>
> >> I don't like the way this is going. Looks like the "blame" will be on
> >> the road engineer.
>
> > Looks to me so far the fault seems to be...
>
> The /fault/ is clear. It is 100% with the driver, who was going too fast
> for the conditions in a badly maintained car he lacked the skill to
> control.
>
> The roads department are shown up as incompetent, and the engineer is shown
> up as being a clueless prejudiced jobsworth, but neither of those things
> excuses a driver of driving too fast for the conditions.
>
Driver
In that case it all over, he has been dealt with.

The roads department
Why are they incompetent?

Engineer
Why is he a clueless prejudiced jobsworth?

Remember, Hindsight is not allowed.
 
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he killed
>anyone that matters. ;-^(

Which is what the court would appear to confirm:

"Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
tyres."

As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
 
Andrew Price wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he
>> killed anyone that matters. ;-^(
>
> Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>
> "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
> given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
> tyres."
>
> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?

That offence, as the press reports make clear, had no bearing on the
incident in question.

That level of penalty is typical and appropriate for that level of offence

pk
 
Andrew Price wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he killed
>> anyone that matters. ;-^(
>
> Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>
> "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
> given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
> tyres."
>
> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?

It seems they have a different set of priorities: you get eight weeks
imprisonment for eating spaghetti (and being a foreigner?) while
managing not to hit anyone.

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
 
On Jun 23, 7:03 pm, "The other view point, there is one you know..."

> Driver
> In that case it all over, he has been dealt with.

The courts have already made it clear they do not consider the
defective tyres to have been a factor in the crash, and he has only
been "dealt with" as far as the defective tyres are concerned. He has
not faced any charges relating to the deaths and injuries caused by
his driving.

--
Dave...
 
in message <[email protected]>, The
other view point, there is one you know...
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On 23 Jun, 17:01, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, The
>> other view point, there is one you know...
>>
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>> > On 23 Jun, 12:42, John Hearns <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> >> > Having read them both the highways engineer is clearly incompetent
>> >> > and irresponsible, but I don't in the least feel that exculpates
>> >> > the driver.
>>
>> >> I don't like the way this is going. Looks like the "blame" will be on
>> >> the road engineer.
>>
>> > Looks to me so far the fault seems to be...
>>
>> The /fault/ is clear. It is 100% with the driver, who was going too fast
>> for the conditions in a badly maintained car he lacked the skill to
>> control.
>>
>> The roads department are shown up as incompetent, and the engineer is
>> shown up as being a clueless prejudiced jobsworth, but neither of those
>> things excuses a driver of driving too fast for the conditions.
>>
> Driver
> In that case it all over, he has been dealt with.

Inadequately.

> The roads department
> Why are they incompetent?

Because they told the police that the road had been gritted when in fact it
hadn't been gritted. That was incompetent.

> Engineer
> Why is he a clueless prejudiced jobsworth?

Because he discounted a report of ice on the basis that the reporter was a
woman. That was clueless and prejudiced.

> Remember, Hindsight is not allowed.

Hindsight isn't needed. If people drive cars to fast on frosty days, people
die. It's shocking in this case that it happened to be four cyclists who
died, but on average nine people die every day on Britain's roads because
British drivers are incompetent and irresponsible.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.
 
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:45:30 +0100, "p.k." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
>> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>
>That offence, as the press reports make clear, had no bearing on the
>incident in question.

You're right - I should have read it more carefully. Thanks for
pointing out my mistake.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Andrew Price
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he killed
>>anyone that matters. ;-^(
>
> Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>
> "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
> given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
> tyres."
>
> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?

It's done with a car, see? You're allowed to kill people in Britain, so
long as you do it with a car.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; If you're doing this for fun, do what seems fun. If you're
;; doing it for money, stop now.
;; Rainer Deyke
 
Andrew Price <[email protected]>typed


> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he killed
> >anyone that matters. ;-^(

> Which is what the court would appear to confirm:

> "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
> given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
> tyres."

> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?

It is typical of many cases which result in death or serious injury to
cyclists; that influences much group thinking round here.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
On 23 Jun, 20:55, dkahn400 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:03 pm, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
>
> > Driver
> > In that case it all over, he has been dealt with.
>
> The courts have already made it clear they do not consider the
> defective tyres to have been a factor in the crash, and he has only
> been "dealt with" as far as the defective tyres are concerned. He has
> not faced any charges relating to the deaths and injuries caused by
> his driving.
>
> --
> Dave...

yes he has. he won't be charged with anything else related to the
accident.
 
On 23 Jun, 23:25, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Andrew Price
>
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he killed
> >>anyone that matters. ;-^(
>
> > Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>
> > "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
> > given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
> > tyres."
>
> > As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
> > judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>
> It's done with a car, see? You're allowed to kill people in Britain, so
> long as you do it with a car.
>

it's all a bit strange with cars.

It's not what you ended up doing, but what you did to start the
event.

Law is changing etc to end or rather suitably punish drivers for the
end result of their actions.
 
On 24 Jun, 09:02, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 23 Jun, 23:25, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > in message <[email protected]>, Andrew Price
>
> > ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he killed
> > >>anyone that matters. ;-^(
>
> > > Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>
> > > "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
> > > given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
> > > tyres."
>
> > > As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
> > > judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>
> > It's done with a car, see? You're allowed to kill people in Britain, so
> > long as you do it with a car.
>
> it's all a bit strange with cars.
>
> It's not what you ended up doing, but what you did to start the
> event.
>
> Law is changing etc to end or rather suitably punish drivers for the
> end result of their actions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk...objectid=19344796&siteid=50142-name_page.html
 
in message <[email protected]>, The
other view point, there is one you know...
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On 23 Jun, 23:25, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Andrew Price
>>
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he
>> >>killed anyone that matters. ;-^(
>>
>> > Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>>
>> > "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
>> > given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
>> > tyres."
>>
>> > As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
>> > judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>>
>> It's done with a car, see? You're allowed to kill people in Britain, so
>> long as you do it with a car.
>>
>
> it's all a bit strange with cars.
>
> It's not what you ended up doing, but what you did to start the
> event.
>
> Law is changing etc to end or rather suitably punish drivers for the
> end result of their actions.

I don't think he should be punished for the end results of his actions. I
think he should see jail time for three bald tyres, and more jail time for
losing control on ice, and I think he should never be allowed a driving
licence again, regardless of whether he actually hit anything. People
drive much too casually; we need sentences which underline the fact that
controlling a ton of metal at 60mph is a serious business.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does
not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected
to lead. He is quite simply a liberal"
-- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair
 
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:16:34 +0200, Andrew Price <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he killed
>>anyone that matters. ;-^(
>
>Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>
>"Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
>given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
>tyres."
>
>As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
>judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?

Yes.

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/justice.html
 
On 24 Jun, 09:51, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, The
> other view point, there is one you know...
>
> >> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >>Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he
> >> >>killed anyone that matters. ;-^(
>
> >> > Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>
> >> > "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
> >> > given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
> >> > tyres."
>
> >> > As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
> >> > judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>
> >> It's done with a car, see? You're allowed to kill people in Britain, so
> >> long as you do it with a car.
>
> > it's all a bit strange with cars.
>
> > It's not what you ended up doing, but what you did to start the
> > event.
>
> > Law is changing etc to end or rather suitably punish drivers for the
> > end result of their actions.
>
> I don't think he should be punished for the end results of his actions. I
> think he should see jail time for three bald tyres, and more jail time for
> losing control on ice, and I think he should never be allowed a driving
> licence again, regardless of whether he actually hit anything. People
> drive much too casually; we need sentences which underline the fact that
> controlling a ton of metal at 60mph is a serious business.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ah right, with you now, anti car...tut

You think the system is going to jail people for border line tyre
threads, you don't read many papers do you!
Do you also think that the other people who lost control that morning,
should also be jailed?

I would have though that; testing, licencing, identifying, insured,
covers the requirements to drive a car, don't you?

If you wanted regular retesting or a licence that only lasts 10 years
and you have to retake the test, then I would support the notion.
 
in message <[email protected]>, The
other view point, there is one you know...
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On 24 Jun, 09:51, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, The
>> other view point, there is one you know...
>>
>> >> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
>> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he
>> >> >>killed anyone that matters. ;-^(
>>
>> >> > Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>>
>> >> > "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
>> >> > given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
>> >> > tyres."
>>
>> >> > As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
>> >> > judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>>
>> >> It's done with a car, see? You're allowed to kill people in Britain,
>> >> so long as you do it with a car.
>>
>> > it's all a bit strange with cars.
>>
>> > It's not what you ended up doing, but what you did to start the
>> > event.
>>
>> > Law is changing etc to end or rather suitably punish drivers for the
>> > end result of their actions.
>>
>> I don't think he should be punished for the end results of his actions.
>> I think he should see jail time for three bald tyres, and more jail time
>> for losing control on ice, and I think he should never be allowed a
>> driving licence again, regardless of whether he actually hit anything.
>> People drive much too casually; we need sentences which underline the
>> fact that controlling a ton of metal at 60mph is a serious business.
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ah right, with you now, anti car...tut

Not in the least anti-car. I drive at least as much as I ride. I'm anti bad
and careless drivers, which is different.

> You think the system is going to jail people for border line tyre
> threads, you don't read many papers do you!
> Do you also think that the other people who lost control that morning,
> should also be jailed?

Of course. Or any other morning.

> I would have though that; testing, licencing, identifying, insured,
> covers the requirements to drive a car, don't you?

Clearly not. As many people die on the roads of Britain each year as in the
war in Afghanistan, for example; in the past month more people have died
on Britain's roads than in the conflict between Hamas and Fatah in
Palestine. This level of carnage is not and should not be acceptable,
whether you are a car driver or a cyclist or a pedestrian.

> If you wanted regular retesting or a licence that only lasts 10 years
> and you have to retake the test, then I would support the notion.

It's no good passing a test if you drive dangerously the next day (as most
do). The penalty for driving dangerously has to be at minimum a long ban,
and the penalty for driving while disqualified has to be both prison and
an automatic life time ban.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Good grief, I can remember when England won the Ashes.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> It's no good passing a test if you drive dangerously the next day (as
> most do). The penalty for driving dangerously has to be at minimum a
> long ban,

Have you ever driven dangerously?


pk
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, The
> other view point, there is one you know...
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> On 23 Jun, 12:42, John Hearns <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having read them both the highways engineer is clearly incompetent and
>>>> irresponsible, but I don't in the least feel that exculpates the
>>>> driver.
>>> I don't like the way this is going. Looks like the "blame" will be on
>>> the road engineer.
>> Looks to me so far the fault seems to be...
>
> The /fault/ is clear. It is 100% with the driver, who was going too fast
> for the conditions in a badly maintained car he lacked the skill to
> control.

Did he take the driving test himself??
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> It's no good passing a test if you drive dangerously the next day
>>> (as most do). The penalty for driving dangerously has to be at
>>> minimum a long ban,
>>
>> Have you ever driven dangerously?


So, have you applied to yourself the penalty you would impose on others and
forsworn driving because you are a dangerous driver?

pk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Rhyl: CPS reaction later today
Replies
4
Views
384
UK and Europe
Tony Raven
T
T
Rhyl verdict out
Replies
91
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Alan Braggins
A
T
Rhyl verdict tomorrow
Replies
9
Views
476
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
P
Rhyl CC families to receive compensation
Replies
0
Views
342
UK and Europe
Phil R
P
D
Item about Rhyl CC in Independent
Replies
3
Views
346
UK and Europe
Mark Thompson
M
Top Bottom Back