UK and Europe · Public discussion

Rhyl verdict tomorrow

Started by Tony Raven · · Last activity · 10 posts · 547 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
26 June 2007
Last activity
27 June 2007
Original author
Tony Raven
Posts
10
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
547
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–10 of 10
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6240476.stm

    --
    Tony

    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
    is no good evidence either way."
    - Bertrand Russell

  2. Tony Raven said:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6240476.stm

    "An inquest jury has reached verdicts on four cyclists killed...
    ....The coroner was told they will be narrative verdicts: factual
    statements on the events leading to the deaths."

    The options given to the jury were an "accidental death" verdict or a
    "narrative" verdict - one which itemises the causes of the crash. The
    jury gave the latter. The full narrative is expected tomorrow.

    --
    Matt B

  3. "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]

    8<...

    Did you have a point at all?

    Tim

    --
    Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
    'I find sometimes it's easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it's
    better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
    My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped

  4. Tim Dunne said:

    "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]

    8<...

    Did you have a point at all?

    Other than clarifying the original post - no. The title suggested that
    no verdict had been reached today. In fact, one had, as my quote indicates.

    --
    Matt B

  5. Tony Raven said:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6240476.stm

    --
    Tony

    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
    is no good evidence either way."
    - Bertrand Russell

    The evasions, abdications of responsibility and blame-shifting
    continues.

    Harris had to scrape ice off his car before setting off, and then
    throws his hands up in horror and dismay when he hit the completely
    unpredictable black ice that he assumed wasn't there as he cornered,
    at speed, on a frosty morning.

    I wonder if Lyn gets the rollocking he richly deserves.

  6. Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:
    Tony Raven said:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6240476.stm

    "An inquest jury has reached verdicts on four cyclists killed...
    ...The coroner was told they will be narrative verdicts: factual
    statements on the events leading to the deaths."

    The options given to the jury were an "accidental death" verdict or a
    "narrative" verdict - one which itemises the causes of the crash. The
    jury gave the latter. The full narrative is expected tomorrow.

    So the narrative verdict does not pass a judgement, but in not doing
    so passes a judgement because the only other option the coroner
    allowed was one of accidental death?

    In other words, the jury reckons the deaths were not accidental, ie
    the driver has not been exonerated from responsibility.

    ...d

  7. David Martin said:
    Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:
    Tony Raven said:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6240476.stm


    "An inquest jury has reached verdicts on four cyclists killed...
    ...The coroner was told they will be narrative verdicts: factual
    statements on the events leading to the deaths."

    The options given to the jury were an "accidental death" verdict or a
    "narrative" verdict - one which itemises the causes of the crash. The
    jury gave the latter. The full narrative is expected tomorrow.

    So the narrative verdict does not pass a judgement, but in not doing
    so passes a judgement because the only other option the coroner
    allowed was one of accidental death?

    In other words, the jury reckons the deaths were not accidental, ie
    the driver has not been exonerated from responsibility.

    A inquest is not to apportion blame, but to determine cause of death.

    --
    Matt B

  8. David Martin said:


    So the narrative verdict does not pass a judgement, but in not doing
    so passes a judgement because the only other option the coroner
    allowed was one of accidental death?

    In other words, the jury reckons the deaths were not accidental,

    I think that's it. I suspect it's the best that could have been hoped
    for, given the shoddy way the whole thing has been handled to date.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  9. David Martin wrote on 27/06/2007 12:55 +0100:

    Quoted message said:
    Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:
    Tony Raven said:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6240476.stm


    "An inquest jury has reached verdicts on four cyclists killed...
    ...The coroner was told they will be narrative verdicts: factual
    statements on the events leading to the deaths."

    The options given to the jury were an "accidental death" verdict or a
    "narrative" verdict - one which itemises the causes of the crash. The
    jury gave the latter. The full narrative is expected tomorrow.

    So the narrative verdict does not pass a judgement, but in not doing
    so passes a judgement because the only other option the coroner
    allowed was one of accidental death?

    In other words, the jury reckons the deaths were not accidental, ie
    the driver has not been exonerated from responsibility.

    <pedant> It would be death by misadventure otherwise the difference
    being whether it was completely unpredictable with no human control like
    a branch falling off a tree (accident) or a legal human act that goes
    wrong (misadventure)</pedant>

    --
    Tony

    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
    is no good evidence either way."
    - Bertrand Russell

  10. in message <[email hidden]>, David

    Martin (') said:
    Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:
    Tony Raven said:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6240476.stm

    "An inquest jury has reached verdicts on four cyclists killed...
    ...The coroner was told they will be narrative verdicts: factual
    statements on the events leading to the deaths."

    The options given to the jury were an "accidental death" verdict or a
    "narrative" verdict - one which itemises the causes of the crash. The
    jury gave the latter. The full narrative is expected tomorrow.

    So the narrative verdict does not pass a judgement, but in not doing
    so passes a judgement because the only other option the coroner
    allowed was one of accidental death?

    In other words, the jury reckons the deaths were not accidental, ie
    the driver has not been exonerated from responsibility.

    That was my interpretation, too, and, indeed, is born out by the text of
    the judgement now we've seen it. Unlawful killing, is what the jury very
    clearly mean.

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

    ;; part time troll.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.