
Signature
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7517468.stm
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>It seems to have taken then something over eighteenth months to decide to
>charge him, that's not normal or usual.
Surely it's more like 9 months. 9 months isn't an unusual length of
time to get such things to come to court.
William Black typed:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7517468.stm
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> It is possible that something new has come to light.
Yes, I read this today too on the BBC website. It seems harsh, but the
prosecutor was saying something like, we know the guy has suffered through
the loss of his family and we have carefully considered all the issues, and
we still feel that there is a public interest in the prosecution going
ahead. That suggests that there may be something going on that we are not
aware of.
I, for one, will reserve judgement on whether the prosecution is a good idea
until I have heard the case.

Signature
Rich B
Take out the obvious to email me.
A life? Cool - where can I download one of those?
GbH - 21 Jul 2008 19:30 GMT
> William Black typed:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7517468.stm
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> I, for one, will reserve judgement on whether the prosecution is a
> good idea until I have heard the case.
Irrespective of the fate of 'Gresh' wouldn't public interest be best
served by fixing the dam road!
And possibly persecuting those who have failed to do so in the past!

Signature
Wisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could
remember the darn question
Rich B - 21 Jul 2008 19:41 GMT
GbH typed:
>> William Black typed:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7517468.stm
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> served by fixing the dam road!
> And possibly persecuting those who have failed to do so in the past!
Yes indeed.

Signature
Rich B
Take out the obvious to email me.
A life? Cool - where can I download one of those?
Dave Liquorice - 21 Jul 2008 21:33 GMT
> Irrespective of the fate of 'Gresh' wouldn't public interest be best
> served by fixing the dam road! And possibly persecuting those who have
> failed to do so in the past!
Was the road at fault? Like having a hole in it or an unmarked collasped
verge? Like others ISTR some references to another vechicle and a bend. It
is ones own care and duty to always drive within the limitations of the
vehicle, road and conditions.
Should those that get hurt in a multiple pile up on a motorway in fog be
able to prosecute the designers of the motorway? Because that is what you
are saying.

Signature
Cheers
Dave.
GbH - 21 Jul 2008 22:55 GMT
>> Irrespective of the fate of 'Gresh' wouldn't public interest be best
>> served by fixing the dam road! And possibly persecuting those who
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> be able to prosecute the designers of the motorway? Because that is
> what you are saying.
Certainly if the motorway is defective and/or dangerous!
Regretably all too often mdifications to dangerous roads are not
initiated untill a few are killed, since by bean counter statistics they
are not dangerous untill then!

Signature
Wisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could
remember the darn question
Tim Jones - 22 Jul 2008 00:14 GMT
>Regretably all too often mdifications to dangerous roads are not
>initiated untill a few are killed, since by bean counter statistics they
>are not dangerous untill then!
You can't modify each and every raod that may be perceived as
"dangerous". It's every drivers responsibility to drive within the
limits of themselves, their vehicle and the road that they're on.
Dave Liquorice - 21 Jul 2008 21:29 GMT
>> No, there's something odd going on here.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> prosecution going ahead. That suggests that there may be something going
> on that we are not aware of.
I agree. If the CPS didn't think they had a case they wouldn't bring one.
7 kids and 2 adults in a LWB. In theory legal (I think) but sideways
facing seats? That grey area of the law that we have debated in the
past... If "they" can get a prosecution through "they" can outlaw sideways
seats. This is well within the "public interest" remit.
> I, for one, will reserve judgement on whether the prosecution is a good
> idea until I have heard the case.
Same here but unfortunately with our media, unless you go and sit in the
public gallery you won't get. You'll only get the "story" not the truth or
facts.

Signature
Cheers
Dave.
Austin Shackles - 22 Jul 2008 09:50 GMT
>7 kids and 2 adults in a LWB. In theory legal (I think) but sideways
>facing seats? That grey area of the law that we have debated in the
>past... If "they" can get a prosecution through "they" can outlaw sideways
>seats. This is well within the "public interest" remit.
legal if they're your family, which they were in this case.
There's also the point that "proper" child restraints, when the motor goes
under water, are a damn' sight more likely to get your kids drowned. How
many small kids, or even adults, can remember how to unfasten it quickly in
those circumstances, especially if it landed on it's side?
Also, you're likely to get air pockets in the top of the thing. If you're
strapped in further down, that's no help to you.
not everything is as black and white as people wish...

Signature
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!