3v0 Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Does this not raise the issue about old people and their tendancy to be quite bad driving -get the fiesta/nissan/Mazda 323 biddy brigade off our roads I had some old codger elderly gentleman aim at me yesterday in the "You have priority over incoming traffic" section of governers hill! As I was going through (my right of way) he decided that we could both fit through and carried on (doing at least 35 i'd say)...thanks to some top notch and expertly executed swerving on my part he missed me, but still managed the old man "what do you think you're doing?" look (he carried that off well!) Anyway I thought it was a change from the normal overly cautious to the point of being dangerous usual codger you come accross! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Like The Moon Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 The best place to witness (to some amusement) the quality of the biddies is in the Co-op carpark in Ramsey on a friday morning (after the post office has opened and the pensions have been collected) - hilarious - MY CAR WILL FIT IN THAT SPACE - LETS DRIVE IN........SCRAAAAAAAAAPE.........PERFECT - Not even batting an eyelid LOVE IT!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 The prosecution said his claim he’d pulled out around Mr Walmsley’s parked car couldn’t be true because he’d clipped the car before hitting Mr Walmsley Is there some reason there's no subsequent charge of perjury? If the judge didn't believe he was telling the truth then he must have been lying, right? Surely people lie in court all the time and don't get done for perjury. Say someone pleads not guilty to an offence and is subsequently found to be guilty as a result of their lies being found out (eg "I wasn't there"). Why aren't they done for perjury? (Maybe they are and you just don't hear of it) How does it work? Where is JW when you need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 The prosecution said his claim he’d pulled out around Mr Walmsley’s parked car couldn’t be true because he’d clipped the car before hitting Mr Walmsley Is there some reason there's no subsequent charge of perjury? If the judge didn't believe he was telling the truth then he must have been lying, right? Is it because there's a difference between knowlingly decieving and just being wrong? It's up to the court to decide if they thought he was deliberately lying to get off or just had a poor recollection of the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 If he genuinely believed he didn't hit the car then he didn't lie. There's evidence to the contrary, but that doesn't mean he was lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Like The Moon Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 The prosecution said his claim he’d pulled out around Mr Walmsley’s parked car couldn’t be true because he’d clipped the car before hitting Mr Walmsley Is there some reason there's no subsequent charge of perjury? If the judge didn't believe he was telling the truth then he must have been lying, right? Is it because there's a difference between knowlingly decieving and just being wrong? It's up to the court to decide if they thought he was deliberately lying to get off or just had a poor recollection of the event. Probably the latter - he is quite old in his defence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 You don't have to be "old" to have an accident, or have a poor recollection of the events such as this. I'll bet it was one hell of a traumatic experienc for all concerned, the sort of thing the mind tries to block out. The whole thing will have happened in under a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lectro Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 You don't have to be "old" to have an accident, or have a poor recollection of the events such as this. I'll bet it was one hell of a traumatic experienc for all concerned, the sort of thing the mind tries to block out. The whole thing will have happened in under a second. Regardless he got off lightly IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Is there some reason there's no subsequent charge of perjury? If the judge didn't believe he was telling the truth then he must have been lying, right? In view of that should the issue of fitness to hold public office also be considered? Life will continue as normal (except for the poor lad involved in the accident and his family)nothing will change and this issue will all be forgotten about by next week! Hope that answers your query 'Bluemonday'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Like The Moon Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 You don't have to be "old" to have an accident, or have a poor recollection of the events such as this. I'll bet it was one hell of a traumatic experienc for all concerned, the sort of thing the mind tries to block out. The whole thing will have happened in under a second. Stop picking on me!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 He should of claimed temporary blindness from that overly bright and pointless sign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Somehow I think the verdict would have been different if the accused had been a 21 year old labourer from Willaston. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy because of his position in "public" office, just that better off, older folk will always get off more lightly. That said, Mr CB may have a point about that sign. It, and the Mount Murray sign are way too bright. The former is also stupidly placed before a sharpish bend, typical of safety initatives put in place by civil servants.. I sincerely wish all the best to Chris on his recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 He should of claimed temporary blindness from that overly bright and pointless sign It's 300 odd yards before where the incident took place.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Somehow I think the verdict would have been different if the accused had been a 21 year old labourer from Willaston. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy because of his position in "public" office, just that better off, older folk will always get off more lightly. That sounds like more of that working class victim bullshit that pops up occasionally on this board. I again challenge anyone to come up with any evidence to back this claim up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Remember the guy from Pulrose who was sentenced to 7 years for causing the huge accident on Ballamodha straight? D'you think an accountant, or a pensioner would have received that sentence? NO I'll never forget the attitude of the judge at the Hillsborough enquiry, which mirrored attitude of the South Yorkshire police. I.e, you're all working class scum, you deserve a lower form of justice. Granted, some people don't do themselves any favours by going to court in a hoodie but snobbery exists in justice. Always has, always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.