Silentbob Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Ah, Sorry, yes, missed that fellow up there. I fully understand the views posted. My opinions are just that, and although I will not edit my wording (mods feel free to edit them out if you feel they are letigious*sp*) I will consider the phrasing I use in the future when remarking on these types of thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 The big thing with the blue lights in the background is the Range Rover, a rather battenburgish vehicle. Thanks - I have learned something - emergency vehicle markings being named after a piece of cake...given that it is a Tata Range Rover it is surprising that they are not named after some form of Indian curry these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grianane Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Ah, Sorry, yes, missed that fellow up there. I fully understand the views posted. My opinions are just that, and although I will not edit my wording (mods feel free to edit them out if you feel they are letigious*sp*) I will consider the phrasing I use in the future when remarking on these types of thread. Perhaps you need a disclaimer to ensure people realise that your posts reflect you personal opinion resulting from your assessment of facts, assumptions or rumour and should be consider as such only. ie:- * The views expressed here are mine. They do not necessarily reflect fact or indeed fiction and definitely should not be taken to represent the collective views of the forum which I am certainly not the official spokesman for. So gimme a break! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 My earlier post was made in good faith as I often wonder if people realise the dangers of posting comments - however well intentioned - that could be used later by lawyers. For example - if I had been the Mini driver, and I ended up in court as a result of this incident, I'd expect any defence lawyer worth his salt to cite SB's comments - which were effectively published here to all and sundry - as a prime reason I couldn't expect a fair and impartial trial. And if I hadn't been drinking, speeding or doing anything else illegal, I'd maybe even track down SB (I'm sure it's not difficult with a court order) and sue him for defamation. A disclaimer alone isn't enough - you need to be careful about what you say/write in public, and an internet forum is public, as the consequences of getting it wrong can be far reaching and involve innocents. Maybe John Wright could add a proper legal viewpoint, but that's my understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Save your breath Stu, there'll always be stupid people on here that will post first and think later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Mission, I have already stated that I conceed my inital post may have lead people to believe I was making a statement as a person who was directly involved in the incident (of which I was not). So please save your breath, as a) I am not stupid and b) I have taken Stu's words onboard. As for my opinions on this thread, I stand by my 'belief' that speed or impairment was a contributing factor based on the photographic evidence posted by Amadeus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 For example - if I had been the Mini driver, and I ended up in court as a result of this incident, I'd expect any defence lawyer worth his salt to cite SB's comments - which were effectively published here to all and sundry - as a prime reason I couldn't expect a fair and impartial trial. I fully understand what you're saying Stu, but can I just ask if they have a jury for motoring offenses? I'd assume that the judge or whatever would just say that he wouldn't be influenced by any prejudicial material and carry on? I had an instance during a small claims hearing (not the same thing, I agree) when I'd apparently made some prejudicial remarks (which were actually factual) and the deemster bloke said he would be able to disregard it and carry on if I, as plaintiff, and the defendant's lawyer friend agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Anderton Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Save your breath Stu, there'll always be stupid people on here that will post first and think later. What, you mean like people who post photographs of an accident/collision scene not knowing - If the families are aware. If someone has since been taken seriously ill as a result. whether they are in reeipt of the full, if any facts. whether there is a third party involved. But Knowing - publication of such pictures is bound to invite adverse remarks and opinions. Now thats stoopid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.