Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 16:56:59 GMT
....though of course that is via. grandfather rights,... Not for profit, and had a license for over two years, and over the age of 21 seems to be the rules. A grandfather at 21? The mind boggles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 17:00:50 GMT
At the end of the day modern cars are designed to enslave the population and make them spend more money on shit they don't need. Just to make some people richer. If you think about it a system arranged without cars would be a far more satisfactory place to live.
As they are a relatively modern phenomenon people still see cars as the ultimate "freedom" which is what they indeed were in the early days but now having a car is just the freedom to be stuck on horrible tarmac roads with a load of other "free" people hurtling about in metal boxes on wheels at high speed.
Its a completely ridiculous situation when you stand back and look at it.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Feb 23, 2018 17:27:23 GMT
The traffic wombles are the plastic coppers who sit about in Shoguns or Land Cruisers occasionally 'assisting' an woman change a spare wheel. Like those touting their machine guns at Stansted Airport trying to look tough. A lot of the "plastic coppers" on motorways may be plastic, but most of the time they're not coppers! Check the vehicle carefully : often, "motorway patrol" written on them, and not "police". Orange beacons instead of blue (although that can be hard to spot with the advent of coloured LEDs with a clear cover on the lamp unit.) When I was working, there was an offence of impersonating a Police Officer; wonder when that changed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 18:03:28 GMT
Like those touting their machine guns at Stansted Airport trying to look tough. A lot of the "plastic coppers" on motorways may be plastic, but most of the time they're not coppers! Check the vehicle carefully : often, "motorway patrol" written on them, and not "police". Orange beacons instead of blue (although that can be hard to spot with the advent of coloured LEDs with a clear cover on the lamp unit.) When I was working, there was an offence of impersonating a Police Officer; wonder when that changed? Dunno. It just seems seems an excuse for highways agency to spunk money on a very poorly utilised service. Obviously the plastic coppers handle was tongue in cheek and used to differentiate them from control room operatives. Traffic Wombles is a much more accurate description.
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Mar 6, 2018 16:41:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 6, 2018 16:46:11 GMT
Thanks Andy.
Obviously harder for a decision on the other bloke.
Taking any emotion out of it, if the first driver has been convicted of causing the 8 deaths.
Can another person be convicted for causing the same deaths?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 6, 2018 16:49:32 GMT
Thanks Andy. Obviously harder for a decision on the other bloke. Taking any emotion out of it, if the first driver has been convicted of causing the 8 deaths. Can another person be convicted for causing the same deaths? Yes, that's how come Derek Bentley ended up being hanged.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 6, 2018 17:20:09 GMT
Thanks Andy. Obviously harder for a decision on the other bloke. Taking any emotion out of it, if the first driver has been convicted of causing the 8 deaths. Can another person be convicted for causing the same deaths? Yes, that's how come Derek Bentley ended up being hanged. That begs the question will the second driver convicted be convicted for being a party to the deaths. I see and thought slight amusing that bentley was convicted for mentally aiding the murder because he said let him have it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 6, 2018 17:27:07 GMT
Yes, that's how come Derek Bentley ended up being hanged. That begs the question will the second driver convicted be convicted for being a party to the deaths. I see and thought slight amusing that bentley was convicted for mentally aiding the murder because he said let him have it. I found it slightly odd that Mazeriak pleaded not guilty to all the charges, even of being twice the drink-drive limit whereas Wagstaffe pleaded guilty to charges of causing death by careless driving (but not the more serious charge of death by dangerous driving, which is what the jury is deliberating) when I would have said that there was a reasonable chance of acquittal given the highly unpredictable circumstances. The fact that the jury did not return a verdict on him at the same time as the verdict on Mazeriak would seem to indicate that there is not complete agreement among them on the charges.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 6, 2018 17:33:28 GMT
I think I have said it before.
It may just be the seriousness of the offence or just deaths are involved but normally would drop the dangerous bit for a guilty plea on the lower charge.
Maybe that is what he was advised. Just because there were deaths it does not instantly mean his actions were dangerous.
They are obviously deliberating more.
Not quite related they will 99% of the time drop a failing to name a driver for a guilty speeding plea. However it is done before going into court to prevent being convicted for both. Which has happened.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 6, 2018 17:51:16 GMT
I think I have said it before. It may just be the seriousness of the offence or just deaths are involved but normally would drop the dangerous bit for a guilty plea on the lower charge. Maybe that is what he was advised. Just because there were deaths it does not instantly mean his actions were dangerous. They are obviously deliberating more. Not quite related they will 99% of the time drop a failing to name a driver for a guilty speeding plea. However it is done before going into court to prevent being convicted for both. Which has happened. If I understand it correctly, one option open to the jury is to acquit him on the dangerous driving charges but convict him of careless driving and my guess is that this is what they will do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 17:56:36 GMT
I think I have said it before. It may just be the seriousness of the offence or just deaths are involved but normally would drop the dangerous bit for a guilty plea on the lower charge. Maybe that is what he was advised. Just because there were deaths it does not instantly mean his actions were dangerous. They are obviously deliberating more. Not quite related they will 99% of the time drop a failing to name a driver for a guilty speeding plea. However it is done before going into court to prevent being convicted for both. Which has happened. If I understand it correctly, one option open to the jury is to acquit him on the dangerous driving charges but convict him of careless driving and my guess is that this is what they will do. No need to convict him for the careless driving... Based upon what I know I would find it hard to convict him on the dangerous charge.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 6, 2018 18:07:29 GMT
If I understand it correctly, one option open to the jury is to acquit him on the dangerous driving charges but convict him of careless driving and my guess is that this is what they will do. No need to convict him for the careless driving... Based upon what I know I would find it hard to convict him on the dangerous charge. Had Mazeriak only just stopped, I think Wagstaff may have had a reasonable chance of acquittal on the grounds that a stationary vehicle with lights extinguished parked in lane 1 was something which a reasonable person could not foresee. Unfortunately for him though, Mazeriak's truck had been stationary for twelve minutes during which time hundreds of other motorists has seen it and taken avoiding action. I honestly don't know how anyone can work nights, especially doing something so requiring full concentration and awareness as driving an articulated lorry, I couldn't do it, I would be a danger on the road.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 6, 2018 18:07:31 GMT
I understand the Polish guy saying he's not guilty at all, after all, he was just having a nap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 20:14:23 GMT
No need to convict him for the careless driving... Based upon what I know I would find it hard to convict him on the dangerous charge. Had Mazeriak only just stopped, I think Wagstaff may have had a reasonable chance of acquittal on the grounds that a stationary vehicle with lights extinguished parked in lane 1 was something which a reasonable person could not foresee. Not sure whether I remember correctly but I can't remember reading that the minibus had turned it's lights off.
|
|