Should He Have Been Banned? - Page 2

DaveinGermany · 27-04-2010, 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

and you Less, must wear leather britches if you want to avoid getting splinters in your bum

Less.....in "LEDERHOSEN" EEEK

Less · 27-04-2010, 19:38

Margaret, I don't know what you are on about, I thought I made my views plain in my post, (I've just spent half an hour trying to copy and paste and then say that without offending).

Margaret Pilkington · 27-04-2010, 20:54

Have I misunderstood you then?
I understood your post to mean that you were with the majority...which I think, means you think he should be banned....but then, you go on to say (not in so many words)
'Leave the lad alone..he's got a tough job'....or am I misreading you?

mallard · 27-04-2010, 21:29

Yes he should have been banded because if it was any one else they woul have been

Tealeaf · 27-04-2010, 21:49

I notice that the one of the Blackburn election candidates made the following comment - and I quote from the LT:

'Paul English, Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Blackburn, said that Edmondson’s actions were “as lethal as a speeding bullet”.'

No doubt Mr English - and how inappropriate that name - is angling for the vote of a certain part of the Blackburn electorate. However, I find it somewhat sickening that he has bowed so low as to use this analogy. Speeding bullets - which travel at the rate of 1500mph - have claimed the lives of many of this young mans comrades in Afganistan. This lad may have been somewhat silly in his actions - but he did at least offer a plausible excuse. For once, the judge - and even Straw - may have got it right.

jaysay · 28-04-2010, 09:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Oh yes, and before you slate me for saying that you are with the majority...well, you sort of are.......and then again you aren't.

What you saying Margaret, Less sitting on the fence

jaysay · 28-04-2010, 09:28

Well we have laws which must be adhered to, there doesn't seem to be any mitigating circumstances here 147 mph is ridiculous irrespective who you are or what your job is

Neil · 28-04-2010, 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

This lad may have been somewhat silly in his actions - but he did at least offer a plausible excuse. For once, the judge - and even Straw - may have got it right.

No he did not. He thought he was being chased is not an excuse. What he really means is that he was trying to see if he was faster than the other car.

He should have been banned. If it had been me I would have been banned, massive fine, lost my job etc etc.

Tealeaf · 28-04-2010, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

No he did not. He thought he was being chased is not an excuse. What he really means is that he was trying to see if he was faster than the other car.

Why don't you stick to the reported facts, rather than indulge in idle speculation?

Neil · 28-04-2010, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Why don't you stick to the reported facts, rather than indulge in idle speculation?

The facts - he was doing 143mph with a car following him. That is called racing. Saying anything else is called lying your butt of to get away with it.

Tealeaf · 28-04-2010, 10:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

The facts - he was doing 143mph with a car following him. That is called racing. Saying anything else is called laying your butt of to get away with it.

No it is not.The car following him was an unmarked police car. He did not know this. Whatever speed he was doing when the police took up their chase is not reported. What was reported was that the lad was under the belief that someone dodgy was chasing him. The chase did not end in the usual manner of either a smash or the driver stopping and then doing a runner, but of the driver pulling over once he realised who it was behind him. The judge took all circumstances into account and punished him accordingly.