"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Steve Walker on 4 Mar 2010 09:51 The Todal wrote: > I think it is probably inevitable in a criminal trial that there will be > different versions of what happened and, whilst it is said that the video > shown to the jury has been edited, I am sure they will be shown whatever > footage helps them to decide what happens even if they are spared the > gory aftermath. > > The fact that the prosecutor declares to the jury what he thinks the > evidence will prove, does not mean that his prediction will necessarily > be accurate. And frustratingly of course, as the jury only has to say > guilty or not guilty we may never know precisely what version they have > chosen to believe. Yes, it's a good example of a case which needs the wisdom and insight of a jury - you couldn't judge it by measurements or transcripts. The saddest part for me was Ms Sargent's comment that "the pilot had tried to comfort her, but he too was deeply distressed". You can just imagine this group of shocked people stood around a dead body, wondering how on earth it all ended up like this and how they would live with the part they played in it. A tragedy for all concerned.
From: damduck-egg on 4 Mar 2010 10:07 On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:46:10 -0000, "Ophelia" <Ophelia(a)Elsinore.me.uk> wrote: > > ><damduck-egg(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >> But in your description below aren't you just overcooking the status >> of Long Marston, the RAF moved out over 50 years ago it was hardly a V >> bomber base. > >It was indeed part of Bomber Command... Victors I think. > Bomber command yes, but the RAF left it in 1954, The first V bomber base was Gaydon in Warwickshire in 1954 so I stand by my statement that Long Marston was not a V bomber base. Victors became operational in 1957. G.Harman
From: Mike Ross on 4 Mar 2010 10:50 On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:51:04 -0000, "Steve Walker" <spam-trap(a)beeb.net> wrote: >The Todal wrote: > >> I think it is probably inevitable in a criminal trial that there will be >> different versions of what happened and, whilst it is said that the video >> shown to the jury has been edited, I am sure they will be shown whatever >> footage helps them to decide what happens even if they are spared the >> gory aftermath. >> >> The fact that the prosecutor declares to the jury what he thinks the >> evidence will prove, does not mean that his prediction will necessarily >> be accurate. And frustratingly of course, as the jury only has to say >> guilty or not guilty we may never know precisely what version they have >> chosen to believe. > >Yes, it's a good example of a case which needs the wisdom and insight of a >jury - you couldn't judge it by measurements or transcripts. As an aside, I find it a bit... strange... when a prosecuter says 'we say...' as has been quoted repeatedly in this case. If I were on a jury - any jury, nothing to do with the facts of this case - that would plant a subconcious seed of doubt right from the start. It sounds to me like he's saying: 'we say...' but I hear: 'we *say*... but we don't *know* for sure that it's truth. But we've decided to play along with this story and see where it gets us...' or, phrased differently: "we've made a concious decision to say we believe this, but we don't really know; it suits our purposes to say it, so we do' You get my drift? I know that's NOT what he means to convey (!) but it's a little what I hear. Strange turn of phrase. Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
From: Mike Ross on 4 Mar 2010 11:03 On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:33:48 -0000, "Steve Walker" <spam-trap(a)beeb.net> wrote: >Mike Ross wrote: >#! >> >> Consider: the primary authority responsible for bringing prosecutions >> with respect to aviation matters is the CAA, not the police, and they're >> not known for regulating with a light hand! Prosecutions are regularly >> brought for various offences which could be categorised generally as >> 'dangerous flying'. And they're jealous of their 'turf'. Yet they did >> not prosecute in this case, > >Is that correct, or are they just awaiting the criminal outcome? Not sure about your wording; the CAA *are* the criminal prosecutors in aviation matters. They investigated; if there was an aviation-related offence they would have criminally prosecuted. Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
From: Alex Potter on 4 Mar 2010 11:34
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:29:59 +0000, Ret. wrote: > Indeed, but hacking the other person's head off in order to avoid > confrontation is a bit OTT don't you think? Oh, I don't know... OTOH, unless and until we see the video of the incident, we have no way of knowing what went on. I do know that whenever I've been close to moving aircraft propellers [1] I've taken damn good care to stay out of range. [1] Was a glider pilot until the money ran out. -- Alex Reply-To: is valid ----------------------------------------------------------------- How the Internet is supposed to work: <http://www.rfc-editor.org> |