Simple Simon

[Judith]

Posted this morning by him at 05:34

===========================================================
"I do not waste my own time on here unlike some idiots who have to. :-)
Hamsters on wheels springs to mind."
===========================================================

Number of posts made by him later today from his home : 16



An excellent home goal.

I think he may be Simple.


--
Mason is in denial - he is an alcoholic.
He claims that he drinks ten to twelve pints
a night and that it does him no harm.
He needs to seek help.

[Simon Mason]

We got there in the end.
Maybe you and JMS can have a whip round and then go together to you
local precinct where you can visit the poundland, sorry 99p shop.
You could then send a bar of soap to your hero for him to drop in the
jailhouse shower block.
Have a nice day.

QUOTE:

A LORRY driver who crushed a cyclist when a cabin slipped off his
trailer has been jailed for 27 months.

Mark Smith had driven 60 miles with it hanging off his vehicle
Smith was behind the wheel when an 8.2 tonne blast-proof cabin crushed
Susan Russell, 54, at the Garrison Road roundabout on the A63 as she
waited at the junction.

Haulage driver Smith, 48, had travelled 60 miles from west Yorkshire
to Hull with the specialist cabin, which is twice the weight of a
normal cabin, hanging precariously off his trailer.

Judge John Dowse sent him to prison today.

The blast cabin was a mobile office being transported to Salt End,
east of Hull, to protect employees in the event of an explosion.

Smith, who has 28 years' experience as a lorry driver, had secured the
load with only two straps and one was broken. He had also failed to
use any matting to stop it from slipping.

Hull Crown Court heard that without matting, it would have need 40
straps to keep it securely in place.

Prosecutor Bernard Gateshill said: "His account is plainly gross
negligence.

"We say he must have seen that the trailer was over hanging, he did
see it, he must have appreciated the risk, he decided for his own
reasons to carry on regardless and take that risk.

"We say it is a case of deliberate risk taking."

Smith had driven 60 miles to Hull after collecting the cabin from
Ossett with it hanging precariously over one side of the trailer.

Smith was travelling at 20mph over the Garrison Road roundabout at
about 7.30am on August 20 last year when the accident happened.

Mrs Russell, who had two daughters and four grandchildren, was cycling
from her home in Abbey Street, east Hull, to her work at a care home
for the elderly at nearby Victoria Dock.

Smith's barrister, Richard Gioserano, said: "His case is he didn't
realise that this was dangerous because he didn't realise it had moved
because he didn't check its position before he set off."

Smith, of Bradford, pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous
driving.

Judge Dowse said the accident was caused by "gross negligence due to
inappropriate straps and matting".

He said Smith had led an unblemished life but it was now in "tatters"
as a result of his negligence. He said no sentence he passed, or
remarks he made, would bring comfort to either family who had both
been devastated by the accident.

Smith was disqualified from driving for four years and must take an
extended driving test.

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Lorry-driver-jailed-cabin-fall-kills-cyclist/story-15531678-detail/story.html

--
Simon Mason

[Partac]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:50i7m752vq4qurhpo...@4ax.com...

Posted this morning by him at 05:34

===========================================================
"I do not waste my own time on here unlike some idiots who have to. :-)
Hamsters on wheels springs to mind."
===========================================================

Number of posts made by him later today from his home : 16



An excellent home goal.

I think he may be Simple.

Was there ever any doubt?

[Judith]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>We got there in the end.
>Maybe you and JMS can have a whip round and then go together to you
>local precinct where you can visit the poundland, sorry 99p shop.
>You could then send a bar of soap to your hero for him to drop in the
>jailhouse shower block.
>Have a nice day.

My thoughts are with the family.



I see that "The blast cabin was a mobile office being transported to Salt End,
east of Hull, to protect employees in the event of an explosion." - I guess
that there must be some dangerous and not very nice working conditions on that
site - where ever it is.

[Mrcheerful]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5mu8m7doudjnekq6v...@4ax.com...

Strange how a careless act gets prison while a cyclist that quite
deliberately runs down and kills a young girl just gets a fine.

The blast cabin was being delivered to BP at Saltend. I expect it was Simon
that ordered it.

[JNugent]

He doesn't directly concern himself with such trivial issues. He delegates
them so that he can get on with posting to usenet.

[Simon Mason]

"Simon Mason" <swld...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fb2ac75-6ee3-4daa...@k24g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> We got there in the end.
> Maybe you and JMS can have a whip round and then go together to you
> local precinct where you can visit the poundland, sorry 99p shop.
> You could then send a bar of soap to your hero for him to drop in the
> jailhouse shower block.
> Have a nice day.

Glad to see they all fell for my bait. :-)
You can all now pop back under your rocks, you sick gets.

My Numpty detector show that he even joined in as well.
He can club together for the soap - 33p each.

--
Simon Mason

[Squashme]

On Mar 17, 1:28 pm, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judith" <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:5mu8m7doudjnekq6v...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason <swldx...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >>We got there in the end.
> >>Maybe you and JMS can have a whip round and then go together to you
> >>local precinct where you can visit the poundland, sorry 99p shop.
> >>You could then send a bar of soap to your hero for him to drop in the
> >>jailhouse shower block.
> >>Have a nice day.
>
> > My thoughts are with the family.
>
> > I see that "The blast cabin was a mobile office being transported to Salt
> > End,
> > east of Hull, to protect employees in the event of an explosion." - I
> > guess
> > that there must be some dangerous and not very nice working conditions on
> > that
> > site - where ever it is.
>
> > --
> > Mason is in denial - he is an alcoholic.
> > He claims that he drinks ten to twelve pints
> > a night and that it does him no harm.
> > He needs to seek help.
>
> Strange how a careless act gets prison while a cyclist that quite
> deliberately runs down and kills a young girl just gets a fine.
>

"deliberately runs down and kills a young girl"

Do stop lying, cheerless.

[Mrcheerful]

'get out of the way I am not stopping' is a deliberate act which could be
foreseen to be likely to cause death or serious injury.

So, please can you explain how my statement is a lie?

[Simon Mason]

"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:lvg9m7pfutqmfkl1c...@4ax.com...

>
> It is a disgrace that proper load security is not part of the LGV
> (formerly HGV) test.
> When I first got my HGV1 licence, I didn't have a clue about roping
> and sheeting, and the training given before I had to first secure a
> load that way was merely how to tie a dolly knot, with no guidance on
> how to tie in the corners of the load to stop it spreading, or how
> many passes of rope would be needed to secure different types and
> weights of load.
> It was a mixture of care, luck and ad-hoc training from friendly truck
> drivers in laybys (when I'd noticed something wasn't quite right and
> stopped to sort it out) that allowed me to learn without ever shedding
> a load, but it still appalls me that an industry can be so endemically
> negligent as haulage still seems to be.
>
> There can certainly be no excuse for a driver with 28 years truck
> driving experience though.

Indeed.
There are a load of pre checks that he failed to do before he even set off,
never mind the sight in his rear view mirror.
Can't see him being allowed to drive an HGV ever again though - a total
cowboy by the sounds of it.

--
Simon Mason

[Mrcheerful]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Squashme <squa...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 18 Mar 2012 04:56:59
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Mar 17, 1:28 pm, "Mrclueless" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>

>>>
>>> Strange how a careless act gets prison while a cyclist that quite

>>> accidentally runs down and kills a drunken teenage girl staggering
>>> into the road in front of him just gets a fine.

>>>
>>
>> "deliberately runs down and kills a young girl"
>>

>> Do stop lying, clueless.
>
> IFTFY :)

again, how is my statement a lie?

[Simon Mason]

On Mar 18, 10:17 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:


> >> Strange how a careless act gets prison while a cyclist that quite

> >> accidentally runs down and kills a drunken teenage girl staggering
> >> into the road in front of him just gets a fine.
>

Yes - this years old story gets wheeled out so often that the true
facts of the case change over time to a grossly distorted version.
She, along with her mates, were playing a drunken game of chicken on a
busy road, but I am sure it will get brought up again in the years to
come with her being the innocent party.

Meanwhile nine people die in motor traffic deaths every single day.

--
Simon Mason

[JNugent]

On 19/03/2012 07:43, Simon Mason wrote:

> On Mar 18, 10:17 pm, Phil W Lee<p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

>>>> Strange how a careless act gets prison while a cyclist that quite
>>>> accidentally runs down and kills a drunken teenage girl staggering
>>>> into the road in front of him just gets a fine.

> Yes - this years old story gets wheeled out so often that the true
> facts of the case change over time to a grossly distorted version.
> She, along with her mates, were playing a drunken game of chicken on a
> busy road, but I am sure it will get brought up again in the years to
> come with her being the innocent party.

This "busy road" was a cul-de-sac with no other vehicular traffic reported.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the girl killed by the cyclist who
deliberately ran into her was "drunk" and he *did* run into her deliberately,
as his screamed warning to the group beforehand proved.

Simon Mason is a stranger to the truth of the incident. He can't handle the
truth.

[The Weasel]

IIRC Stella, *did* play a role in this incident.

--
The Weasel

[Mrcheerful]

Strange, I understood that I was in Simon's 'killfile'

Anyway, which is worse: to be careless and kill someone, or to quite
deliberately run some one down and kill them. and which deserves the higher
sentence?

[Simon Mason]

On Mar 19, 7:43 am, Simon Mason <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 10:17 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> Strange how a careless act gets prison while a cyclist that quite
> > >> accidentally runs down and kills a drunken teenage girl staggering
> > >> into the road in front of him just gets a fine.
>
> Yes - this years old story gets wheeled out so often that the true
> facts of the case change over time to a grossly distorted version.
> She, along with her mates, were playing a drunken game of chicken on a
> busy road, but I am sure it will get brought up again in the years to
> come with her being the innocent party.

Did Cheerless say "Poor Rhiannon", I wonder?

--

Simon Mason

[Squashme]

On Mar 19, 7:05 am, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Phil W Lee wrote:

> > Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 18 Mar 2012 04:56:59

Liar. He did not deliberately run down the girl victim. And you know
it. It just suits you to assert it. The police disagreed with you.

There was disagreement about the shout, rather like the
cyclist being on the road or the pavement. It was not screamed at a
girl
pedestrian, it was shouted at a group of pedestrians. "I'm not
stopping" is not a specific threat to one person. You trust coroners
and police when they decide not to charge a
killer motorist. You decide that you cannot trust them when they let
off a killer cyclist. It is noticeable.

With hindsight he admitted that he could have avoided the
collision, and its only partly foreseeable results. He made a choice
to shout a threat (normally a warning) and, I guess, aim for the same
space that the girl aimed for. He obviously did not want a collision,
not on his ridiculously expensive bike. Who would wish to land up
unhorsed amongst a group of aggrieved teenagers? That "threat" occurs
regularly
in real life. Rarely does it produce such a result. We mostly don't
hear it, because vehicles tend to be soundproof, and the "I'm not
stopping" (or "I will run you down") is obvious.

You write:-

"Strange how a careless act gets prison while a cyclist that quite

deliberately runs down and kills a young girl just gets a fine."

So one person is "deliberate", the other one is "careless". That is
where your thinking gets bent.

[Squashme]

The court did not believe your lie. That is why you cannot understand
the sentences. It would be different if you were correct.

[Mrcheerful]

I am glad you agree that the cyclist made a deliberate decision to carry on
when it was clearly the wrong thing to do, that lead to the death of one of
the party and he became a killer cyclist, by his own intent. Therefore his
actions are deliberate. (since that agrees with me I am not a liar unless
you are too, since we can only go on the reported details and we
agree......)

The lorry driver made a lazy decision to inadequately tie on his load, he
had probably done the same countless times before and had no intention that
the load would fall off, nor that it would injure anyone. Therefore the
lorry driver was careless.

I think that careless is not as bad as deliberate. Therefore the cyclist
should have received a more severe sentence than the lorry driver.

[Squashme]

The defending solicitor blogged:-

"cgt
I acted as solicitor for the cyclist.

He was on the road.

The girl was drunk.

I don't for a moment criticse the decision of a very experienced and
capable District Judge.

What is clear though is that the media print or say what will sell
copy and not always the facts as they come out in Court.

The cyclist is a thoroughly decent bloke who is devastated.
10 July 2008, 18:29:02
– Reply

cgt
Hats off to the person who has spotted that almost all of the press
coverage came about as a result of the Prosecutor's opening. The
evidence came out very differently in Court.
None of the witnesses could agree what the cyclist shouted or indeed
if he shouted at all.
None of them gave evidence that he shouted "move - I'm not stopping"
which seems to be the phrase that the media have used to demonise the
cyclist.
Having been in Court throughout the trial I do wonder where some of
the reporters got their information.
Some of them even had us in the Crown Court!
I'm back to defending murderers and rapists now where I get a much
quieter life!"

OK, over to you:-
"Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"

Stick with cheerless on this one, he just KNOWS.

[Mrcheerful]

It is a great pity that there cannot be just one judge for all trials, then
even and proportionate sentencing might happen.

[Squashme]

He had no intention to kill. He had no intention to kill the girl.
He was careless. He killed someone.

>
> The lorry driver made a lazy decision to inadequately tie on his load, he
> had probably done the same countless times before and had no intention that
> the load would fall off, nor that it would injure anyone.  Therefore the
> lorry driver was careless.
>

The lorry driver intentionally inadequately tied on his load. He
intentionally did not care whether the load would fall off. He
intentionally did not care about the possible injurious consequences.
He killed someone.

[Judith]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:53:48 -0700 (PDT), Squashme <squa...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>The lorry driver intentionally inadequately tied on his load. He
>intentionally did not care whether the load would fall off. He
>intentionally did not care about the possible injurious consequences.

ffs - you need to look up and try and understand the words intent, intentional,
intentionally.


intent : Something that is intended; an aim or purpose.
intended : deliberate, planned.

I always thought that you lacked intelligence, education, or perhaps even both.

[si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk]

On Mar 20, 9:53 am, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The lorry driver intentionally inadequately tied on his load. He
> intentionally did not care whether the load would fall off. He
> intentionally did not care about the possible injurious consequences.

> He killed someone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Also, don't forget that he DELIBERATELY ignored the thing hanging off
the back of the lorry for around 40 miles.

--
Simon Mason

[Judith]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Squashme <squa...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 19, 8:51 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2012 07:43, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 18, 10:17 pm, Phil W Lee<p...@lee-family.me.uk>  wrote:
>> >>>> Strange how a careless act gets prison while a cyclist that quite
>> >>>> accidentally runs down and kills a drunken teenage girl staggering
>> >>>> into the road in front of him just gets a fine.
>> > Yes - this years old story gets wheeled out so often that the true
>> > facts of the case change over time to a grossly distorted version.
>> > She, along with her mates, were playing a drunken game of chicken on a
>> > busy road, but I am sure it will get brought up again in the years to
>> > come with her being the innocent party.
>>
>> This "busy road" was a cul-de-sac with no other vehicular traffic reported.
>> There is no evidence whatsoever that the girl killed by the cyclist who
>> deliberately ran into her was "drunk" and he *did* run into her deliberately,
>> as his screamed warning to the group beforehand proved.
>>
>> Simon Mason is a stranger to the truth of the incident. He can't handle the
>> truth.
>
>The defending solicitor blogged:-
>
>"cgt
>I acted as solicitor for the cyclist.
>
>He was on the road.
>
>The girl was drunk.

Oh really - how did he know that - was the alcohol level measured and reported
at the inquest?

Or did he make it up - as the defending solicitor he had no axe to grind, did
he?

[si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk]

> the sentences. It would be different if you were correct.- Hide quoted text -

[Mrcheerful]

so if I deliberately fail to avoid the next cyclist that gets in my way ,
shouting 'get out of the way, I'm not stopping' . That will just be
careless, not intentional ? What planet are you living on?

[Squashme]

You are intentionally not comparing like with like.
You now know that the cyclist did not shout those words. You know that
he did not deliberately aim to hit the girl. You are out of touch with
reality. The court was not.
If you were to do it deliberately as you say, it would be intentional,
and should be treated as such.

[Squashme]

The defence solicitor wrote:-

"I don't for a moment criticse the decision of a very experienced and
capable District Judge."

So who the fuck are you?

[Squashme]

On Mar 20, 9:44 am, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

You need to look up and try and understand the words intent,

intentional,
intentionally.

intent : Something that is intended; an aim or purpose.
intended : deliberate, planned.

It is obvious that the cyclist did not intend to kill the girl. It was
not deliberate or planned. It was not his aim or purpose. Ffs - do you
think that it was?

[Mrcheerful]

By failing to avoid the colision (which it seems very likely that the
cyclist could) the collision became deliberate.

[Mrcheerful]

His client had got off with a very light sentence, so why would he question
the Judge?

[Mrcheerful]

He made no attempt to avoid the collision, so it was deliberate, which
person he hit or whether he individually intended that person to be injured
or killed is irrelevant.

[Simon Mason]

On Mar 20, 12:02 pm, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "I don't for a moment criticse the decision of a very experienced and
> capable District Judge."
>

> So who the fuck are you?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

A cowardly internet troll of course.
What else do you imagine he is?
Droning on about something that happened nearly three years ago - it's
pathetic.

--
Simon Mason

[Squashme]

So, by aiming at the wrong area of road in trying to pass the group,
the cyclist became a deliberate killer.
Does that mean that by moving to the wrong side in trying to avoid the
cyclist, the girl was committing suicide deliberately?

[Squashme]

Yes he did try to avoid the collision. He deliberately went to the
pavement side of the group, but so unfortunately did the girl. That's
why, when he collided with her, her head hit the pavement. If he had
aimed at the group he would not have headed over to that side. The
court were not as intransigently stupid and malevolent as you.

[Squashme]

I agree. I just hate to see pathetic media distortions established as
fact in "common knowledge", because then we see lawmakers attempt to
make new laws based on these inaccuracies. And that's ignoring the
hypocrisy of our trolls.

[Squashme]

You have averages that show that it was a very light sentence for a
road death? Or it just must be, because of the power of the cycling
mafia?

[Mrcheerful]

the cyclist deliberately rode at the group by mounting the pavement at
speed, which way the child went is irrelevant. The cyclist should have been
imprisoned (as a car driver probably would), but was not, merely getting a
derisory fine. I assume that was because jail is not an option for
'dangerous cycling'? Darren Hall was imprisoned for a very similar offence,
but he was charged with wanton and furious cycling. Perhaps it is time (as
recently proposed) to bring in a uniform charge of 'causing death while
using a wheeled vehicle' which could have the same tariff for all. About
three people a year are killed by cyclists, time the cyclists faced jail for
it.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/03/2012 11:56, Squashme wrote:

Who woke him up?


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Squashme]

Liar and you know it.

, which way the child went is irrelevant.

Don't be fucking stupid. One way was safe, one way was not.

> The cyclist should have been
> imprisoned (as a car driver probably would)

Liar. You know that is often not so. And I should have no objection to
his being imprisoned anyway.

>, but was not, merely getting a
> derisory fine.

As is common for motorists wh kill.

> I assume that was because jail is not an option for
> 'dangerous cycling'?  Darren Hall was imprisoned for a very similar offence,
> but he was charged with wanton and furious cycling.  Perhaps it is time (as
> recently proposed) to bring in a uniform charge of 'causing death while
> using a wheeled vehicle' which could have the same tariff for all.  About
> three people a year are killed by cyclists, time the cyclists faced jail for
> it.

You are the most stupid fuck. Were those cyclists all killers? In some
of these cases, they will have been the innocent party, as some
motorists will be. Or do you believe that every pedestrian killed by
motorists is innocent? If you do, that would mean sending hundreds
more motorists to prison every year.

I should be happy to see a lot more lethal drivers sent to prison
every year, plus one cyclist.

[Squashme]

On Mar 20, 7:16 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

"If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and
twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and
the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the
fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight
begins today. Thank you and good afternoon."

[Mrcheerful]

Darren hall went to the pavement at 25 mph to avoid stopping at lights iirc,
he killed an elderly man. he was a killer cyclist that could have avoided
the crash by not riding on the pavement. he was imprisoned for a while, but
not long enough.

[Squashme]

Darren Hall 2009
Jason Howard 2008
Jeez there's a plague!

"On average, three pedestrians die each year in Britain in collisions
with cyclists. Just ten per cent of those accidents occur on footways.

In contrast, about 40 pedestrians are killed annually by motor
vehicles on footways or verges, the CTC said."

[JNugent]

On 20/03/2012 09:45, Squashme wrote:

> On Mar 19, 8:51 pm, JNugent<jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2012 07:43, Simon Mason wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 10:17 pm, Phil W Lee<p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

>>>>>> Strange how a careless act gets prison while a cyclist that quite
>>>>>> accidentally runs down and kills a drunken teenage girl staggering
>>>>>> into the road in front of him just gets a fine.

>>> Yes - this years old story gets wheeled out so often that the true
>>> facts of the case change over time to a grossly distorted version.
>>> She, along with her mates, were playing a drunken game of chicken on a
>>> busy road, but I am sure it will get brought up again in the years to
>>> come with her being the innocent party.

>> This "busy road" was a cul-de-sac with no other vehicular traffic reported.
>> There is no evidence whatsoever that the girl killed by the cyclist who
>> deliberately ran into her was "drunk" and he *did* run into her deliberately,
>> as his screamed warning to the group beforehand proved.
>> Simon Mason is a stranger to the truth of the incident. He can't handle the
>> truth.

> The defending solicitor blogged:-

> "cgt
> I acted as solicitor for the cyclist.

> He was on the road.
>
> The girl was drunk.

The *defending* solicitor "blogged" that, you say?

And how did he profess to have determined it? Did he do a blood alcohol test?
Had he been sitting alongside her in the pub whilst she allegedly got
"drunk"? Do solicitors now have medical degrees issued along with their
practice certificates? Or do they have to do their medical studies in
parallel with their legal endeavours?

And the there's just the little matter of when it was that words uttered in
defence of an admitted criminal became unchallengeable historical fact rather
than speculative (and sometimes libellous) assertions or claims. Perhaps you
can help with that one, because I missed the enactment of that law.

> I don't for a moment criticse the decision of a very experienced and
> capable District Judge.
> What is clear though is that the media print or say what will sell
> copy and not always the facts as they come out in Court.
> The cyclist is a thoroughly decent bloke who is devastated.
> 10 July 2008, 18:29:02
> – Reply

Not devastated enough. A private quarter hour in the company of ten adult
male relatives of his victim might have done the trick.

[JNugent]

> capable District Judge...

...who was very lenient on my client...".

[JNugent]

He didn't have to.

The law requires either intent *or* recklessness.

[JNugent]

Or reckless.

Either will do.

[JNugent]

Or a reckless one. Either will do for the purposes of the law.

[Simon Mason]

On Mar 20, 10:17 pm, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Darren Hall 2009
> Jason Howard 2008
> Jeez there's a plague!
>

Don't forget poor Rhiannon from three years ago now.
Cheerless wheels her out every other week when is struggling for
current trolling posts, despite the fact that she was at fault.
He is *that* desperate.

--
Simon Mason

[Mrcheerful]

Good to know that you are so concerned for the dead. Why do you keep trying
to bring cars into the equation. This is a cycling group, the deaths I
mention have been caused by cyclists deliberately and at speed mounting the
pavement and killing someone, how can you attempt to trivialise such a
thing?

[Simon Mason]

QUOTE:

Londoners on Bikes, the campaign group launched recently with the
express purpose of urging candidates in the forthcoming mayoral
elections put cycling and the safety of cyclists at the heart of their
transport policies has made sure that present incumbent Boris Johnson
has received its message loud and clear – the mop-topped mayor was
just one of the home-going bike commuters to be handed a leaflet
outlining its position this evening near Angel.

The group, which we first reported on last week together with its Tour
des Bikeshops video, has been leafleting key commuters on key routes
in and out of the centre of the capital in recent days – this evening
alone, members were handing them out not only at Angel, but also at
other locations including Tower Bridge and Old Street.

It has also launched a new video, eloquent in its simplicity, that
highlights the message that London is a city where cars don’t work.

http://road.cc/content/news/55372-londoners-bikes-gets-its-message-across-boris-johnson-handing-him-leaflet-he

--
Simon Mason

[Squashme]

I do not consider mention of her sobriety or otherwise to be relevant
or tasteful. I believe that a couple of cans were mentioned, but not
by me. You and cheerless seem happy to be judge and jury and legal
experts on this case without such demanding qualifications as you
demand from the solicitor. I guess that the solicitor knows enough not
to blog that sort of thing if it were inaccurate. So I'll assume that
it has some truth in it. It has been on the web for three years.

>
> And the there's just the little matter of when it was that words uttered in
> defence of an admitted criminal became unchallengeable historical fact rather
> than speculative (and sometimes libellous) assertions or claims. Perhaps you
> can help with that one, because I missed the enactment of that law.

Doesn't have to be the law. Just has to be more dependable a source
than such biased ignoramuses as cheerless.

And he is.

Meanwhile, cheerless and yourself cling on pathetically, recklessly or
intentionally to press misreporting.

>
> > I don't for a moment criticse the decision of a very experienced and
> > capable District Judge.
> > What is clear though is that the media print or say what will sell
> > copy and not always the facts as they come out in Court.
> > The cyclist is a thoroughly decent bloke who is devastated.
> > 10 July 2008, 18:29:02
> > – Reply
>
> Not devastated enough. A private quarter hour in the company of ten adult
> male relatives of his victim might have done the trick.

Ten, you say. Well, if her family and friends were like that, I'm not
surprised that the cyclist did not wish to stop near them. Would you?
By the way, this is not the first time that you have exhibited
pleasure at such a contemplation.
I'm sorry for you.

[Squashme]

In comparison to ... ?

[Squashme]

cheerless wrote "deliberately runs down and kills a young girl"
and you support him.

[Simon Mason]

QUOTE;

Londoners on Bikes, the campaign group launched recently with the express
purpose of urging candidates in the forthcoming mayoral elections put
cycling and the safety of cyclists at the heart of their transport policies
has made sure that present incumbent Boris Johnson has received its message

loud and clear - the mop-topped mayor was just one of the home-going bike

commuters to be handed a leaflet outlining its position this evening near
Angel.

The group, which we first reported on last week together with its Tour des
Bikeshops video, has been leafleting key commuters on key routes in and out

of the centre of the capital in recent days - this evening alone, members

[Simon Mason]

On Mar 21, 1:56 pm, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > The law requires either intent *or* recklessness.
>
> cheerless wrote "deliberately runs down and kills a young girl"

> and you support him.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You are talking about Nugent here who even defended Nuxx Bar who was one of
the nastiest pieces of work going.
Numpty would support Pol Pot if he thought that he was a fellow cyclist
hater or could score a pathetic point for his team of loser trolls.
That is why I killfiled the moron ages ago when it became clear what a phony
and utterly tedious cretin he really is.

Oh and loser trolls is an apt phrase as not one troll on urc has wrapped up
a single thread all year.
What a total and utter waste of their time.

--
Simon Mason

[Squashme]

Or a stupid miscalculation. That would do too.

[JNugent]

Any of various other judges who might have had the case?

[JNugent]

The cyclist had a clear choice as to at least two (and maybe more than two)
courses of action. He chose - deliberately - to cycle fast towards a group of
(vulnerable) pedestrians and to shout a warning at them - severally - that he
was not going to stop.

All of that was deliberate.

The warning was a clear acknowledgement that one or more of the potential
victims might be injured.

Certain other aspects of the outcome may or may not have been deliberate, but
they all flowed from a deliberate choice as outlined above (assuming no-one
is going to claim that he had no choice but to deliberately ride in to a
crowd of young people).

If a Mr M heaved a brick over a seven foot fence and it landed in a baby's
pram, killing the occupant, he might claim that it wasn't intentional that he
killed the child, but Mr M's heaving the brick would have been intentional,
and he would have been reckless as to the harm that might be caused.

And that's all the law requires.

The riding the bike, or the heaving the brick, is intentional and deliberate.
And the law attributes either intent or recklessness to the damage done. It
doesn't matter which.

His honour Lee J will confirm all of the above.

[JNugent]

"Stupid miscalculation" is the offender's attempt to rationalise his own
recklessness and/or malice, and to try to convince himself that it was the
victim's fault.

[JNugent]

On 21/03/2012 13:54, Squashme wrote:

"Pleasure" at the death of a fellow citizen who had done nothing to deserve it?

You are mistaking me for someone else.

If you want to see such "pleasure" exhibited. do a Google search of this
group (and maybe one or two others) around the time of the death of a Mr Paul
Smith.

[JNugent]

On 21/03/2012 14:09, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Mar 21, 1:56 pm, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > The law requires either intent *or* recklessness.
>>
>> cheerless wrote "deliberately runs down and kills a young girl"
>> and you support him.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You are talking about Nugent here who even defended Nuxx Bar who was one of
> the nastiest pieces of work going.
> Numpty would support Pol Pot if he thought that he was a fellow cyclist hater
> or could score a pathetic point for his team of loser trolls.
> That is why I killfiled the moron ages ago when it became clear what a phony
> and utterly tedious cretin he really is.

Dear me.

Another hangover?

That might be the explanation for your sheer nastiness most of the time, of
course.

[si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk]

On Mar 20, 10:17 pm, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Darren Hall 2009
> Jason Howard 2008
> Jeez there's a plague!
>
> "On average, three pedestrians die each year in Britain in collisions
> with cyclists. Just ten per cent of those accidents occur on footways.
>
> In contrast, about 40 pedestrians are killed annually by motor

> vehicles on footways or verges, the CTC said."- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Anyway - enough of ancient history, that has all been done to death
years ago.

Lets's get back on track shall we?

The top 5 comments to that story.

QUOTE:
by janeburgess1

Friday, March 16 2012, 2:06PM
.
“27 MONTHS for the death of my Auntie Sue, British Justice system,
what a JOKE !!!!!!!!”
.
Report
Click to rate Rating 20..





by FreeWillie

Friday, March 16 2012, 10:46AM
.
“If he was an experienced driver, he should have known, that two
straps were not adequate, it was just sheer laziness and stupidity,
that a woman lost her life, I'm glad he's going to prison, he deserves
to”
.
Report
Click to rate Rating 17..





by blitz4

Friday, March 16 2012, 6:16PM
.
“Mark Smith is my uncle and he will do a life sentence for what
happened on that awful day, not just the 27 months he will do in
prison, so unless you know the full facts of this dreadful accident,
then you should keep your mean comments to yourself, he did not set
out on that day to hurt or kill anyone, it is a true tragedy and the
lady involved will never be forgotten by Mark as he has to wake
everyday knowing he is responsible for her death. Mark is a decent,
honest, hard working, lovely father, son, brother, uncle and friend to
many and he is devastated by the accident and he understands that
Susan's family will never be the same again, he is truly sorry! A
driver's worst nightmare is having an accident and killing someone,
hopefully it will never happen to you or I - "There but for the grace
of God".”
.
Report
Click to rate Rating 15..





by BBigGG

Friday, March 16 2012, 11:23PM
.
“@deandog734
I understand where you're coming from, but the sentence needs to be
harsh enough for the relatives of the victim (justice) and also to
serve as a deterent. If this man walked away from court a free man
then accidents of this type due to negligence would become more
frequent.”
.
Report
Click to rate Rating 15..





by eddierex

Friday, March 16 2012, 11:33PM
.
“he deserves all he gets. brainless idiot. the lady suffered a
terrible death because of him. lets hope someone plants him when hes
in prison.”

--
Simon Mason

[Squashme]

No, you are mistaking my words, doubtless inadvertently.
Your "Pleasure" at the thought of ten men beating up a criminal.

[Squashme]

Wriggle.

[Squashme]

No, unlike your honour, I do not know what the offender would say.
"Stupid miscalculation" is my rationalisation, and it would be the
same for many a motorist, I should think.

[Squashme]

There was no agreement in court as to what he shouted or whether he
shouted at all. I note that the "pavement cycling" aspect has subsided
now.

He did not aim at the group. He carried on cycling aiming for the gap
by the pavement. This was an error, as was his speed.

I expect that a motorist would not even have been charged.

[JNugent]

Only in the abstract and only when the justice system fails to do its job.

[JNugent]

What do you say that "lenient" means, then?

[JNugent]

Do *many* drivers scream an audible threat at a group of people, then drive
straight into them?

[JNugent]

You are right: I ought to have inserted the word "classic" between "the" and
"offender's".

> "Stupid miscalculation" is my rationalisation, and it would be the
> same for many a motorist, I should think.

It has the about same meaning as "recklessness".

[Squashme]

About average for a motorist killing a pedestrian or cyclist.

[Squashme]

If their windows were down, I expect so. if not, honk. And aim to miss
them like the cyclist did.

[Squashme]

As in not tying a load on safely, when you have done it correctly many
times before, and there is no urgency to make that wrong decision.

[JNugent]

You mean the defendant didn't "agree" it, one has to assume?

Happily, "agreement" is not a prerequisite in the criminal courts. If it
were, it might be an obstacle to ever getting a conviction.

> He did not aim at the group. He carried on cycling aiming for the gap
> by the pavement. This was an error, as was his speed.

Indeed. Recklessness at a minimum. And he deliberately aimed at the space
where the group happened to be, even if that is different from "aimi[ing] at
the group".

We can just imagine it, can't we?

"Not guilty, yer honour. I mean, I *did* throw that half-brick, but I wasn't
throwing it at the jeweller's window specifically, only at the location where
the jeweller's window happened to be". I don't agree that there was any
criminal intent or recklessness, and my mate Squashme reckons you can't
convict me because of that lack of agreement."

> I expect that a motorist would not even have been charged.

For deliberately or recklessly riding a bike straight at a group of pedestrians?

How could he be?

[JNugent]

Any idea of the average custodial for a "causing death by dangerous" or
"causing death by careless"?

[JNugent]

I hold no brief for operators or drivers of vehicles with unsafe loads.

[Squashme]

Amongst the teenagers apparently. I will not mention their reasons for
imprecision.

>
> Happily, "agreement" is not a prerequisite in the criminal courts. If it
> were, it might be an obstacle to ever getting a conviction.
>
> > He did not aim at the group. He carried on cycling aiming for the gap
> > by the pavement. This was an error, as was his speed.
>
> Indeed. Recklessness at a minimum. And he deliberately aimed at the space
> where the group happened to be, even if that is different from "aimi[ing] at
> the group".

No, he deliberately aimed at the space where the group happened not to
be. One mismoved, as he should have expected.

>
> We can just imagine it, can't we?
>
> "Not guilty, yer honour. I mean, I *did* throw that half-brick, but I wasn't
> throwing it at the jeweller's window specifically, only at the location where
> the jeweller's window happened to be". I don't agree that there was any
> criminal intent or recklessness, and my mate Squashme reckons you can't
> convict me because of that lack of agreement."

If the jeweller was in a mobile home that might work.

>
> > I expect that a motorist would not even have been charged.
>
> For deliberately or recklessly riding a bike straight at a group of pedestrians?
>
> How could he be?

Wriggle.

[Judith]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:09:49 -0000, "Simon Mason"
<si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mar 21, 1:56 pm, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > The law requires either intent *or* recklessness.
>>
>> cheerless wrote "deliberately runs down and kills a young girl"
>> and you support him.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You are talking about Nugent here who even defended Nuxx Bar who was one of
>the nastiest pieces of work going.

You remind me about Nuxx Bar:- didn't Porky Chapman claim that he had evidence
that would ensure that Nuxx Bar was prosecuted for harassing Porky?

What did Nuxx Bar actually do? Now be careful what you say as Porky has
published his real name, However, he did take that web page down - also one
about me, done as the date for the court case approached.

I wonder why he did that?



--
Porky Chapman bragged about the fact that he was taking someone he
had accused of harassing him through the court system.
All of a sudden his court case is off. Was it because Porky was scared of
being cross-examined and having to answer questions under oath?
Or did the CPS sling the case out because of Porky's "evidence"?
Why won't he tell us?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

I believe thats because he reads everything us 'trolls' post and gets
more & more angry.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:58:28 +0000, Judith wrote:

> Porky Chapman

The report did not break down these cases into numbers of victims who
claimed to have been stalked by several people individually, and by
people acting in concert.



--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.