Gresham Family tragedy takes a twist
Andy
about the Gresham family and the tragic accident that cost 4 kids their
lives? I know I contributed to a fund for the family.
Just seen this today...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7517468.stm
WTF ??
--
---
Andy
<<08 Defender 110 XS CSW>>
steve
> Don't know if you all remember the sad story that broke earlier this year
> about the Gresham family and the tragic accident that cost 4 kids their
> lives? I know I contributed to a fund for the family.
>
> Just seen this today...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7517468.stm
>
> WTF ??
>
From the piece
"
Jaswant Kaur Narwal, chief crown prosecutor for Lincolnshire said: "This
is a very sad case and we have spent a great deal of time reviewing the
evidence and considering the public interest before making the decision
to prosecute."
WHERE is the "public interest" in that ? Bastards.
Steve
Andy
news:48848367$0$26076$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Unless they know something that they are not telling, it is a disgrace, an
accidental tragedy that will not be eased by anything, let alone this. The
justice system in this country is going to the dogs.
Steve Taylor
> Unless they know something that they are not telling, it is a disgrace, an
> accidental tragedy that will not be eased by anything, let alone this. The
> justice system in this country is going to the dogs.
If they knew that, why has it taken so long to press any kind of charges
. Whatever, the guy's lost half his family - what earthly punishment can
anyone give him than that ?
Like you I despair of what is called "justice" here anymore.
Steve
GbH
I seem to recall it was the other driver who was at fault.
--
Wisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could
remember the darn question
Ian Rawlings
> Unless they know something that they are not telling, it is a disgrace, an
> accidental tragedy that will not be eased by anything, let alone this. The
> justice system in this country is going to the dogs.
Sounds like they know more than we do, so seems a little premature to
wring your hands over the justice system in this country. Secondly,
if he's found guilty, we don't have mandatory sentences in this
country despite the howling from the press, so there's a good chance
that in the event of a guilty verdict, he'd not get much punishment if
any. You've probably heard of cases such as wives who murdered their
husbands who were beating them but were let off with extremely light
sentences, it's cases like those, and this, that point out why
mandatory sentencing is a dumb idea.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/
Ian Rawlings
> I seem to recall it was the other driver who was at fault.
Where did you get that info from?
Austin Shackles
<st...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> enlightened us thusly:
I said as much in what I sent to the beeb.
I also looked back to last year: The 2 drivers involved were interviewed by
police in October, no charges were brought.
WTF do they think they're doing?
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!
Austin Shackles
<new...@tarcus.org.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>On 2008-07-21, GbH <Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>
>> I seem to recall it was the other driver who was at fault.
>
>Where did you get that info from?
From what *I* recall, it's a narrow road, 2 large-ish vehicles and not
enough space, the tragedy is that there's a river alongside.
Unless they have very convincing evidence which was not brought to light at
the time, I fail to see how they can have a good case.
Steve Taylor
> so there's a good chance
> that in the event of a guilty verdict, he'd not get much punishment if
> any.
Steve
GbH
> On 2008-07-21, GbH <Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>
>> I seem to recall it was the other driver who was at fault.
>
> Where did you get that info from?
The original writeup, the transit did not move over in spite of having
plenty of room to do so.
Ian Rawlings
> From what *I* recall, it's a narrow road, 2 large-ish vehicles and not
> enough space, the tragedy is that there's a river alongside.
Indeed, but as I think you said at the time (my memory may be failing
me here), if there isn't enough space for two vehicles to pass, then
if they both keep on going then surely that's not good judgement at
all. If that *was* the case (and I have as much knowledge of the
evidence as anyone else in here --- none at all) then that could well
step over the boundaries of accident into careless driving.
> Unless they have very convincing evidence which was not brought to light at
> the time, I fail to see how they can have a good case.
Maybe they didn't push it at the time due to the circumstances, but if
they haven't got good evidence then they're bloody idiots, but I'd
have thought that in such an emotive case they'd really have to have
it in order to make a decision to prosecute.
As for what good can come of a successful prosecution, that's harder
to gauge really. It was either an accident or someone was to blame,
and if it's thought that someone was to blame and that person suffered
badly as a result of the accident, then I'm not sure whether just
closing the case on compassionate grounds would be a good thing or a
bad thing. On the one hand, they've suffered badly already and why
twist the knife, on the other the person who caused the accident does
not have the blame attached to them.
If it did turn out that he drove the landy towards another car on a
road on which there was no space to pass, in a vehicle containing all
his family, and basically kept going until he threw it into the river,
is that an accident or dangerous driving? That's a decision we're not
informed enough to make, and personally I'm quite glad of that.
Ian Rawlings
> The original writeup, the transit did not move over in spite of having
> plenty of room to do so.
Is that a reliable write-up I wonder, supported by the crash investigation?
Ian Rawlings
> ...apart from losing half his family.
It *should* have been obvious that I meant punishment handed down by
the judge.
Ian Rawlings
> Maybe they didn't push it at the time due to the circumstances, but if
> they haven't got good evidence then they're bloody idiots, but I'd
> have thought that in such an emotive case they'd really have to have
> it in order to make a decision to prosecute.
Doing a bit more mooching around while trying to avoid exercise, I
came across the following;
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/pbd_policy.html#16
The page is about the process of prosecution, selected bits are as
follows;
--------------------
We regard all bad driving as serious, particularly where it has led
directly to the death or serious injury of another person. As a
result, the public interest in cases of bad driving, where death or
serious injury has occurred, will almost always be in favour of a
prosecution.
# In the past, the CPS adopted a different approach in cases where a
death has occurred and the deceased was in a close personal or family
relationship with the driver. It was based on the principle that the
driver has suffered such enormous personal loss that it would be
oppressive and insensitive to prosecute the driver for the bad driving
offence that led to the death.
# While we must always be able to exercise discretion in cases where
prosecution would be oppressive or insensitive, we believe that the
public interest will normally demand that a prosecution takes place in
cases of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by
careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs or failing
to provide a specimen, and that is now our policy in these cases.
--------------------
It is however quite easy to read possibly too much into the above.
Tim Jones
<Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>Ian Rawlings wrote:
>> On 2008-07-21, GbH <Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>
>>> I seem to recall it was the other driver who was at fault.
>>
>> Where did you get that info from?
>
>The original writeup, the transit did not move over in spite of having
>plenty of room to do so.
Even if the reporting was accurate that's a poor excuse.
Regardless of whether the other vehicle moved over or not the LR
shouldn't have been travelling at a speed that would result in it
leaving the road!
Paul - xxx
> Don't know if you all remember the sad story that broke earlier this
> year about the Gresham family and the tragic accident that cost 4
> kids their lives? I know I contributed to a fund for the family.
>
> Just seen this today...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7517468.stm
>
> WTF ??
Jeez.
One of the teachers at our school is either an auntie or a niece of
his, we were talking about it only the other day just before schools
broke up.
As has already been said there must be something new come to light for
them to wait this long before charging him.
IMHO he's suffered enough whatever the circumstances, and will continue
to suffer for the rest of his life. To charge him now is just twisting
the knife so it hurts even more.
--
Paul - xxx
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'
Nige
FFS, does nothing to give any sense of fucking justice.
My mate who got lobbed off his bike by some blind cunt right in front of me
has had the police trying to do him for dangerous driving ffs.
I'm sorry, but that is fucking out of order. Cunt in the car gets away scott
free.
--
Nige, 'It takes a nation of millions to hold me back'.
Range Rover Td6 Vogue
BMW K1200S
FOCUS ST3
Nige
Bollocks, do you know that road? I do & all it would take is a wheel off by
a few inches & you're fucked, good & proper.
Ian Rawlings
> Bollocks, do you know that road? I do & all it would take is a wheel off by
> a few inches & you're fucked, good & proper.
Nige, you're not contradicting him.
If you were on that road in a car loaded with kids, would you try and
pass another car coming the other way? It looks like one of the two
drivers did, and one of them's being prosecuted for it.
Nige
> On 2008-07-21, Nige <nigel.in...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Bollocks, do you know that road? I do & all it would take is a wheel off
>> by
>> a few inches & you're fucked, good & proper.
>
> Nige, you're not contradicting him.
>
> If you were on that road in a car loaded with kids, would you try and
> pass another car coming the other way? It looks like one of the two
> drivers did, and one of them's being prosecuted for it.
You don't have a choice at whatever speed, it's a shitty road with a big
drop into the drink. It's cuaght loads out before & will do so again & none
of them (i'm aware) have been prosecuted for DDE.
Rich B
> Tim Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:43:22 +0100, "GbH"
>> <Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Rawlings wrote:
>>>> On 2008-07-21, GbH <Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I seem to recall it was the other driver who was at fault.
>>>>
>>>> Where did you get that info from?
>>>
>>> The original writeup, the transit did not move over in spite of
>>> having plenty of room to do so.
>>
>> Even if the reporting was accurate that's a poor excuse.
>>
>> Regardless of whether the other vehicle moved over or not the LR
>> shouldn't have been travelling at a speed that would result in it
>> leaving the road!
>
> Bollocks, do you know that road? I do & all it would take is a wheel
> off by a few inches & you're fucked, good & proper.
A very good reason to drive slowly and carefully, then.
--
Rich B
Take out the obvious to email me.
A life? Cool - where can I download one of those?
Matt M
> Don't know if you all remember the sad story that broke earlier this year
> about the Gresham family and the tragic accident that cost 4 kids their
> lives? I know I contributed to a fund for the family.
>
> Just seen this today...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7517468.stm
>
> WTF ??
I don't recall all the details, but from what I remember thinking at the
time, wasn't there too many children in a 110 to make it legal? I
thought children were not allowed to be carried in side facing seats,
and surely with the number ok children in the vehicle, that was the
case? I don't know if the prosecution is related to this, and they are
trying to make a point, but it seems a rather too far whatever is the
reason.
Matt
David J. Button
suffered enough.
Why the hell was he remanded in custody after being charged only to appear
later on in the day before the magistrates - thats really cruel, and I
suggested to the CPS that whoever decided that bit needs to be named, shamed
and forced to resign!
I also pointed out that the name of the other driver has never been
revealed - is it a state secret I go on to wonder? I have asked the CPS to
reply if they have the guts to - if they do, I will post it!!!!
I think they will drive the poor man to suicide. Have a look at his blog at
http://www.adadsheartbreak.co.uk/ - he obviously has not yet had the heart
to complete the D-day bit!
Also, the newsreels/papers are contemptously calling him by his surname -
i.e. "Gresham appeared etc....." I have emailed a few and asked them to
show a little respect for the man and address him as Mr. or Nigel Gresham -
after all, he is not guilty of anything yet if at all - this may just be the
CPS way of finding out what really did happen that fateful day.
David J. Button
"Rich B" <richard.bro...@THANKSbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:6ek2onF...@mid.individual.net...
John Greystrong
> Don't know if you all remember the sad story that broke earlier this year
> about the Gresham family and the tragic accident that cost 4 kids their
> lives? I know I contributed to a fund for the family.
>
> Just seen this today...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7517468.stm
>
> WTF ??
But I assume a chav speeding at 90 through a council estate high on
crack who then kills his 4 brothers (by different fathers, obviously) in
the same car should be strung up by the balls?
John
Nige
> Nige typed:
>> Tim Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:43:22 +0100, "GbH"
>>> <Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ian Rawlings wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-07-21, GbH <Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I seem to recall it was the other driver who was at fault.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did you get that info from?
>>>>
>>>> The original writeup, the transit did not move over in spite of
>>>> having plenty of room to do so.
>>>
>>> Even if the reporting was accurate that's a poor excuse.
>>>
>>> Regardless of whether the other vehicle moved over or not the LR
>>> shouldn't have been travelling at a speed that would result in it
>>> leaving the road!
>>
>> Bollocks, do you know that road? I do & all it would take is a wheel
>> off by a few inches & you're fucked, good & proper.
>
> A very good reason to drive slowly and carefully, then.
Exactly, the problem here is it is a fucking knife edge between ok & not ok
thats not actually that easy to spot.
Nige
WTF are you on about?
Ian Rawlings
> You don't have a choice at whatever speed, it's a shitty road with a big
> drop into the drink. It's cuaght loads out before & will do so again & none
> of them (i'm aware) have been prosecuted for DDE.
Well, in this case, four kids died, they were his kids, and the CPS
state that normally they don't prosecute when family or friends of the
accused die, but they are doing so in this case. And that's all we know.
Ian Rawlings
<load of chest-beating bollocks>
> I also pointed out that the name of the other driver has never been
> revealed - is it a state secret I go on to wonder? I have asked the CPS to
> reply if they have the guts to - if they do, I will post it!!!!
You are a twat and a half. You've pre-judged the whole thing, know
nothing about it and are now trying to witch-hunt the other driver.
Has it ever occurred to you that those directly involved *might* just
be better informed than you? Just because he's got a landy FFS.
<rest of shite deleted>
David J. Button
Whether or not Nigel was at fault, my contention is that he has suffered
enough without having firstly to endure the lengthy wait of what, nearly 10
months, and then publicly prosecuted for killing his own kids!!!!!!
It seems to go against the CPS own policy - there is no statement WHY they
have decided on this course of action. I am just wondering why the other
driver had remained a secret - not trying to witch hunt him or her.
And I do concede that perhaps there is something going on here which we are
not aware of - something we don't yet know. And those at the scene will
always have the advantage of knowing exactly what happened and now, we will
too during and after the court case!!!!!
Try and be a little less abusive Ian and respect the opinions of other
people even if they conflict with yours eh?????
David
"Ian Rawlings" <new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrng89qu2...@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
Ian Rawlings
> Ian Rawlings - cant you write without being abusive.
Not when faced with an insult to the years of evolution our forbears
have put in.
> Whether or not Nigel was at fault, my contention is that he has suffered
> enough without having firstly to endure the lengthy wait of what, nearly 10
> months, and then publicly prosecuted for killing his own kids!!!!!!
I have posted a few times on this topic, not that you read anything
before foaming at all and sundry.
> It seems to go against the CPS own policy - there is no statement WHY they
> have decided on this course of action.
Of course not, they've not prosecuted him yet!
> I am just wondering why the other
> driver had remained a secret - not trying to witch hunt him or her.
So why is it you want his name and will post it?
> And I do concede that perhaps there is something going on here which we are
> not aware of - something we don't yet know. And those at the scene will
> always have the advantage of knowing exactly what happened and now, we will
> too during and after the court case!!!!!
Right, so shut up, don't post twaddle to the authorities (not that
they'll take any notice) and stop demanding that the other driver's
name is given to you so you can parade it.
> Try and be a little less abusive Ian and respect the opinions of other
> people even if they conflict with yours eh?????
You get the respect you deserve.
Rich B
> Whether or not Nigel was at fault, my contention is that he has
> suffered enough without having firstly to endure the lengthy wait of
> what, nearly 10 months, and then publicly prosecuted for killing his
> own kids!!!!!!
Sorry, David, but I can't agree. If we follow your logic, then anyone who
kills his/her own children should be let off because they have already
suffered enough. I'm sure you've seen cases in the news recently where that
would be totally wrong.
It is now for the courts to decide whether he has committed the offence of
causing death by dangerous driving. They should have all the facts, whereas
we only have what has so far been released. The words of the prosecutor
("This is a very sad case and we have spent a great deal of time reviewing
the evidence and considering the public interest before making the decision
to prosecute. It is not a decision which has been taken lightly given the
tragic deaths of Mr Gresham's children and the loss he has suffered as their
father") make me think that there is more to this than we know at the
moment.
Nigel may have been a good guy and a Land Rover owner, but there is clearly
a case to answer. For what it's worth, I hope he is cleared, for all the
reasons that people have stated here. But I don't think any of us are in a
position to judge until we have heard the evidence.
Would there be all this sympathy if he had been a city financier driving a
big BMW? I wonder if people are letting tribal loyalty cloud the issue.
David J. Button
posting the other driver's name which I would not do whilst the matter is
sub-judice.
Seems you cannot read Ian - perhaps a trip back to infant school??????
David
"Ian Rawlings" <new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrng89toi...@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
William Black
"David J. Button" <davidjo...@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:zd2dnWcGc-P6fxnV...@bt.com...
> Also, the newsreels/papers are contemptously calling him by his surname -
> i.e. "Gresham appeared etc....."
That's often an indicator that the man has been 'leaked' against and the
press knows some detail that isn't yet in the public realm.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Ian Rawlings
> I said if I got a reply from the CPS I would post it. I said nothing about
> posting the other driver's name which I would not do whilst the matter is
> sub-judice.
You said;
"I also pointed out that the name of the other driver has never been
revealed - is it a state secret I go on to wonder? I have asked the
CPS to reply if they have the guts to - if they do, I will post it!!!!"
I see you're now trying to wheedle your way out of it?
You've more than deserved a toasting, now please just sod off back
into whatever hole you suddenly crawled out of.
GbH
> Ian Rawlings - cant you write without being abusive.
>
> Whether or not Nigel was at fault, my contention is that he has
> suffered enough without having firstly to endure the lengthy wait of
> what, nearly 10 months, and then publicly prosecuted for killing his
> own kids!!!!!!
> It seems to go against the CPS own policy - there is no statement WHY
> they have decided on this course of action. I am just wondering why
> the other driver had remained a secret - not trying to witch hunt him
> or her.
> And I do concede that perhaps there is something going on here which
> we are not aware of - something we don't yet know. And those at the
> scene will always have the advantage of knowing exactly what happened
> and now, we will too during and after the court case!!!!!
>
> Try and be a little less abusive Ian and respect the opinions of other
> people even if they conflict with yours eh?????
>
>
> David
Well said, David!
> "Ian Rawlings" <new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrng89qu2...@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
>> On 2008-07-21, David J. Button <davidjo...@supanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> <load of chest-beating bollocks>
>>
>>> I also pointed out that the name of the other driver has never been
>>> revealed - is it a state secret I go on to wonder? I have asked
>>> the CPS to
>>> reply if they have the guts to - if they do, I will post it!!!!
>>
>> You are a twat and a half. You've pre-judged the whole thing, know
>> nothing about it and are now trying to witch-hunt the other driver.
>> Has it ever occurred to you that those directly involved *might* just
>> be better informed than you? Just because he's got a landy FFS.
>>
>> <rest of shite deleted>
>>
>> --
>> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
>> http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/
--
GbH
As do you!
David J. Button
has posted in his blog her http://www.adadsheartbreak.co.uk/ the words in
Stitched up posting "Just to say that something very nasty has been done, by
someone I trusted.
"
David
"GbH" <Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote in message
news:6_udnQpMOIh...@posted.plusnet...
Ian Rawlings
> As do you!
Oh sorry, forgive me for thinking before posting, I can see you don't
approve of such things.
Ian Rawlings
> Interesting that you should say that GbH, when taken with what Nigel Gresham
> has posted in his blog her http://www.adadsheartbreak.co.uk/ the words in
> Stitched up posting "Just to say that something very nasty has been done, by
> someone I trusted.
> "
So the CPS think he's done something wrong, his wife thinks he's done
something wrong, but you think he's fine and the other driver has some
secret significance? And you're prepared to fire off posts to people
and moan at newspapers about imagined "bias" in their reporting based
on the idea that they are calling him by his *last name*? How about
your bias? Are you still pre-judging this case from a very great
distance or have you decided to smarten up and stop taking sides based
on someone's choice of car.
Tim Jones
<nigel.in...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>Bollocks, do you know that road? I do & all it would take is a wheel off by
>a few inches & you're fucked, good & proper.
In which case there's all the more reason to take it steady!
news.btinternet.com
whether land rover or not.
I cannot help but wonder why the secrecy over the other driver, and also a
lack of any statement (unless there was one and its been suppressed) from
him or her at the coroners inquest or indeed publicly.
Why did the CPS take 10 months to decide? Thats a long time to wait with a
sword hanging over your head.
We are all guessing - it will all come out eventually!
"Ian Rawlings" <new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrng8a3nr...@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
Ian Rawlings
> Maybe, but for the grace of god, go i, or you Ian, or any other car owner,
> whether land rover or not.
Not really, that's in an accidental case, which this may or may not be.
> I cannot help but wonder why the secrecy over the other driver, and also a
> lack of any statement (unless there was one and its been suppressed) from
> him or her at the coroners inquest or indeed publicly.
You've still not explained why you think the other drivers' name
should be revealed or that they've not spoken out, and why this is
suspicious.
> Why did the CPS take 10 months to decide? Thats a long time to wait with a
> sword hanging over your head.
Did they take 10 months to decide, is that unreasonable, and did his
wife's decision play a part in the delay, and did extra evidence
(including additional statements) come to light later in the case, or
is it all down to the CPS who surely must be incompetent idiots and
the country is going to the dogs etc?
> We are all guessing - it will all come out eventually!
Yes we are all guessing, but some of us are firing off angry letters
to the authorities and demanding that the other driver is revealed,
and others are stomping about moaning about the justice system and how
it's going the dogs.
Nige
I have not snipped this post to prove what a gibbon fucking mong you are.
Nige
In fairness, i don't know if he was doing 100mph, i'm saying it's a bad
road. The truth will come out at some stage, but it's not very fair not to
name everyone involved in the case, unless the other driver was a child.
Ian Rawlings
> In fairness, i don't know if he was doing 100mph, i'm saying it's a bad
> road. The truth will come out at some stage, but it's not very fair not to
> name everyone involved in the case, unless the other driver was a child.
Not really, especially in a case like this, you'd have a whole
shitload of landy owners going off half-cocked trying to hunt the
driver down for a start.
Personally I don't think anyone in any court case should be named
until the case has been heard and only then if someone gets sentenced.
Dragging people's names through the muck for everyone to see and leap
to conclusions doesn't seem helpful.
Nige
> On 2008-07-22, Nige <nigel.in...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> In fairness, i don't know if he was doing 100mph, i'm saying it's a bad
>> road. The truth will come out at some stage, but it's not very fair not
>> to
>> name everyone involved in the case, unless the other driver was a child.
>
> Not really, especially in a case like this, you'd have a whole
> shitload of landy owners going off half-cocked trying to hunt the
> driver down for a start.
>
> Personally I don't think anyone in any court case should be named
> until the case has been heard and only then if someone gets sentenced.
> Dragging people's names through the muck for everyone to see and leap
> to conclusions doesn't seem helpful.
Yeah, but why name anyone then? I can't believe for one minute there would
be loads of Landy owners gunning for him.
Ian Rawlings
> Yeah, but why name anyone then?
That's kind of what I'd prefer to be honest.
In most cases they eventually release the names of the victims, but
not normally that of those also around at the time, and they don't
even normally name the accused until there *is* an accused, and even
then they don't always name them. Incidental characters don't get
named normally from what I've seen.
> I can't believe for one minute there would be loads of Landy owners
> gunning for him.
Probably not, but if he (or she) isn't a suspect then there's nothing
to be gained from naming them, and you can be damned sure that tongues
will start wagging and people will put 2 and 2 together and make 22.
If someone crashed into your rangie and died, and your name was
released despite not having any real part to play, I'm sure you'd be
unhappy and there'd bound to be some fuckwits who'd start the old "no
smoke without fire" dance, or someone who would blame you for it for
no particular reason and so on. There's too many people watching for
there not to be a few fuckwits and it only takes one or two to piss
you off and get in the way.
Paul - xxx
> If you were on that road in a car loaded with kids, would you try and
> pass another car coming the other way? It looks like one of the two
> drivers did, and one of them's being prosecuted for it.
Unhappily, I've got to agree with this .. without knowing all the facts
... but presumably the Police do, hence the further proceedings.
--
Paul - xxx
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'
Muddymike
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/07/22/crash-dad-on-rap
"Jaswant Kaur Narwal, chief crown prosecutor, said: "This is a very sad case
and we have
spent a great deal of time reviewing the evidence and considering the public
interest before
making the decision to prosecute."
The court heard the vehicle was made from five different cars.
Prosecutor Sue Holden said: "It was totally unroadworthy." He was bailed
until July 29."
Mike
Neil Brownlee
This is a travesty. How can they claim it unroadworthy 9 months
later?????????? And what "parts" of the 5 vehicles are there - surely
there's only ONE chassis???
--
Neil
Ian Rawlings
> This is a travesty.
Oh FFS here we go again.
Neil Brownlee
IR> Oh FFS here we go again.
*I was referring the the "built from 5 vehicles" reason. Who here has an
older LR built completely from 1?
--
Neil
David J. Button
http://www.adadsheartbreak.co.uk/?m=200807&paged=3 item 3 commencing with
the words "The CPS"
However, there is nothing wrong at all with building a vehicle up from
several different vehicle parts so long as its done properly. How did it
come to have an MOT if it was that unroadworthy and if it did have an MOT,
how come the MOT inspector concerned is not stood in the dock too?
There are lots of questions - we will have to wait until the court case gets
rolling, but that mirror report does give us a clue in that it appears to be
being alleged the vehicle was not fit to be on the road - a bit inconsistent
with the safety concerns of the driver who belted all his kids in proper
harnesses, not just lap and diags, and two of them were in proper child
seats.
"Neil Brownlee" <n.bro...@pccontrolNOSPAMsystems.com> wrote in message
news:nr6dnSSlf66rfhjV...@bt.com...
Ian Rawlings
> *I was referring the the "built from 5 vehicles" reason. Who here has an
> older LR built completely from 1?
No idea, how significant is it in this case and what state is the
vehicle concerned in, given you think it's "a travesty".
No vehicle is built from one if you're going to be pedantic, I've
replaced my wipers for example. WRT to this case, the state of the
vehicle was investigated a long time ago IIRC so the Sun may just be
catching up. Also whether a charge of dangerous driving would be
bought against someone driving such a vehicle I don't know, I'd have
thought more specific ones existed for that.
Muddymike
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/
Click on " Dad in court accused of killing children"
"The prosecutor added that the Crown's case was based upon alleged
mechanical defects to the Land Rover's braking, steering and suspension."
I think we should reserve judgement until full details are given in the
trial.
Mike
GbH
So who/what is being prosecuted? The driver or the vehicle?
Define totally and unroadworthy?
hugh
<austinDITCHTHIS...@ddol-las.net> writes
>On or around Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:24:47 +0100, Ian Rawlings
><new...@tarcus.org.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>On 2008-07-21, GbH <Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Where did you get that info from?
>
>From what *I* recall, it's a narrow road, 2 large-ish vehicles and not
>enough space, the tragedy is that there's a river alongside.
>
>Unless they have very convincing evidence which was not brought to light at
>the time, I fail to see how they can have a good case.
Maybe we've just got to wait and see what evidence they do bring.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
hugh
news.btinternet.com <davidjo...@btinternet.com> writes
the prosecution revolves around Mr Gresham's driving. I don't think it's
normal for the CPS to list witness names prior to the case is it? An
open invitation for our high minded press to go waving their cheque
books.
MarkVarley - MVP
<andrew...@btinternet.com> wrote this gibberish:
>Don't know if you all remember the sad story that broke earlier this year
>about the Gresham family and the tragic accident that cost 4 kids their
>lives? I know I contributed to a fund for the family.
>
>Just seen this today...
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7517468.stm
>
>WTF ??
I read something in a paper earlier, 'metro' I think, referring to him
(Mr Gresham) being charged with dangerous driving or some such.
--
Mark Varley
www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk
www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk
London, England.
Austin Shackles
<MikeR...@mattishall.org.uk> enlightened us thusly:
doubtless we should.
However, all I will say is that I don't see how it's taken getting on for a
year to decide whether or not the vehicle has major defects. It's not as if
it's only just been recovered.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!
Austin Shackles
<ma...@mmaddock-nospam.com> enlightened us thusly:
>Andy wrote:
>> Don't know if you all remember the sad story that broke earlier this year
>> about the Gresham family and the tragic accident that cost 4 kids their
>> lives? I know I contributed to a fund for the family.
>>
>> Just seen this today...
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7517468.stm
>>
>> WTF ??
>
>I don't recall all the details, but from what I remember thinking at the
>time, wasn't there too many children in a 110 to make it legal? I
>thought children were not allowed to be carried in side facing seats,
>and surely with the number ok children in the vehicle, that was the
>case? I don't know if the prosecution is related to this, and they are
>trying to make a point, but it seems a rather too far whatever is the
>reason.
As far as I know it's fine if they're your children. If you take other
people's children on "organised journeys" it's a whole nother ballgame.
They don't even have to wear belts[1]. Although note my comment WRT
strapped in kids in an underwater situation.
[1] they must wear restraints if such can be used. They can't, on sideways
seats. Also, you can probably only fit 2 in a 110 middle row. Otherwise,
they should (if not "small children") be wearing adult belts if these are
available. depending on the age of the defender, it might not have had even
middle-row belts, as the legislation requiring "rear" belts to be fitted
post-dates 110s.
I can give you chapter and verse on this... but I won't.
David J. Button
of the vehicle from the river, you can see seat belts all over the place -
the ones in the rearmost area for the bench seats appear to be rally type
harnesses belts - potentially its these that caused the kids to be unable to
free themselves particularly bearing in mind that the vehicle appears to
have rolled. Those types of belt would be an asset in almost any situation
except the one that this family suffered.
"Austin Shackles" <austinDITCHTHIS...@ddol-las.net> wrote in
message news:b3nd84hncomata013...@4ax.com...
William Black
> On or around Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:09:58 +0100, "Muddymike"
> <MikeR...@mattishall.org.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>>"The prosecutor added that the Crown's case was based upon alleged
>>mechanical defects to the Land Rover's braking, steering and suspension."
>>
>>I think we should reserve judgement until full details are given in the
>>trial.
>
>
> doubtless we should.
>
> However, all I will say is that I don't see how it's taken getting on for
> a
> year to decide whether or not the vehicle has major defects. It's not as
> if
> it's only just been recovered.
Almost certainly the delay has been caused by the time taken to decide to
prosecute.
They say they don't usually prosecute in such cases so the decision to
prosecute 'goes against the set policy' and so the people who decided to
prosecute will be at a very senior level.
To get to that level it will have been looked at by all the intervening
levels, all who will have had the chance to kill it but decided not to...
In simple terms, the file has spent most of the time sitting in someone's
'in-tray' after being kicked upstairs because this one's too hot to
handle...
(Can't you just tell I was in the public service for years...)
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Ian Rawlings
> Almost certainly the delay has been caused by the time taken to decide to
> prosecute.
That'll be just one of the factors, add in all the other delays,
e.g. getting the vehicle out, it sitting around in a yard somewhere,
being transported to the right place, sitting around in a queue there,
a quick once-over, reports being written, it sitting around while the
rest of the process grinds on, someone asks for more inspections, that
filtering down, it being put in the queue for that, it being done, the
reports being written, report sent upstream, sittign around in the
queue to be read, action being proposed, checked, discussed, all with
waits added and so on.
Some people seem to think that the state just sits there with nothing
whatsoever to do, then a case like this comes along and it can all be
handled in a week, even in a complicated case.
> (Can't you just tell I was in the public service for years...)
Can't you tell I do business with the government a lot ;-)
Mind you big business is no better, small businesses tend to make
decisions quickly, but they're more often the wrong ones and much more
highly dependent on individual failings and strengths, which isn't
what you want from a government. Hasty decisions help no-one.
hugh
<austinDITCHTHIS...@ddol-las.net> writes
>On or around Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:09:58 +0100, "Muddymike"
><MikeR...@mattishall.org.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>And there is more.
>>
>>http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/
>>
>>Click on " Dad in court accused of killing children"
>>
>>"The prosecutor added that the Crown's case was based upon alleged
>>mechanical defects to the Land Rover's braking, steering and suspension."
>>
>>I think we should reserve judgement until full details are given in the
>>trial.
>
>
>doubtless we should.
>
>However, all I will say is that I don't see how it's taken getting on for a
>year to decide whether or not the vehicle has major defects. It's not as if
>it's only just been recovered.
>
together to make a decision to prosecute. Personally I don't see it as
an unduly long time given the level at which the decision will have been
taken. No doubt everything will have checked and doubled checked.
Austin Shackles
<davidjo...@supanet.com> enlightened us thusly:
>If you look at some of the pictures which are on the internet post recovery
>of the vehicle from the river, you can see seat belts all over the place -
>the ones in the rearmost area for the bench seats appear to be rally type
>harnesses belts - potentially its these that caused the kids to be unable to
>free themselves particularly bearing in mind that the vehicle appears to
>have rolled. Those types of belt would be an asset in almost any situation
>except the one that this family suffered.
There's talk of defective steering/brakes/suspension. Now, we've all driven
a vehicle knowing that part of it was a bit dodgy, but I for one would be
surprised if Gresh did knowing that he had the whole family on board,
especially, I'd be surprised if it had defective steering, brakes AND
suspension. One fault, maybe....
we'll see what transpires.
I get the impression that there may have been some manoeuvring behind the
scenes and people casting allegations around, maybe out of spite or other
such motive. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's something that
sadly does happen. *If* that's the case, then we hope that justice will
prevail.
Tom Woods
<austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESU...@ddol-las.net> wrote:
> There's talk of defective steering/brakes/suspension. Now, we've all driven
> a vehicle knowing that part of it was a bit dodgy, but I for one would be
> surprised if Gresh did knowing that he had the whole family on board,
> especially, I'd be surprised if it had defective steering, brakes AND
> suspension. One fault, maybe....
>
> we'll see what transpires.
>
> I get the impression that there may have been some manoeuvring behind the
> scenes and people casting allegations around, maybe out of spite or other
> such motive. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's something that
> sadly does happen. *If* that's the case, then we hope that justice will
> prevail.
I agree Austin - I think everybody saying anything should hold off
until the complete story comes out - and preferably by reading it
about it by official reports not via rephrased newspaper articles.
Since the man appears to be going through a messy divorce since the
accident - and the ex wife now appears to have the children since the
verdict i'm sure that cant have helped with anything and all the vague
reports and allegations that are now being hinted at.
All the the articles I have seen also seem to have missed the fact
that the kids died because they were too well strapped in! That
doesn't strike me as the actions of an irresponsible parent/badly
maintained vehicle owner (obviously misinformed about seatbelts - but
i have never thought that being held in to well could be a bad thing
until after all this, so i might have used the same approach as I had
never considered this aspect of child belts before.)
hugh
<austinDITCHTHIS...@ddol-las.net> writes
>On or around Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:51:56 +0100, "David J. Button"
><davidjo...@supanet.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>If you look at some of the pictures which are on the internet post recovery
>>of the vehicle from the river, you can see seat belts all over the place -
>>the ones in the rearmost area for the bench seats appear to be rally type
>>harnesses belts - potentially its these that caused the kids to be unable to
>>free themselves particularly bearing in mind that the vehicle appears to
>>have rolled. Those types of belt would be an asset in almost any situation
>>except the one that this family suffered.
>
>There's talk of defective steering/brakes/suspension. Now, we've all driven
>a vehicle knowing that part of it was a bit dodgy, but I for one would be
>surprised if Gresh did knowing that he had the whole family on board,
>especially, I'd be surprised if it had defective steering, brakes AND
>suspension. One fault, maybe....
>
>we'll see what transpires.
>
>I get the impression that there may have been some manoeuvring behind the
>scenes and people casting allegations around, maybe out of spite or other
>such motive. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's something that
>sadly does happen. *If* that's the case, then we hope that justice will
>prevail.
results of the vehicle examination. This should be first disclosed to
the jury in court.
One other comment. Headline in today's Guardian - "Father Charged over
girl's death on quad bike."
(He is a RR owner) Charged with manslaughter by gross neglect. Allegedly
took his two young kids out on to a country road, he in his RR, them
following on behind on their quad bikes.
At least the CPS are being consistent.
So my question is should he be prosecuted or has he too suffered enough?
If you think so, where do you draw the line?
SpamTrapSeeSig
<austinDITCHTHIS...@ddol-las.net> writes
>I get the impression that there may have been some manoeuvring behind
>the scenes and people casting allegations around, maybe out of spite or
>other such motive. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's
>something that sadly does happen. *If* that's the case, then we hope
>that justice will prevail.
I suspect Mr. Gresham, with whom my sympathies undoubtedly lie, is being
prosecuted for ultimately political reasons.
The government hates our sort of Land Rovers: we're eco-friendly, we're
stubbornly independently-minded, and they get proportionately little
revenue from our sort of motoring (fuel tax notwithstanding!).
We also represent a celebration of _British_ achievement, when these
days we must all be good little Europeans. Our vehicles, being the
safest on the roads (or off them!), give the lie to the airbags/speed
cameras/traffic management thought police.
In short, if you are of a certain mindset (which many in local and
national administration are), we represent a threat. Any opportunity to
present Land Rover enthusiasts as irresponsible and dangerous, and thus
attack the very existence of our vehicles "... which should be taken off
the road for the public good" (you can hear it coming), will not be
passed over.
I predict Mr.Gresham will have the book thrown at him, as it suits too
many in authority for them not to do so.
I think it's unfair and certainly not natural justice, but such is the
country we now live in.
Regards,
S.
PS: If you want concrete examples of this type of thinking, I refer you
to any statements on road safety by the Chief Constable of North Wales,
and, even more chillingly, to the former EU Transport Commissioner,
Martin Bangemann, who famously expressed a wish for all motorcycles to
be banned permanently from EU roads, and campaigned for 1930s-style leg
protectors to be compulsory.
Regards,
Simonm.
--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TDi'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/
Ian Rawlings
> So my question is should he be prosecuted or has he too suffered enough?
> If you think so, where do you draw the line?
I posted the CPS's thinking on this fairly on in the thread, normally
they don't prosecute when the accused has suffered badly but they do
on serious cases when the driver was particularly at fault, especially
when drink or drugs were involved. If it really is down to vehicle
condition then it must have been a real basket-case.
One worry is that my landy some time ago had defective brakes and
steering that was about to come apart, this was caught in a routine
service, but had been done a few months prior to that during a hard
off-roading session when I still bashed the truck around on off-road
courses like it was some kind of tank (I was very inexperienced with
cars and off-roading at the time), the swan-neck on the steering drop
link was hanging off. It may have been the off-roading he did in the
truck that put it into a dangerous state, and I think that may well be
very relevant to the group as a whole. In a separate incident I cut
my tyres so badly they were dangerous and one blew out at speed, again
that was off-road damage, the kind of thing I do check for now I'm
more experienced. So basically be bloody careful with your off-road
truck particularly if you're going to load it up with your entire
family.
Ian Rawlings
> I suspect Mr. Gresham, with whom my sympathies undoubtedly lie, is being
> prosecuted for ultimately political reasons.
Bloody idiot.
William Black
"SpamTrapSeeSig" <no-...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4xtPTuL3...@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
> I suspect Mr. Gresham, with whom my sympathies undoubtedly lie, is being
> prosecuted for ultimately political reasons.
>
> The government hates our sort of Land Rovers: we're eco-friendly, we're
> stubbornly independently-minded, and they get proportionately little
> revenue from our sort of motoring (fuel tax notwithstanding!).
You seriously believe a politician had some sort of involvement in the
decision to prosecute?
If any politician did so it would be instant death for their career if it
came out, and in the current climate the Civil Service is leaking stuff
like this at every oportunity...
Don't be daft.
> PS: If you want concrete examples of this type of thinking, I refer you to
> any statements on road safety by the Chief Constable of North Wales, and,
> even more chillingly, to the former EU Transport Commissioner, Martin
> Bangemann, who famously expressed a wish for all motorcycles to be banned
> permanently from EU roads, and campaigned for 1930s-style leg protectors
> to be compulsory.
Bangemann and his leg protectors have been history for well over a decade
now.
Do try and keep up...
SpamTrapSeeSig
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"SpamTrapSeeSig" <no-...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4xtPTuL3...@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
>
>> I suspect Mr. Gresham, with whom my sympathies undoubtedly lie, is being
>> prosecuted for ultimately political reasons.
>>
>> The government hates our sort of Land Rovers: we're eco-friendly, we're
>> stubbornly independently-minded, and they get proportionately little
>> revenue from our sort of motoring (fuel tax notwithstanding!).
>
>You seriously believe a politician had some sort of involvement in the
>decision to prosecute?
The CPS is nothing if not a political creature.
It may be the sum of many little conversations, or perhaps political
aides ringing-up and asking direct questions (I concede that's
unlikely). I doubt very much it's a straight directive from the Home
Office, but I would be surprised if ears haven't been whispered into.
>If any politician did so it would be instant death for their career if it
>came out, and in the current climate the Civil Service is leaking stuff
>like this at every oportunity...
"I asked the CPS to take a very thorough look at this case, because of
the number of such vehicles on the roads and the danger they pose to the
public. An example must be made, to ensure such a tragedy doesn't happen
again."
Come on, you were in the CS, you could write it yourself!
>> PS: If you want concrete examples of this type of thinking, I refer you to
>> any statements on road safety by the Chief Constable of North Wales, and,
>> even more chillingly, to the former EU Transport Commissioner, Martin
>> Bangemann, who famously expressed a wish for all motorcycles to be banned
>> permanently from EU roads, and campaigned for 1930s-style leg protectors
>> to be compulsory.
>
>Bangemann and his leg protectors have been history for well over a decade
>now.
Indeed so (although according to Wikipedia he's still active in German
national politics), but the attitude of 'we know what's best for you, so
just do it" prevails, particularly in the marble halls of the EU.
William Black
> In article <g69pkt$j16$2...@registered.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
> "I asked the CPS to take a very thorough look at this case, because of the
> number of such vehicles on the roads and the danger they pose to the
> public. An example must be made, to ensure such a tragedy doesn't happen
> again."
>
> Come on, you were in the CS, you could write it yourself!
If anyone was daft enough to write the words 'an example must...' they
fully deserve to get the sack.
Those sort of terms are reserved for judges.
A real Civil Servant would write 'It would be unfortunate if someone was
thought to have been made an example of at this time and care must be taken
to ensure that any prosecution of such a case is sucessful'.
The real decision will have been made after the meeting by the chair of the
meeting.
But no career politician will have been involved in any provable way.
They'll also need a cast iron case to convict a man whose children are dead,
the jury may just refuse to convict if his defence is adequate.
SpamTrapSeeSig
>
>"SpamTrapSeeSig" <no-...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4RiPrtPJ...@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <g69pkt$j16$2...@registered.motzarella.org>, William Black
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>> "I asked the CPS to take a very thorough look at this case, because of the
>> number of such vehicles on the roads and the danger they pose to the
>> public. An example must be made, to ensure such a tragedy doesn't happen
>> again."
>>
>> Come on, you were in the CS, you could write it yourself!
>
>If anyone was daft enough to write the words 'an example must...' they
>fully deserve to get the sack.
>
>Those sort of terms are reserved for judges.
And politicians - the group I meant (you as a CS would've no doubt noted
that type of phraseology in political posturing, if not literally then
in principle).
>A real Civil Servant would write
> 'It would be unfortunate if someone was
>thought to have been made an example of at this time and care must be taken
>to ensure that any prosecution of such a case is sucessful'.
>
>The real decision will have been made after the meeting by the chair of the
>meeting.
>
>But no career politician will have been involved in any provable way.
I understand and agree, and note particularly your last adjective above.
That was pretty much my initial thought.
>They'll also need a cast iron case to convict a man whose children are dead,
>the jury may just refuse to convict if his defence is adequate.
That's their challenge, and, if his defence IS adequate, the CPS have a
job on.
It doesn't however prevent it being another horrible ordeal for the
Gresham family, and of questionable necessity. Unless, of course, there
is another agenda.
William Black
> In article <g69rss$v76$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>They'll also need a cast iron case to convict a man whose children are
>>dead,
>>the jury may just refuse to convict if his defence is adequate.
>
> That's their challenge, and, if his defence IS adequate, the CPS have a
> job on.
>
> It doesn't however prevent it being another horrible ordeal for the
> Gresham family, and of questionable necessity. Unless, of course, there is
> another agenda.
I doubt that very much.
This is a really bad case to use to make someone an example of.
After what has been said here over the past day or so I'm starting to think
there must be some technical evidence we don't know about.
Ian Rawlings
> After what has been said here over the past day or so I'm starting to think
> there must be some technical evidence we don't know about.
No no, it's the fucking Illuminati, the jews and the freemasons *again*...
GbH
> On 2008-07-24, William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> After what has been said here over the past day or so I'm starting
>> to think there must be some technical evidence we don't know about.
>
> No no, it's the fucking Illuminati, the jews and the freemasons
> *again*...
Aren't some people lucky we still have free speech in this country,
however, would be wise not to abuse that priviledge!
Ian Rawlings
> Aren't some people lucky we still have free speech in this country,
> however, would be wise not to abuse that priviledge!
What are you on about?
GbH
> On 2008-07-24, GbH <Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>
>> Aren't some people lucky we still have free speech in this country,
>> however, would be wise not to abuse that priviledge!
>
> What are you on about?
You seem to be marching to a different tune to the general concensus!
Ian Rawlings
> You seem to be marching to a different tune to the general concensus!
You appear to be tone deaf!
So the general consensus isn't that we don't know what happened, it's
that this case is entirely political?
You are losing the plot as much as Mr. Conspiracy.
Rich B
> In article <epag845cbl0can447...@4ax.com>, Austin
> Shackles <austinDITCHTHIS...@ddol-las.net> writes
>> I get the impression that there may have been some manoeuvring behind
>> the scenes and people casting allegations around, maybe out of spite
>> or other such motive. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's
>> something that sadly does happen. *If* that's the case, then we hope
>> that justice will prevail.
>
> I suspect Mr. Gresham, with whom my sympathies undoubtedly lie, is
> being prosecuted for ultimately political reasons.
>
> The government hates our sort of Land Rovers: we're eco-friendly,
> we're stubbornly independently-minded, and they get proportionately
> little revenue from our sort of motoring (fuel tax notwithstanding!).
>
> We also represent a celebration of _British_ achievement, when these
> days we must all be good little Europeans. Our vehicles, being the
> safest on the roads (or off them!), give the lie to the airbags/speed
> cameras/traffic management thought police.
In was wondering when the conspiracy theorists would emerge.
> PS: If you want concrete examples of this type of thinking, I refer
> you to any statements on road safety by the Chief Constable of North
> Wales, and, even more chillingly, to the former EU Transport
> Commissioner, Martin Bangemann, who famously expressed a wish for all
> motorcycles to be banned permanently from EU roads, and campaigned
> for 1930s-style leg protectors to be compulsory.
And the 100 bhp limit, another favourite of Bangemann. None of which ever
came to pass, of course (the leg protector issue went away when it was
clearly demonstrated that they increased, rather than prevented, injury - a
victory for rationality and evidence-based legislation). So much for the
grand conspiracy.
--
Rich B
Take out the obvious to email me.
A life? Cool - where can I download one of those?
Rich B
> On 2008-07-24, William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> After what has been said here over the past day or so I'm starting
>> to think there must be some technical evidence we don't know about.
>
> No no, it's the fucking Illuminati, the jews and the freemasons
> *again*...
Oi! It was nowt to do with me!
--
Worshipful Magus Revd Solly Goldberg
110 V8 CSW
Austin Shackles
<richard.bro...@THANKSbtinternet.com> enlightened us thusly:
>And the 100 bhp limit, another favourite of Bangemann. None of which ever
>came to pass, of course (the leg protector issue went away when it was
>clearly demonstrated that they increased, rather than prevented, injury - a
>victory for rationality and evidence-based legislation). So much for the
>grand conspiracy.
Ah, well, I was one of many who helped scupper the 100BHP limit. I've still
got the t-shirt somewhere, but it's a fair bet it don't fit any more.
Off to have a quick squint at the new toy, see if I can see anything obvious
wrong with the steering/suspension.
David J. Button
The above throws a little more light on the case for the prosecution.
"The basis of the
case relates to the state this vehicle was
in. It was totally unroadworthy.
"It was found to be comprised of
major components from five different
vehicles. It had a faulty braking system
and no handbrake.
"It is claimed he altered the vehicle
himself, even though he has no
qualifications in vehicle maintenance -
although he is a welder."
No mention of faulty suspension as I have hear from other quarters.!!!!
David
"MarkVarley - MVP" <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote in message
news:efkc84hm51ko9ojtn...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:30:08 +0100, "Andy"
> <andrew...@btinternet.com> wrote this gibberish:
>
>>Don't know if you all remember the sad story that broke earlier this year
>>about the Gresham family and the tragic accident that cost 4 kids their
>>lives? I know I contributed to a fund for the family.
>>
>>Just seen this today...
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7517468.stm
>>
>>WTF ??
>
> I read something in a paper earlier, 'metro' I think, referring to him
> (Mr Gresham) being charged with dangerous driving or some such.
> --
> Mark Varley
> www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk
> www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk
> London, England.
Austin Shackles
<davidjo...@supanet.com> enlightened us thusly:
>http://www2.sleafordtoday.co.uk/frontpagehome/SSP1.pdf
>
>The above throws a little more light on the case for the prosecution.
>
>"The basis of the
>case relates to the state this vehicle was
>in. It was totally unroadworthy.
>"It was found to be comprised of
>major components from five different
>vehicles. It had a faulty braking system
>and no handbrake.
>"It is claimed he altered the vehicle
>himself, even though he has no
>qualifications in vehicle maintenance -
>although he is a welder."
>
>No mention of faulty suspension as I have hear from other quarters.!!!!
Seems odd to me that with the amount of stuff that's been done to it
(wheels, tyres, rollcage, harnesses etc., that he'd neglect to have brakes.
Being made up from 5 vehicles is a red herring, IMHO. I could assemble
parts from at least 5 landies into a safe, working, legal motor - and that
without any formal qualifications as an automotive engineer.
Rich B
> On or around Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:21:13 +0100, "David J. Button"
> <davidjo...@supanet.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> http://www2.sleafordtoday.co.uk/frontpagehome/SSP1.pdf
>>
>> The above throws a little more light on the case for the prosecution.
>>
>> "The basis of the
>> case relates to the state this vehicle was
>> in. It was totally unroadworthy.
>> "It was found to be comprised of
>> major components from five different
>> vehicles. It had a faulty braking system
>> and no handbrake.
>> "It is claimed he altered the vehicle
>> himself, even though he has no
>> qualifications in vehicle maintenance -
>> although he is a welder."
>>
>> No mention of faulty suspension as I have hear from other
>> quarters.!!!!
>
> Seems odd to me that with the amount of stuff that's been done to it
> (wheels, tyres, rollcage, harnesses etc., that he'd neglect to have
> brakes.
>
> Being made up from 5 vehicles is a red herring, IMHO. I could
> assemble parts from at least 5 landies into a safe, working, legal
> motor - and that without any formal qualifications as an automotive
> engineer.
Of course. That's why we have the MoT test - whatever your skills, if it's
passed as safe by a qualified tester, then it should be safe. I hate this
idea that the only people we trust to do things are people with a "formal
qualification". Often, all a qualification means is that you have ticked
the right boxes in some modular multiple-choice question paper, with
unlimited re-sits of the bits you got wrong.
Anyone who goes onto the roads with an unroadworthy vehicle is reckless at
best, and deserves everything he gets. But there are many ways to make and
keep a vehicle roadworthy without going anywhere near some artificial
qualification. Long live the skilled amateur. My fear is that the "5
vehicles" angle will ensure that he is tried and found guilty by the media
and the ignorant public, whatever the quality of the work.
I suppose now is the time to drag out the old chestnut about professionals
(or "people with formal qualifications") building the Titanic, and amateurs
building the Ark.
--
Rich B
1971 S2a
1995 XT600E
2006 GT1000
Oh, and a Ford
William Black
> Being made up from 5 vehicles is a red herring, IMHO. I could assemble
> parts from at least 5 landies into a safe, working, legal motor - and that
> without any formal qualifications as an automotive engineer.
I doubt it's that.
Isn't there some sort of complicated test that cars made up from bits have
to pass these days?
And Google is my friend...
Something called the SUV test if more than a certain proportion of the car
is made from another vehicle...
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicle/DG_10014199
If he's breached that he's in deep trouble...
William Black
"Austin Shackles" <austinDITCHTHIS...@ddol-las.net> wrote in
message news:809s84lerhtaanhmh...@4ax.com...
Dave Liquorice
> Seems odd to me that with the amount of stuff that's been done to it
> (wheels, tyres, rollcage, harnesses etc., that he'd neglect to have
> brakes.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find many "qualified in vehicle
maintance" saying a Land Rover has no hand brake, after all there are no
cables to the rear wheels are there.
> I could assemble parts from at least 5 landies into a safe, working,
> legal motor - and that without any formal qualifications as an
> automotive engineer.
As you are surely well aware in this day and age unless you have done a
"training" course you are not allowed to do anything. Certainly not if
what ever you are doing could be considered the remotest bit technical.
My DII could be considerd as being made from several "different vehicals",
it's had a replacement gearbox, the wheels are not those that came with it
when I bought it, niether are the tyres, nor are any of the brake discs or
pads, or clutch or two of the wheel hubs, or the rear air bags and
compressor or the radiator...
More salt required.
And even more inaccurate reporting FFS! The caption under the Land Rover
being recovered says:
"The scene of the tragic accident last September, with the Land Rover *in
which* the four children died being hauled out of the River Witham."
The body of the article clearly says that all four children died some
hours or days later *in hospital*.
If they can't get basic facts right what else have they got wrong or
misinterpreted for the sake of a "good story".
--
Cheers
Dave.
William Black
"Dave Liquorice" <allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@srv1.howhill.net...
>
> As you are surely well aware in this day and age unless you have done a
> "training" course you are not allowed to do anything. Certainly not if
> what ever you are doing could be considered the remotest bit technical.
>
> My DII could be considerd as being made from several "different vehicals",
> it's had a replacement gearbox, the wheels are not those that came with it
> when I bought it, niether are the tyres, nor are any of the brake discs or
> pads, or clutch or two of the wheel hubs, or the rear air bags and
> compressor or the radiator...
This:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicle/DG_10014199
Says you're ok so far, but a new chassis and gearbox at any one time means
a major paperwork exercise.
Mess with the suspension when you fit that new V8 diesel with the big gear
box and the new diffs and you're in the deep doo-doo.
GbH
> "Austin Shackles" <austinDITCHTHIS...@ddol-las.net>
> wrote in message news:809s84lerhtaanhmh...@4ax.com...
>
>> Being made up from 5 vehicles is a red herring, IMHO. I could
>> assemble parts from at least 5 landies into a safe, working, legal
>> motor - and that without any formal qualifications as an automotive
>> engineer.
>
> I doubt it's that.
>
> Isn't there some sort of complicated test that cars made up from bits
> have to pass these days?
>
> And Google is my friend...
>
> Something called the SUV test if more than a certain proportion of
> the car is made from another vehicle...
>
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicle/DG_10014199
>
> If he's breached that he's in deep trouble...
Think in this case your selection of that acronym is both incorrect,
inappropriate and unfortunate.
SUV, Sports Utility Vehicle!!!
I think you mean SVA, Single Vehicle Approval.
Austin Shackles
<Geoff_Ha...@IEE.ORGasm> enlightened us thusly:
>
>Think in this case your selection of that acronym is both incorrect,
>inappropriate and unfortunate.
>SUV, Sports Utility Vehicle!!!
>I think you mean SVA, Single Vehicle Approval.
AFAIK SVA applies only to one-offs of non-standard type. I don't think it
applies to rebuilding a 110 using parts from other 110s.
I didn't have to do it for putting an RR V8 and auto box into the 110. I
think it may apply if you do major modification to the chassis or
suspension, such as for example converting a leaf-sprung chassis to coils.
Ian Rawlings
> Of course. That's why we have the MoT test - whatever your skills, if it's
> passed as safe by a qualified tester, then it should be safe.
ISTR that on the MOT certificate it specifically states that this is
not the case, that the MOT is not a roadworthiness check.
EMB
> Being made up from 5 vehicles is a red herring, IMHO. I could assemble
> parts from at least 5 landies into a safe, working, legal motor - and that
> without any formal qualifications as an automotive engineer.
>
better job of it than many 'properly' qualified people (I've worked with
some shocking automotive engineers who should never have been let loose
on a wheelbarrow let alone a road going vehicle).
Oily
"Ian Rawlings" <new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrng8tl6t...@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2008-07-28, Rich B <richard.bro...@THANKSbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course. That's why we have the MoT test - whatever your skills, if
it's
> > passed as safe by a qualified tester, then it should be safe.
>
> ISTR that on the MOT certificate it specifically states that this is
> not the case, that the MOT is not a roadworthiness check.
I beg to differ. At the time of the test it is.
hugh
as the least trusted people on the planet
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
hugh
<new...@tarcus.org.uk> writes
>On 2008-07-28, Rich B <richard.bro...@THANKSbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course. That's why we have the MoT test - whatever your skills, if it's
>> passed as safe by a qualified tester, then it should be safe.
>
>ISTR that on the MOT certificate it specifically states that this is
>not the case, that the MOT is not a roadworthiness check.
>
confirms that they were in acceptable condition ON THE DAY.
hugh
<davidjo...@supanet.com> writes
>http://www2.sleafordtoday.co.uk/frontpagehome/SSP1.pdf
>
>The above throws a little more light on the case for the prosecution.
>
>"The basis of the
>case relates to the state this vehicle was
>in. It was totally unroadworthy.
>"It was found to be comprised of
>major components from five different
>vehicles. It had a faulty braking system
>and no handbrake.
>"It is claimed he altered the vehicle
>himself, even though he has no
>qualifications in vehicle maintenance -
>although he is a welder."
>
>No mention of faulty suspension as I have hear from other quarters.!!!!
>
>
>David
No handbrake? - well not on the rear wheels where you would normally
find one.
Made from 5 different vehicles? - well in the "normal" world being made
from 2 vehicles would be enough to cause outrage amongst the great
unwashed, but this IS a Land Rover we're talking about. I hope Mr
Gresham's team can get that across to any jury.
Personally I think this leaking of prosecution information is
disgraceful and prejudicial to a fair hearing.
Now I must stop immediately as I've just realised I have no formal
qualification in typing - or scratching my arse come to think of it.