jr135 wrote:
Why not just answer the question?
Because it is flawed and doesn’t add anything to the debate………
I can't actually remember what the question was, but that certainly sounds like a nice cop-out from you........
jr135 previously wrote:
if that's not a valid question then do me a favour and just delete it.
jr135 wrote:
Okay, let me ask you a simple question: would you generally condemn someone who had been found guilty of careless driving by the courts?
Not these days – no, simply because of the large-scale deception brought about by those tasked with making the roads safer.
Well then you have to understand that it makes it rather hard for me to accept that you genuinely care in road safety. It seems to me that you, and others on this site, take the view that you should be able to drive however you like, and it's safe then good, but if not, then it's the fault of speed cameras, the police, the courts, the authorities, the EU...
jr135 wrote:
So by reading a short article and seeing just one or two photos you can ascertain whether someone is driving carefully or not can you?
…………….
You suspect wrong. Perhaps you would like to quote it again.
me wrote:
We are discussing whether the biker should have been convicted based on what was reported from the articles available.
Were we? I don't recall that.
Of course there is a possibility that something more was considered at trial which wasn’t reported in the articles, hence we also cannot discount the possibility that he really could have been driving carelessly; given the current climate we can’t automatically accept this is the case.
Which brings us back to square 1:
jr135 previously wrote:
you lot are basically defending this person
which is not true, nor can ‘we’ condemn him.
We really are going round in circles here and it's very tedious. You could condemn him if you based it on the jury finding him guilty. But if you're not going to accept what the courts say and ever condemn anyone for careless driving, then I cannot possibly accept that you or the vast majority of people on this thread really care about road safety. I think your automatic reaction, like most people on thread, is to defend a motorist no matter what they're convicted on.
And please, I'm sure that you will disagree with some or all of the above paragraph, or find logical flaws, but I've written more than enough posts on this subject now so you will just have to go away feeling pleased for yourself...
jr135 wrote:
smeggy wrote:
Irrelevant. We are discussing the reported actions of the biker.
No we're NOT! I keep saying that we shouldn't try to take the place of the jury on this, who would have seen all the evidence. So what evidence do you actually have that the jury were wrong on this?
Errrm, yes ‘we’ are (or at least were before you interrupted).
It's alright now, you can stop putting the word we in inverted commas...
I believe it was you who used the word ‘speculation’.
Yes.
What evidence do you have that the jury were right on this?
Let's face it, it's rather irrevelvant at this stage, considering that you have said that you simply don't accept what any jury says. The fact is is that you're not actually interested in road safety. You're just interested in driving however you feel like.
Are we not free to discuss using the info available?
Of course you are. What is your problem? But don't keep saying that I have made some rubbish case of showing his careless driving when I have never tried to do that.
jr135 wrote:
Anymore, for the record, please answer my question.
I have already answered yours; granted I gave you a legal definition but I agree with it.
That’s rich coming from you! How about you answer mine which came first.
For goodness sake, what was it? I mean really, what is the point of this? You and almost everyone else decided almost before they knew anything about this case that this person was innocent. It's simply a lie to say that you care about road safety. What you care about is driving how you want, especially if the evil Nazi authorities dare to get involved.
jr135 wrote:
I am NOT trying to evade any questions; however, I have repeatedly said that I'm not going to speculate on what evidence the jury did or didn't see.
Then answer this: is exceeding the speed limit, looking at a road sign and changing gear considered as ‘careless driving’? If not then what is the difference?"
In my personal opinion, I would say that doing all three at the same time, certainly is careless driving. Whether or not that is what actually happened in this case I don't know.
So what were you referring to when you said “this is only speculation.”.
My god, you must think that if you endlessly nitpick, then eventually you will 'win' the argument because I will get fed up and disappear. You're just like DF, except that his tactic is to endlessly be abusive, aggressive and confrontational.
Well you're right, you will 'win' the argument. You go and give yourself a big pat on the back.
Also, your very next sentence:
jr135 wrote:
I have only been suggesting what the jury might have been told.
jr135 wrote:
I am not manipulating the facts.
Yeah, show us where he looked at the camera and raised his arm while at 105mph
Yeah, show me where I said he had. And for crying out loud, do you still not understand that all you've seen is a short article and photo? When will that sink in?
jr135 wrote:
smeggy wrote:
Since when were IQ’s factored into a prosecution?
I didn't specifically say they were.
So why do you keep referring to the intelligence of the rider?
I don't "keep" referring to the intelligence of the rider. Firstly, you may like to know that it wasn't in fact me that first mentioned it on this thread. Secondly, the intelligence of this driver would have been something that the jury would probably have subconsiously taken in. Anyway, get over it.
jr135 wrote:
smeggy wrote:
You wish everyone to accept subjective judgement as irrefutable fact.
In what way?
jr135 wrote:
what choice does someone have but to accept a jury's judgement in a case like this?
Er, the point is that all we've seem is a short article and photo. My god, you really don't like people to be found guilty of careless driving now do you. Which, as I've said before, brings a lie to the idea that you genuinely care about safe driving.
jr135 wrote:
Now that's an interesting side-stepping argument from you... You said that no-one was defending him, remember?
Actually, I said that no-one was defending the biker’s speed (my first post in this thread), which was in reference to your comment of ‘speed’ in your first post. The difference is significant.
Er, whatever. I wasn't actually commenting on the speed but the careless driving, but nevermind.
jr135 wrote:
I have NOT failed miserably in the process, because I have NEVER sought to argue for the charge of careless driving!!! My god, do you and others really read anything that I say???
Let’s recap: you keep asking ‘us’ why we don’t condemn the reported actions; we give justification as to why ‘we’ can’t whilst prompting you as to why we should from the available information describing the actions of the rider – it is us who have repeatedly sought for you to argue for the charge of careless driving. You cannot justify why the action should be deemed as careless, so how can we?[/quote]
I HAVE NOT TRIED TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many times do I have to say it?????????????????
Please almighty god give me strength.
Look Smeggy, this argument is a complete waste of time so I will probably not reply to any more posts. All you wish to do is ignore any pertinent questions that I can out with, whilst insisting that I always answer all your, rather irrelevant questions.
Like DF, you wish to ignore what I actually say and conduct your own argument. You first spoke about straw man arguments, but I think that pretty much all of yours and DF's arguments have been straw man (or trolling).
All the way through this thread the same underlying argument has been coming through. Not only should it not matter at what speed people drive, but it also shouldn't matter how they drive. You might not say it in as many words, but let's face it guys, that's the situation.
And yes, as anyone does when they are caught out, they lie. I expect nothing less of people on this thread. But let's face facts: I very much doubt you have managed to persuade a single neutral person with your trolling and point-avoiding, so although you might well feel that you have 'won' this argument, you won't have persuaded a single neutral person. And the status quo is on my side. Oh, one final point: would people on this thread at least try and recognise how mind-boggingly arrogant some of you are.