More to the point FT any, tanker that is forced to brake sharply becomes very unstable and would have taken some skill to control it.
Let's not forget what could have been a very different result of the Mondeo's actions.
Pat
|
hi
as members will note, i have already commended the lorry driver for his 'alertness'!
He must be aware that once a truck goes out of control or hits a car, it will always cause a lot more damage and possibly massive collateral damage. For this very reason, he deserves the 2 years and then trying to lie its way out of it.
Imagain if this lorry when he was trying to cut up the car with the child passenger and the lorry had shoved the car on to the pavement, trapped the car under the lorr or the lorry had struck other vehicles! IMO, the person must be banned for life from drving.
many times I've seen big lorries shoot down narrow country lanes/roads, around bends and i think, what if their front tyre purst, how many cars/homes/people would they hit before they stopped.
After forcing the car to crash, he goes over and abuses the family. the mondeo driver made a mistake and not sure if he'd apologised but the truck drivers actions could have resulted in many deaths. these types are better off locked up.
|
>>>>Imagain if this lorry when he was trying to cut up the car with the child passenger and the lorry had shoved the car on to the pavement, trapped the car under the lorr or the lorry had struck other vehicles! IMO, the person must be banned for life from drving<<<
He obviously had no thought about his son being in the car when he pulled out of a side road in front of a lorry Paul.
If you want to go down the route of imagining scenario's, try this one.
Imagine if the lorry driver hadn't managed to brake hard enough to avoid hitting him. Or even, imagine he did manage it, and when the liquid in the tank pushed the vehicle forward as he came to a halt and the liquid didn't, as it will, he still hit him............
Pat
|
Well pat my friend, the lorry did NOT indeed hit the car.
2 wrongs do not make a right = FACT
there is no evidence that the car driver deliberately did this = FACT
there is clear evidence that the lorry driver was up to no good with a leathal weapon in his hands = FACT
I'm sure we'll find out if this driver had previous!!
Good lorry and psv drivers rarely have any points on their liecence even after years of driving - fact!
|
Let me get this straight Paul, you see nothing wrong at all in what the Mondeo driver did, and don't appreciate the skill needed to avoid an accident with a tanker full of liquid behind you?
And do see lorry drivers as professional drivers then, because I can't recall you contributing to that thread some time ago?
Lorry drivers and points...............I won't even dignify your view with a response:)
Pat
|
Open challenge!!
i challenge you to direct me and others here where I've I indicated that the i did not see the car driver do anything wrong!!!!!
stop clutching at straws mate! Admit it that this lorry driver was 100% out of order re what he did when the car pulled out in front of him and this lorry driver behaved like a typical bully with a large weapon and chased his victims into an accident and then got out of his lorry and went over to abuse the guy who had his five year old son in the car. This lorry driver must be banned for life from driving anything larger than a ford ka.
it's dangerous enough and risk to public health and safety when car/van drivers bully other drivers with their vans/cars but when it comes to lorries and very large/heavy lorries at that, its a miracle that no innocent person was seriously injured or killed because of this lorry driver.
Regards
Paul
|
I totally agree with your last statement Paul, it's truly a miracle that the Mondeo and his son wasn't both killed when they pulled out in front of a lorry.
It could well have had a lorry driver with far less experrience in it, who had only just passed his test, and had no knowledge of how to handle that situation.
Who knows, the Mondeo driver could have been chatting on his mobole phone and of course if he was he wouldn't have been taxed or insured, would he?
Or shall we tar all Mondeo drivers with the same brush, or even all car drivers because one has no concentration or powers of observation?
Isn't that your usual level of reasoning, Paul?
And a Ford Ka can be a lethal weapon in the wrong hands.
Pat
Edited by pda on 20/01/2010 at 17:56
|
|
hiding from the challenge and all can see.
|
|
|
|
|
This lorry driver is a maniac and should never be allowed to drive HGV's again (IMO)
|
|
Quite right perro. But when rehabilitated perhaps he can be trusted with a rented black cab?
|
This is SICK (i'll post a link soon and quote)
''''The 24-year-old trucker made obscene gestures and flashed his lights before ploughing into them, pushing them 100 yards in his 26-ton Scania waste disposal tanker. ''''
Ban him for life!
|
|
|
>>> But when rehabilitated perhaps he can be trusted with a rented black cab? <<<
I've never forgotten the cabbie who knocked me orf my Lambretta SX 200 as I was turning left into Old Compton St. from Wardour St. in 1968 Sire ... and trying to pin the blame on moi :)
|
Old Compton St. from Wardour St. in 1968 Sire ... and trying to pin the blame on moi :)
Aye lad, they think they own that corner (and many another in that part of town), the carphounds...
|
|
|
|
|
Pat,
No need for the bunker mentality.
I don't think any of us think badly of lorry drivers as a body of men - and women - as a result of this case.
We think badly of this bully as an individual, who happened to use his lorry to do his bullying with.
It's bullies who come out badly from this case, not lorry drivers.
|
IIH, it's not about this case, if you notice I agree what he did was totally out of order.
It's these two words
Paul said>>>>massive lorries <<<<<
It was a 17 tonner, a rigid not even an artic.
If you read the comments on the original article we are once again, all likened to Peter Sutcliffe.
We can take the blatant exaggeration every time one of us let's the rest of us down, providing you don't beat the last little bit of pride out of the rest of us, by telling us we are NOT professionals.
Pat
|
The lorry drivers actions are inexcusable - I don't think anyone disagrees on this point. But I'd like to know a little more about the Mondeo driver - we know nothing of his attitude to driving, his driving history or general attitude. Difficult to miss a 17 ton lorry at any time, but apparently he managed to do so. Mistake?
I'm afraid it's all too frequent that people behave badly behind the wheel and seem to think they're in some sort of protected zone. When they upset someone who becomes so enraged that an assault takes place they seek the help of the authorities. Whilst assault is not the answer some of these situations wouldn't happen if people drove a little less aggressively.
|
Thanks woodster, the voice of reason at last.
Pat
|
|
|
...some of these situations wouldn't happen if people drove a little less aggressively...
Was that posted with a straight face, woodster?
There would have been no 'situation' were it not for the actions of the lorry driver.
|
>>>>Gary Sutton pulled out of a side road in front of him, forcing him to brake hard.<<<<
That may not be classed as a 'situation' to a car driver, but it requires the very limits of a lorry drivers skill to brake hard SAFELY.
Take the blinkers off IIH.
Pat
|
...Take the blinkers off IIH...
Pat,
Can't see how observing it was the lorry driver who carried out the offence of dangerous driving can be described as blinkered.
Yes, he did well to avoid the Mondy by the sound of it, but he also made a pretty good fist of undoing that good work within the next few minutes.
Were the Mondy a getaway vehicle in an armed robbery, we would all be applauding the lorry driver for bringing it to a halt.
But it wasn't, so we're not.
|
There would have been no 'situation' were it not for the actions of the lorry driver.
... and luck.
Lot of luck on the lorry drivers side by the sounds off things to avoid crushing the innocent bystander (child in the passenger seat of the mondeo) by overridding the car...
Of course there was a situation, caused (we wont know the reason) by the mondeo driver.
|
2 wrongs never make a right.
importantly, the lorry driver carries more responsibility as far as I'm aware as their driving tests/exams are much more intense because of the massive vehicle they drive. In the wrong hands these lorries are WMD
i
|
|
Difficult to miss a 17 ton lorry at any time, but apparently he managed to do so. Mistake?
Just as well it was a mondeo and not a pedal cyclist. Can you imagine if the pedal cyclist had pulled out in front?
Tanker drivers have been known to get out and chase after cyclists for less!
Poor show CraigP, it's all Lud's fault :-P
|
Imagine if it was a tipper driver:)
GB & harleyman will understand that one"
Pat
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> going like stink (snip) Pat
It was carrying "organic waste".
Sorry...
|
I missed that one, FT:) :) I bet it was Poo!
Pat
|
Didn't Mr X used to post Daily Mail articles to start a topic? :-)
|
|
snip - not needed in here thank you
Edited by Pugugly on 20/01/2010 at 19:13
|
|
hopefully the lorry driver showed some remorse!
|
That is sad.
Why would you want to post his Facebook details on here?
Now I can probably see why the Black Cab thread disappeared last night.
Pat
|
Hi
Stir it as much as you want mate but you forewell know that the 'facebook' link has been deleted = FACT! If it had not been deleted, I would not have posted the 'Google' result = FACT
importantly, the lorry drivers details are available via media and clealry state approx where he lives. many will be aware where he lives. You may think I run the internet information system but i do not.
Trust me the national press will carry this story big time tomorrow.
thankfully the judge saw sesne this time.
hopefully, the lorry driver has seen the errors of his way and will be released in 8/9 months and lead a normal life!
thankfully the loory driver did not kill/maim inncoent people in his road rage stint!
|
Paul
Can I ask you a question please?
Why do you think it's acceptable on here to call me 'Mate'
You've done it twice now and I'm intrigued as to why I'm the only one in the BR you address this way.
Pat
|
If Mondeo man pulled out by and didn't see the lorry (!), then OK, it was a mistake. Though these days, many people pull out in front of you despite the fact there is nothing behind you, which is rude, and selfish.
However, I don't praise the drivers actions, although some of the blame could be aimed at his age. Some 23 year olds, not all, will let their emotions get the better of them, and when armed with a 17 tonne lorry, could result in severe consequences as seen here.
I agree with woodster, some less aggressive driving wouldn't go amiss, it makes everyone else on the road calmer, which will lead to less accidents.
|
...Now I can probably see why the Black Cab thread disappeared last night...
I thought the black cab thread disappeared last night because it had started raining.
That's what normally happens to black cabs when the heavens open. :)
|
I had it removed because of the abuse posted by one person.
i was the author of the thread and I asked for it to be removed and the mod here obliged.
Regards
Paul.
Btw, if there any lorry drivers reading here apart from the one that claims to be and i have challenged re their statement about my post which he/she has failed to appropriately respond to - I reiterate that the vast majority of lorry drivers like any other professional are sensible/caring people and the last thing they would do is to commit road rage.
|
having tried to save your face again, would you care to answer myquestion above Paul, or is that too hard for you.
As for my credentials as a lorry driver just google PDA or PDF Paul.
Pat
|
had it removed because of the abuse posted by one person.
I wonder who that was? I can only think of three candidates including myself.
Are you a secret wimp 2007? Surely not...
|
Pat,
I don't know why some of us bother (you included!) - feeling the need to post on here is akin to the need to answer the phone - frequently a pointless conversation with someone you don't know and probably don't want to know!!
|
Well, you got the last bit right Woodster, but every now and again I get sick of the one sided view everone seems to have!
If only life were that simple eh?
I've had to re-stack 26 pallets of jars of jam after a car driver pulled out in front of me and I had to brake hard. They all lean forward and are refused, TM says it's my fault I braked hard, I restack them by hand.
That's a lot of jars!
Now, let's wait until someone says they should have been secured better!!
Pat
|
So, did you chase the driver and the five year old in his car by flashing your lights, sounding your horn, runing him off the road and making him crash, then reverse, get out of your giant lorry and go over the the man and child and shout abuse like the lorry driver in question?!!!!
Just to help you - the above is a rhetorical question - lol.
|
Paul - in answer to your rhetorical question (!!) I have been chased, forced to stop and verbally (and nearly physically) abused by another driver, also in a lethal weapon (Sierra I think), some years back.
In that instance, if I was honest, it was virtually entirely my own fault - I took a chance but slightly misjudged gaps/timing, resulting in Jack The lad wanting to beat me up cos of the near miss. I had the family in the car too. Had it gone to court for some reason, I may have been inclined to play down my contribution.
So, having been there (have you, Paul?) I can see that, while the lorry driver is most clearly in the wrong on a number of counts, there could have been provocation, which the papers may have chosen to play down for the sake of a story. Does it say whether the Mondeo "brake tested" the lorry after he'd made his mistake? Or that the Mondy driver gave the lorry driver a two fingered salute, thinking he'd never catch up with him? No. We just don't know the full facts.
|
Smokie - you speaking on behalf of Pat - lol (just jesting)
'''we just don't know the full facts.'''!!!!
please stand corrected, the judge did have the full FACTS for him to reach a decision to lock up this bully. the events leading up to the car driver and his 5 year old son being forced of the road were witnessed by independent witnesses as well as the fact re lorry driver recersing and running up to the car that he caused to crash and shout and swear at them.
we've all made mistakes and I've posted mine here - but i never push in, but if i relaize a mistake, i apologise, but appreciate your honesty here.
you will agree with me that this ex lorry driver got what he deserved if not less all thanks to law abiding citizens that were prepared to stand up in court and spell out the facts re this lorry drivers actions
Regards
Paul
|
please stand corrected the judge did have the full FACTS for him to reach a decision to lock up this bully.
smokie was only saying that we (not the judge) don't know the full facts, only what's been reported.
|
please stand corrected the judge did have the full FACTS
And please could you stop 'shouting' (using CAPS)? It tends to wind people up.
|
|
And calling us all friend or mate when we don't know you from anyone else. I could be anyone on a motorway man.
|
Paul, you've (deliberately? again...) missed Smokie's (& pda's & mine & ... so on) POINT.
To reap the benefits of a civilised society, we cannot allow people to take the law into their own hands. Ergo Mr Mondeo couldn't & shouldn't be punished once Mr HGV did what he did. Justice was served everyone in agreement there.
To get to the point you keep skipping...
Our own experience on the roads suggests Mr Mondeo likely provoked the situation, or at the least failed to mitigate it with an apology.
Had Mr HGV kept his composure, what should have been done with Mr Mondeo? Nothing? Telling off? Points on the licence? Disqualification? Hung drawn & quartered?
|
|
Maybe Paul2000 thinks the tanker driver should just have lifted his feet so that the Mondeo didnt take his feet off as it went under the cab.
Edited by Old Navy on 20/01/2010 at 18:56
|
He still hasn't answered my question and it really was quite a simple one.
Why do you think it's acceptable to address me as Mate Paul?
Just to help you this isn't a rhetorical question, it requires an answer.
Pat
Edited by pda on 20/01/2010 at 19:02
|
"I've had to re-stack 26 pallets of jars of jam after a car driver pulled out in front of me and I had to brake hard"
Obviously the origin of the phrase "to jam on the brakes" :-)
|
I said to the Transport Manager 'What do you want, jam on it''
Pat
|
Female Lorry Driver 1
Paul2007 0
:):)
Pat
|
There's nothing in the press report beyond that the Mondeo driver (tempted to add allegedly) pulled out in front of the tanker.
Could have been anything between what was frankly speeding/lack of attention by the effluent container to a full on "stuff you" pullout by the car.
The rest is speculation.
|
Hi guys
I've spent too much time on this thread but have made my point.
Re the poster mentioning my 'cap' letters, not meant to offend but i apologise anyways.
The bottom line is this IMO: When we all get behind the wheel of our vehicle, it is potentially a leathal weapon if not treated with respect and highway code followed. However, HGV/PSV drivers have even more responsibility if that is possible, ie, a mistake on their part or an accident involving a larger vehicle usually results in a nastier accident.
When i drive, i drive defensively, ie, assume the other drivers will make a mistake.
i too can cause mistakes and will apologise if I note I've made a mistake.
It is easy to get wound up if you feel you are in the right and got cut up and then abused by the very same person.
i try to practice what i post = road rage is not cool and could result in something that you and others may regret for the rest of your lives - so drive away!!!!
Thank you all for your comments
Regards
Paul.
PS: Great site, great posters!
PPS: This is my final post on this thread.
|
>>i try to practice what i post = road rage is not cool and could result in something that you and others may regret for the rest of your lives - so drive away!!!!<<
On 27 December you posted this gem..>> I got out of the car as it was slow moving traffic along the embankment & went over to the fool by Chelsea bridge traffic lights and rebuked the fool.<<
Can we believe anything you write?
Edited by Nsar on 21/01/2010 at 00:33
|
|
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 21/01/2010 at 10:27
|
In a previous life, I committed road rage on another car driver I am sorry to say.
My wife's Mother had just died from a massive brain tumor at the age of 45 so I wasn't in the best of moods at the time.
I was charged with the serious offense of dangerous driving which was reduced to careless driving on the day resulting in quite a large fine plus endorsements so it was nowhere near the seriousness of the OP.
There are absolutely no excuses in a case like this - whatever the car driver may have done,
only lies and bullies.
|
|
If the report in the paper is accurate then he got off incredibly lightly. Deliberately driving a lorry into someone and being careless of the consequences is attempted murder.
|
...being careless of the consequences is attempted murder....
Not quite.
To prove attempted murder the prosecution would have to prove the lorry driver intended serious harm to the car driver.
The crucial word there is 'intended'.
Yes, he might have intended to run him off the road, he might even have intended to knock him about a bit, but with the facts as presented, the prosecution could never prove he intended serious harm.
|
I mentioned to SWMBO about this case last night.
As stated above it happened very close to where I live.
Her reaction was also that he should have been prosecuted for attempted murder.
I'm sorry Pat , I understand the instinct to protect your own but his behaviour was inexcusable irrespective of the 'cutting up ' . There is no doubt in my mind the intention was there to cause serious harm to the car driver due to the fact that it happened some three miles down the road from the perceived cutting up by the Mondeo of the lorry.
In a 40 zone the lorry driver had probably 5 minutes to cool down before he caught up the Mondeo and he then deliberately rammed the car using his lorry as a weapon.
You will note from the car photos that the serious damage is on the drivers door. To me that indicates deliberate intent to cause harm to the driver. he then lied through his teeth and got IMO less than he deserved but the most they could impose for dangerous driving from a judge and jury.
|
|
I'm no fan of the CPS, but I think they do try to go for the most serious count that they can, ie if there was a chance of trying him for attempted murder, they would have gone for it.
|
I'm no fan of the CPS but I think they do try to go for the most serious count that they can ie if there was a chance of trying him for attempted murder they would have gone for it.
I'd have thought this covered it:
"Proof of mens rea
There must be more than merely preparatory acts and, although the defendant may threaten death, this may not provide convincing evidence of an intention to kill unless the words are accompanied by relevant action, e.g. finding and picking up a weapon, and making serious use of it, or making a serious and sustained physical attack without a weapon"
"Finding a weapon and making serious use of it" = deliberately swiping a lorry several times into the side of a car ?
|
>>I'd have thought this covered it:<<
Seemingly not.
|
I'm no fan of the CPS but I think they do try to go for the most serious count that they can ie if there was a chance of trying him for attempted murder they would have gone for it.
The CPS are measured on their successes, not for giving the more serious offences 'a run'.
|
I'm sorry Pat I understand the instinct to protect your own but his behaviour was inexcusable irrespective of the 'cutting up ' .
Having just read the whole thread, I too am wondering why Pat is being so defensive... Pat, you are not protecting "one of your own" or even putting a "HGV's view of events" as I know that you and the vast majority of HGV drivers would not have reacted in the way this chap did.
I'd leave it be, he could have been driving a white van or even another car and would probably reacted the same way, the only reason it made the headlines is that it was a big heavy truck... but that doesn't automatically make all you truck drivers baddies... and most (!) of us have the sense to realise that! ;-)
|
In that case b308 and helicopter, please go back and read each of my posts again and you will see that I have stated in many posts that what this driver did was totally out of order and supported the treatment he's received.
I have however attempted to point out that had the Mondeo driver NOT pulled out in front of him this wouldn't have happened either so in my book he has to shoulder a part of the blame.
I have also explained the potential consequences of cars pulling out and causing heavy braking to a lorry.
It's something we face every day, simply because too many car drivers look right and decide 'I don't want to be stuck behind that'.
Most of us expect it to happen and are already covering the brake and slowing down.
The lorry driver was just 23 yrs old, he would not have had an HGV licence until he was at least 21 yrs old and therefore didn't have that experience.
I am not defending 'my own' at all, I am defending the right to be judged objectively in the terms used in reporting, as you will see by my first post.
I am defending the right for lorry drivers to consider themselves to be professional if the public want them to have a professional attitude.
And I will forever defend that right.
Now, is that clear?
b308 please don't do a Paul on me and not watch my lips:)
Pat
Edited by pda on 21/01/2010 at 11:24
|
Pat, I'm not the only one who thought the same about your posts, in fact I quoted from Helicopter's post.
I think you are over-reacting, most of us with a little common sense have already made the judgement that it was a physco driver involved here and the fact that it was a lorry he was driving was not really relevent to what he did after the initial incident. All of us get angry, he went overboard, and was punished appropriately. No need to defend your fellow HGV drivers as we already know that most would not do this but just grin (!) and bear it.
Lets just be thankful that there's one less road rage driver off the road for a few years, eh!
Edited by b308 on 21/01/2010 at 11:46
|
b308, you have turned into Paul and I shal have to SHOUT at you in a minute:)
It's because we grin and bear it we never receive the credit we deserve and for every time we allow others to call us cretins, and liken us to Peter Sutcliffe then we deserve no better.
I'm pleased about that too, but I would happily have let the Mondie driver restack my 26 pallets of jam. He would have looked twice the next time he thought of pulling out.:)
Pat
|
b308 you have turned into Paul and I shal have to SHOUT at you in a minute:)
You are beginning to get to the stage with Paul as I was with MrX and his rants against the disabled and motability... the majority of us are already on your side... step back, its not worth it. :)
Edited by b308 on 21/01/2010 at 14:06
|
driving a lorry into someone and being careless of the consequences is attempted murder.
No it isn't.
|
"but you have to admit that his threads are popular"
"No they're not. They are repetitive and too many of you rise to the bait. Which he wants" FACT! ;-)
"A very narrow minded view spood, if I may so so.
Others may not agree with you, have you considered that?
Pat"
Changed your mind on him yet Pat ?
Edited by Cpt. Flack on 21/01/2010 at 11:31
|
Not at all.
Paul has every right to his view and to voice that view as we all have.
All we need to do now is to teach him how to debate his point without abuse:)
Pat
|
I believe Paul may be a tad Dyslexic?
He is learning to 'present' himself on ere, through usage - like we all do.
|
I think he's a secret MP:)
Let's look at the facts here.
He can't answer a direct question, he wears blinkers and he believes he's always right!
Pat
|
He can't answer a direct question he wears blinkers and he believes he's always right!
Across:
1) "Trip-trap trip trap" (5)
I missed the moment on this one, but for anyone reading this "old" post I personally regard this kind of post (and the one which preceded it) equally as offensive, humourless and unnecessary as any other supposedly anti-social posts seen on this forum. Being "one of the the regulars" gives no special privileges when it comes getting away with being offensive. Especially when it's done repetitively, like FT has done. So please desist.
Smokie, Moderator
Edited by smokie on 21/01/2010 at 21:52
|
Well FT, that's too cryptic for me, but that's hardly surprising.
care to explain?
Pat
|
Pat....
Depending on how old you are it refers to a song of the 1950's. I'm harking back to Uncle Mack on the old Light Programme Childrens Favourites on Saturday Mornings before Brian Matthew started shaving....
I believe sung by IIRC Frankie Howerd...... called I'm a troll - troll de roll.......and I'll eat you for dinner.
In Norway Trolls are ugly creatures who live supposedly under bridges..
The words of the song go something like .....
.......'trip trap trip trap ' ......( You understand now )
hop and skip , hop and skip over the rickety rackety bridge'
|
Well worked out, helicopter.
You pilot chaps really are clever fellows.
|
No no, the trip trap referring to a troll is surely from "The Three Billy Goats Gruff" fairy story?
|
|
Oh...I was thinking along the lines of pony &......
|
No here's the lorry driver in me showing..................
I thought it was cockney rhyming slang :)
trap....
Pat
Edited by pda on 21/01/2010 at 16:35
|
Dipstick.....
In the song it was indeed the three billy goats gruff who went trip and trap, hop and skip over the rickety rackety bridge.
The song came from the fairy story....
My word it makes me feel old.
|
< >
Nsar, if you think about it, that makes no sense whatsoever. The CPS can charge whatever they like, so in theory, they could have charged attempted murder, but if there's no realistic prospect of a conviction having reviewed the available evidence and considered the law and stated cases in the area concerned, then what would be the point?. An acquittal would follow and justice would not have been served.
Additionally, to continue the practice of trying to charge beyond the circumstances would result in a woeful conviction rate for the CPS.
I may be wrong, of course, and in my years of working very closely to the CPS I may have missed whatever it is that you've seen. What evidence do you have of such CPS practices?
|
<> >>
woodster, FYI :
The <> in your post above indicates to me that you may have tried to enclose some text inbetween the arrows. I think you did the same in the now hidden "black cabs" thread.
The preferred method of quoting posts, on this forum, is explained by DD here:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=81...6
HTH.
Edited by jbif on 21/01/2010 at 17:42
|
>> <> >>
jbif - sorry to be pedantic but is the >> at the end of the line deliberate?
|
jbif - sorry to be pedantic but is the >> at the end of the line deliberate? >>
Yes, it is my personal tweak to the DD "recommended" method; I use to indicate "end of quote".
p.s. to woodster:
the reason your text disappeared between the <> arrows is that ending text with >, having begun it with <, has a special meaning in HTML as used on this site.
|
|
Woodster, perhaps my posting was a bit woolly. What I was trying to say is that despite its shortcomings, I think the CPS would have pressed for attempt murder if they thought it had a realistic chance.
|
Jbif, thanks.
Nsar, yes, you're right. With you now.
|
|
|
|
