"It's not against the law to be angry"
Discussion
Superflow said:
Super Sonic said:
Courts have been presiding over the law LONG before computers became prevalent. "Computer says no justice" FFS!
What 'insight' or 'privelege' are you claiming, that makes you think you know better than the judge who saw the evidence and presumably questioned the witnesses or read their statements?
You don’t think it possible that people exaggerate and tell lies to win so to speak?What 'insight' or 'privelege' are you claiming, that makes you think you know better than the judge who saw the evidence and presumably questioned the witnesses or read their statements?
Edited by Super Sonic on Monday 6th May 15:53
Again, what insight do you have that the judge didn't?
Superflow said:
Silvanus said:
Superflow said:
Silvanus said:
So she beeped at him for absolute nothing?
Yes no need to do it.We’ve covered this already if I beep at every driver that cuts me up I’d be as angry as this chap haha.
They were exiting Tesco at low speed.It’s nothing.
That’s some leap.
Edited by Silvanus on Monday 6th May 17:43
Superflow said:
I’m not blaming anyone.
She started the incident because her ego couldn’t let it go for what a few seconds.
Have this happen daily to me I never react you have to let it go.
She drew first blood.
Do you ever apologise to the other drivers? If I've made a silly mistake I find it helps to defuse the situation.She started the incident because her ego couldn’t let it go for what a few seconds.
Have this happen daily to me I never react you have to let it go.
She drew first blood.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Bloody amazes me how something can go to court and all the evidence be heard but noooo someone who knows nothing more about the case than a piece in the Daily Mail just knows there has to be more to it that makes it the victims fault.
Every single time.
It really is a fantastic phenomenon to witness Every single time.
Countdown said:
Superflow said:
I’m not blaming anyone.
She started the incident because her ego couldn’t let it go for what a few seconds.
Have this happen daily to me I never react you have to let it go.
She drew first blood.
Do you ever apologise to the other drivers? If I've made a silly mistake I find it helps to defuse the situation.She started the incident because her ego couldn’t let it go for what a few seconds.
Have this happen daily to me I never react you have to let it go.
She drew first blood.
It is more people pulling out in front of me that I was meaning.
Superflow said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It's literally on video.
Do you realise how you're coming across?
What’s not on video is her starting the incident and raging him first then her reaction while filming him from the car.Do you realise how you're coming across?
He is wrong to react the way he did but I think there is more to this to simply dismiss his version out of hand is dangerous when only he would see her reaction filming him .
It’s not that difficult to grasp.
If you were in court as the defendant, would you seriously use the defence of
"Yes, but she beeped at me, flashed her lights and then laughed at me"
Against banging on her windscreen and the car door?
Dingu said:
Superflow said:
Super Sonic said:
Superflow said:
Read the link.
She raged him first when he pulled out in front of her and repeatedly flashed and honked horn at him.
He has reacted and far from terrified she filmed him while laughing at him from the safety of her locked vehicle.
What’s happened here is she’s seen red because he got in front and ended up setting him up as he’s reacted badly.
He’s an idiot for reacting but she’s a sociopath for lying in court to get revenge all because he got in front of her.
As for setting him up, she didn't force him to get out of his vehicle etc.She raged him first when he pulled out in front of her and repeatedly flashed and honked horn at him.
He has reacted and far from terrified she filmed him while laughing at him from the safety of her locked vehicle.
What’s happened here is she’s seen red because he got in front and ended up setting him up as he’s reacted badly.
He’s an idiot for reacting but she’s a sociopath for lying in court to get revenge all because he got in front of her.
Fact is she started the whole thing by flashing and honking at him with no need to.
It came down to a female judge believing a woman over a man and now he faces prison time another great day for british justice.
I suspect that many people in here also behave terribly on the roads.
Superflow is coming across very badly on here. I wonder what he is like in the real world?
Gareth79 said:
Superflow said:
Have this happen daily to me I never react you have to let it go.
If you have people sounding their horn at you *daily* then I suggest you give up driving and take the bus, driving clearly isn't for you.MC Bodge said:
It is quite concerning that we needs to share roads with people who are driving so badly on a daily basis.
Maybe a mandatory defensive driving course every 5 years for all drivers... Seems an odd world that we can qualify for something and not be retested or given coaching for 60+ years...vaud said:
MC Bodge said:
It is quite concerning that we needs to share roads with people who are driving so badly on a daily basis.
Maybe a mandatory defensive driving course every 5 years for all drivers... Seems an odd world that we can qualify for something and not be retested or given coaching for 60+ years...MC Bodge said:
Gareth79 said:
Superflow said:
Have this happen daily to me I never react you have to let it go.
If you have people sounding their horn at you *daily* then I suggest you give up driving and take the bus, driving clearly isn't for you.Read my reply to Countdown.
I’m talking about people pulling out in front of me frequently.
Superflow said:
No merely reading between the lines as the truth is often found there.
Unfortunately the legal system doesn’t have that insight or privilege which means computer says no justice prevails in some cases.
Much experience of the legal system, or just of the daily mail?Unfortunately the legal system doesn’t have that insight or privilege which means computer says no justice prevails in some cases.
I find your perspective puzzling, as you seem to imply you know better than the judge that dealt with the case, as well as form a link to a female judge finding on favour of a female party as if there is some conspiracy.
The 'truth' is that an angry man lost his composure, acted like a fool and then was very silly in not admitting it and apologising. What she did or did not do is largely irrelevant and seemingly just your speculation.
Maybe have a little think about this one some more.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff