Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2772292/Un...
If this is indeed true she has to (finally) resign surely.
If this is indeed true she has to (finally) resign surely.
Nigel Worc's said:
If true it is a shame this has happened, as it is going to cause her trouble.
I wonder how many of us have at some time driven without insurance, accidently rather than deliberately ?
Most of us are not Police and Crime Commissioners travelling on official business.I wonder how many of us have at some time driven without insurance, accidently rather than deliberately ?
I wonder if this will be kicked downstairs and the blame levelled at one of Barnes' many staff - perhaps one of them was tasked with sorting out her insurance - not that it is a defence for Barnes, of course.
Mrs Barnes incompetence aside, this kind of reporting really annoys me:
- Mrs Barnes' soft-top Mercedes collided with another car and a tree
Where it would be significantly more accurate to report that:
- Mrs Barnes' hit another car and a tree in her soft-top Mercedes
It's the kind of lazy reporting that is endemic to todays media, and suggests that it's always the car that has developed a mind of it's own, crashes on its own, speeds on its own etc etc.
The driver was either in control, or she lost control - either way, it's her responsibility, the car didn't develop cognition and decide "you know what, I'm going to ignore all inputs from the driver and hit that other car, then that tree".
- Mrs Barnes' soft-top Mercedes collided with another car and a tree
Where it would be significantly more accurate to report that:
- Mrs Barnes' hit another car and a tree in her soft-top Mercedes
It's the kind of lazy reporting that is endemic to todays media, and suggests that it's always the car that has developed a mind of it's own, crashes on its own, speeds on its own etc etc.
The driver was either in control, or she lost control - either way, it's her responsibility, the car didn't develop cognition and decide "you know what, I'm going to ignore all inputs from the driver and hit that other car, then that tree".
Dammit said:
Mrs Barnes incompetence aside, this kind of reporting really annoys me:
- Mrs Barnes' soft-top Mercedes collided with another car and a tree
Where it would be significantly more accurate to report that:
- Mrs Barnes' hit another car and a tree in her soft-top Mercedes
It's the kind of lazy reporting that is endemic to todays media, and suggests that it's always the car that has developed a mind of it's own, crashes on its own, speeds on its own etc etc.
The driver was either in control, or she lost control - either way, it's her responsibility, the car didn't develop cognition and decide "you know what, I'm going to ignore all inputs from the driver and hit that other car, then that tree".
You might be right - or you may not be.- Mrs Barnes' soft-top Mercedes collided with another car and a tree
Where it would be significantly more accurate to report that:
- Mrs Barnes' hit another car and a tree in her soft-top Mercedes
It's the kind of lazy reporting that is endemic to todays media, and suggests that it's always the car that has developed a mind of it's own, crashes on its own, speeds on its own etc etc.
The driver was either in control, or she lost control - either way, it's her responsibility, the car didn't develop cognition and decide "you know what, I'm going to ignore all inputs from the driver and hit that other car, then that tree".
The news article does not provide anywhere near enough information about the collision to form an opinion about what happened.
Nigel Worc's said:
If true it is a shame this has happened, as it is going to cause her trouble.
I wonder how many of us have at some time driven without insurance, accidently rather than deliberately ?
Not a shame at all, if it turns out to be true, simply just desserts. She has demonstrated repeatedly that she has little competence or qualification for the job and now she shows she can't even manage her personal life.I wonder how many of us have at some time driven without insurance, accidently rather than deliberately ?
What amazes me is that people voted for her.
And in answer to your musing, I don't believe I have ever drive a motor vehicle without having the correct insurance in place.
Red 4 said:
You might be right - or you may not be.
The news article does not provide anywhere near enough information about the collision to form an opinion about what happened.
I'm not talking about what happened, I'm talking about the style of reporting.The news article does not provide anywhere near enough information about the collision to form an opinion about what happened.
As in, "a car overturned at 3am this morning, injuring the driver", which should read "the driver lost control of his vehicle, leading to it overturning, he was injured during the accident".
On the reporting style question, we don't know who hit whom.
If Mrs Barnes hit another car and then a tree, fair enough.
If Mrs Barnes was hit by another car, resulting in her hitting a tree, that is something slightly different to what I have written above and potentially libellous. However if Mrs Barnes was wholly at fault, it is potentially libellous to the other driver to use this second version, hence the ambiguous "collided with."
If Mrs Barnes hit another car and then a tree, fair enough.
If Mrs Barnes was hit by another car, resulting in her hitting a tree, that is something slightly different to what I have written above and potentially libellous. However if Mrs Barnes was wholly at fault, it is potentially libellous to the other driver to use this second version, hence the ambiguous "collided with."
CYMR0 said:
On the reporting style question, we don't know who hit whom.
If Mrs Barnes hit another car and then a tree, fair enough.
If Mrs Barnes was hit by another car, resulting in her hitting a tree, that is something slightly different to what I have written above and potentially libellous. However if Mrs Barnes was wholly at fault, it is potentially libellous to the other driver to use this second version, hence the ambiguous "collided with."
I take your point, to a degree.If Mrs Barnes hit another car and then a tree, fair enough.
If Mrs Barnes was hit by another car, resulting in her hitting a tree, that is something slightly different to what I have written above and potentially libellous. However if Mrs Barnes was wholly at fault, it is potentially libellous to the other driver to use this second version, hence the ambiguous "collided with."
However, "Mrs Barnes was involved in a collision with a tree and another vehicle, in her car" at least gets the situation described with a great deal more honesty.
"A car and a tree collided, then the same car collided with another car, Mrs Barnes was present in the car common to both tree and car" suggests that there is no way in which Mrs Barnes (or the driver of the other car) could possibly be suggested to be responsible.
k f
750turbo said:
DrDeAtH said:
Poor journalism. Nowhere did it mention the cost of the car, its power output,top speed or 0-60 time...
Or the cost of her home...Clearly a load of rubbish anyway as there are no trees anywhere near Dartford
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff