Why Lock The Thread re Death of a Cyclist?

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

Left hooking a cyclist is morally different to handing yourself in five days later so that drink and drugs have left your system; and being advised that it would be an appropriate course of action.

who advised itwould be appropriate?

I advised what the law was and what the consequences were.

client chose what to do

Big difference

I'm not considering the law; I'm considering what I believe to be the difference between doing right and doing wrong.

simple_salmon

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

That is not the same as expecting to be defended when blame isn't clear (as in Greg's example) and it certainly isn't the same as trying to avoid being caught for your crimes (as, I believe, in Spen's).

Wallace1492

Terra Nova wrote:

spen666 wrote:

[

You cannot blame the defendant for fighting for his life so to speak. He is in a bear pit where he is facing many years in prison.

I'm sure you would fight for yourself if you werefacing a lengthy prison sentence.

Sadly this is bound to upset the victim or victim's family in any case.

This is an inevitable by product of the process.

Oh yes you can Spen. There is a difference between defending yourself or fighting for your life and showing contempt for a human life. You can't keep hiding behind processes and "how things are". I repeat what I said in my OM thread about this very point to the Stubbs father who interuppted my thread:

"Mr Stubbs, when your son came to you that proud day you talked about you had a golden opportunity to prove your integrity too. You should have been telling your son his first duty was to the victim and the victim’s family. Tell them the truth, make your apologies, do everything you can to ease their pain and explain what happened and what you did. Then, if you are truly innocent, then stand in a court of law and defend yourself with integrity, with decency and respect for the victim and the victim’s family. You didn’t do that and he didn’t do that."

That was all we wanted. Process or not, there are other processes we as human beings should follow and they are called moral codes. In this case there was no moral code, not even a protestatin of innocence. There was nothing human connecting Stubbs with the plausability of innocence. So, that is not what is judged, but it counts morally.

Another version is that Stubbs is telling the truth as he saw it, well up to the point of impact. Perhaps he genuinely does not see it as his fault, perhaps he sees he has nothing to be sorry about. Perhaps he stood up there and told the truth as he saw it, as has been said, there are always different versions of the truth, depending on your point of view.

Stubbs did not give the version you wanted, perhaps because for Stubbs, that did not exist.

There is always the possibility that your Brother has put himself in danger. That will be very difficult to accept, as it is far easier blaming someone else.

For me, if a HGV had just overtaken me and had stopped at lights, what is the point of going past it. 1. It could be turning left and 2. It will just overtake me again, so best let it get out of the way.

Only thing I can think of, is that as he had taken wrong turning, he had hesitated when light changed, and waited for several seconds, making up his mind before turning left, and maybe in this time, your Brother decided to filter past.

Did the HGV indicate left at all? From earlier posts I am not sure whether he did or not.

greg66_tri_v2.0

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

That is not the same as expecting to be defended when blame isn't clear (as in Greg's example) and it certainly isn't the same as trying to avoid being caught for your crimes (as, I believe, in Spen's).

What if (a) you knew/thought you were guilty of offence X; (b) you were charged with the more serious offence Y; (c) you were advised that were you to admit to the facts sufficient to prove X, you'd be substantially more likely to be convicted of Y, but (d) if you maintained a silence on X, you had a substantial chance of acquital for Y?

A contrived example perhaps. But life is rarely either black or white.

simple_salmon

spen666 wrote:

When you are defending someone- that is what your job is - ie defending them. Its not about what is fair or nice, its about getting the best result for the client within the legal system by legitimate means.
I have given the example on here before of aclient who kiled someone in a road accident. i spoke to him before police arrested him. He was high on drink ansd drugs at time of accident. I told him if arrested now he would get done for death by dangerous whilst under the influence and face upto 10 years imprisonment. If hewas arrested days later after drink./ drugs were out of his system, he would only face cdangerous driving - max 2 year imprisonment. Client left the area for 5 days and then handed self in when sober etc. A legitimate and proper piece of defence work

You are right; I retract my claim that you advised - although many people might make the same mistake from reading that.

However - if being fair is not what the legal system is about then what is it's point?

I would have thought being fair in a dispute was the whole point - you hear two sides and decide the fairest outcome based on what is most likely the truth.

simple_salmon

Greg66 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

That is not the same as expecting to be defended when blame isn't clear (as in Greg's example) and it certainly isn't the same as trying to avoid being caught for your crimes (as, I believe, in Spen's).

What if (a) you knew/thought you were guilty of offence X; (b) you were charged with the more serious offence Y; (c) you were advised that were you to admit to the facts sufficient to prove X, you'd be substantially more likely to be convicted of Y, but (d) if you maintained a silence on X, you had a substantial chance of acquital for Y?

A contrived example perhaps. But life is rarely either black or white.

If you know you're over the limit and you've been taking drugs and you have a collision then I believe it is clear and you should not try to hide it - that's what I'm commenting on.

Wallace1492

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

That is not the same as expecting to be defended when blame isn't clear (as in Greg's example) and it certainly isn't the same as trying to avoid being caught for your crimes (as, I believe, in Spen's).

Very simple to say this. Take drink driving and speeding as an example, you are breaking the law straight away, so you are saying you would drive straight to the Police station and hand yourself in? No. Do you hand yourself in when you exceed 30mph in a built up area? No. You probably wont ever do either.

You can say the above as you have a high moral standing, and I appluad that.

However, most people will not. If they have drunk driven, then they are breaking the law, it is likely they will try as hard as they can to avoid being done for it, even leaving the scene of an accident.

alfablue

simple_salmon wrote:

However - if being fair is not what the legal system is about then what is it's point?

I would have thought being fair in a dispute was the whole point - you hear two sides and decide the fairest outcome based on what is most likely the truth.

We have an adversarial system, which means getting a result for your client (or the Crown) at all cost, even when the cost is the truth. In this system, lawyers are not looking to play fair, if they did they would probably have short careers.

cjw

simple_salmon wrote:

I would have thought being fair in a dispute was the whole point - you hear two sides and decide the fairest outcome based on what is most likely the truth.

But these are not disputes. That is Civil Law. This is the state prosecuting in a criminal matter. That is not a dispute.

spen666

cjw wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I would have thought being fair in a dispute was the whole point - you hear two sides and decide the fairest outcome based on what is most likely the truth.

But these are not disputes. That is Civil Law. This is the state prosecuting in a criminal matter. That is not a dispute.

Most likely the truth is not part of criminnal law - standard Crown must reach is beyond all reasonable doubt - a much higher test


Salmon -you are living in a utopia - a state where there would be no need for laws as people would be so nice to each other and so considerate.

Where its a case of your freedom or not people are going to defend themselves

simple_salmon

I'm not living in a Utopia - I've just stated what my moral values are and my disappointment that others don't share them - it's all just my opinions.

Wallace - no I wouldn't hand myself in for speeding; firstly I would do my damndest to try to ensure that I didn't speed and secondly if caught I would accept it - I certainly would not employ anyone to try to get me off.

It's just the way I do things - others may think I'm stupid but TBH I don't care; my conscience is clear to my standards and I'm happy with that.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm not living in a Utopia - I've just stated what my moral values are and my disappointment that others don't share them - it's all just my opinions.

Wallace - no I wouldn't hand myself in for speeding; firstly I would do my damndest to try to ensure that I didn't speed and secondly if caught I would accept it - I certainly would not employ anyone to try to get me off.

It's just the way I do things - others may think I'm stupid but TBH I don't care; my conscience is clear to my standards and I'm happy with that.

You wouldn't hand yourself in for your crime of speeding, but you expect others to hand themselves in for their crimes?
Sounds a bit hypocritical to me




As for living in Utopia- what you expect a legal system is the sort of thing that can only exist in Utopia. People will always defend themselves – to expect otherwise is rather naive in this world

Eau Rouge

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

You working of the premis that these two are related. If they are, it's only vaguley.
What's right or wrong is one thing, up to your own personal morals and opinions. What you do about that is up to you.
Guilty or not is purely a matter of law. It's isn't about right or wrong or being nice. It's just about the fact the State wants to take action against you because it claims you broke the law. It's got nothing to do with how you deal with the victim or their family, it's got very little to do with the truth. Whatever you're feelings for those two things, the law is only interested in the law. If you want to attone for what you've done to the victim, you do it outsdie the court. The court's sentences in legal cases do not compenstae the victim in any way, they are purely a matter between you and the State. If pleading guilty makes you feel better then so be it, that's your selfish choice, but don't pretend it's some moral victory for the victim. Anything you do for them in court you could do for them outside court. The court won't do anything for them.

simple_salmon

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm not living in a Utopia - I've just stated what my moral values are and my disappointment that others don't share them - it's all just my opinions.

Wallace - no I wouldn't hand myself in for speeding; firstly I would do my damndest to try to ensure that I didn't speed and secondly if caught I would accept it - I certainly would not employ anyone to try to get me off.

It's just the way I do things - others may think I'm stupid but TBH I don't care; my conscience is clear to my standards and I'm happy with that.

You wouldn't hand yourself in for your crime of speeding, but you expect others to hand themselves in for their crimes?
Sounds a bit hypocritical to me

As for living in Utopia- what you expect a legal system is the sort of thing that can only exist in Utopia. People will always defend themselves – to expect otherwise is rather naive in this world

I accept your point as hypocritical but since these are my morals I'm talking about then I'm allowed to operate whatever sliding scale I want. Some things go over the line and some don't - your example was over my moral line.

As for naive - so what? I can have my own beliefs can't I? I also believe in a socialist society but I don't expect it to happen and capitalism still depresses me despite the fact I live in a capitalist society - things that happen that I don't like depress me.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

Unless it was a crime you didn't want to admit to like say speeding

So actually you not only are hypocritical, you also tell untruths

simple_salmon

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

Unless it was a crime you didn't want to admit to like say speeding

So actually you not only are hypocritical, you also tell untruths

If I speed in my car then I'll happily admit my guilt; is that the same as handing myself in? I'd say it depends on who was asking about the offence wouldn't you? If I'm stopped and asked I'll admit my guilt where is the untruth?

greg66_tri_v2.0

simple_salmon wrote:

I also believe in a socialist society

Kill him. Kill him with fire. And a stick.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

Unless it was a crime you didn't want to admit to like say speeding

So actually you not only are hypocritical, you also tell untruths

If I speed in my car then I'll happily admit my guilt; is that the same as handing myself in? I'd say it depends on who was asking about the offence wouldn't you? If I'm stopped and asked I'll admit my guilt where is the untruth?

But you lambast my client who did the same- he didn't immediately hand himself in. He allowed police to take blood tests for drink and drugs when requested

What's the difference?

simple_salmon

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

Unless it was a crime you didn't want to admit to like say speeding

So actually you not only are hypocritical, you also tell untruths

If I speed in my car then I'll happily admit my guilt; is that the same as handing myself in? I'd say it depends on who was asking about the offence wouldn't you? If I'm stopped and asked I'll admit my guilt where is the untruth?

But you lambast my client who did the same- he didn't immediately hand himself in. He allowed police to take blood tests for drink and drugs when requested

What's the difference?

I explained what I felt was a MORAL difference - the level of the crime IN MY MIND.

Now - please make it clear where was my untruth? I apologised when I misquoted you earlier (I admitted my mistake) - will you do the same?

Wallace1492

simple_salmon wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

Unless it was a crime you didn't want to admit to like say speeding

So actually you not only are hypocritical, you also tell untruths

If I speed in my car then I'll happily admit my guilt; is that the same as handing myself in? I'd say it depends on who was asking about the offence wouldn't you? If I'm stopped and asked I'll admit my guilt where is the untruth?

But you lambast my client who did the same- he didn't immediately hand himself in. He allowed police to take blood tests for drink and drugs when requested

What's the difference?

I explained what I felt was a MORAL difference - the level of the crime IN MY MIND.

Now - please make it clear where was my untruth? I apologised when I misquoted you earlier (I admitted my mistake) - will you do the same?

Guy's please, we are playing on words here, and getting the wrong end of the stick. No need to point score off each other. Simple has said he would admit to it, but not hand himself in. Bit hyprcritical, yes, but he admits that.

simple_salmon

Wallace you are correct - I will make no more comment since I have made my point.

However, Spen regularly picks apart people's posts to point out the smallest inconsistencies. I held my hand up and admitted I'd made a mistake when I misquoted him; he accused me of an untruth, which I felt was uneccessary and inaccurate and, in the spirit in which I apologised in order to avoid confrontation, I felt it would be nice if he did the same.

Never mind.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

Wallace you are correct - I will make no more comment since I have made my point.

However, Spen regularly picks apart people's posts to point out the smallest inconsistencies. I held my hand up and admitted I'd made a mistake when I misquoted him; he accused me of an untruth, which I felt was uneccessary and inaccurate and, in the spirit in which I apologised in order to avoid confrontation, I felt it would be nice if he did the same.

Never mind.

Salmon,, you are the one who is trying to split hairs and wriggle.

You posted that if you did wrong you would admit it- then you state you wouldn't hand yourself in for a particular crime. Fair enough, but earlier on you were being all moralistic about how wrong it was my client didn't go and hand himself in

You are a hypocrit

Wallace1492

simple_salmon wrote:

I accept your point as hypocritical but since these are my morals I'm talking about then I'm allowed to operate whatever sliding scale I want.

Spen666, see above quote. Simple has already agreed. You are still calling him a hypocrite, and he has already acceded the point. Move on please.

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I accept your point as hypocritical but since these are my morals I'm talking about then I'm allowed to operate whatever sliding scale I want.

Spen666, see above quote. Simple has already agreed. You are still calling him a hypocrite, and he has already acceded the point. Move on please.

I am not prepared to let matters simply drop. Salmon did not just conceed the point but then had a go at me.

I'm not the one who was all moralistic about actions and then lied and then revealed they behaved in the same was as the person they were so moralistic about.

Salmon has done the same in the past

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I accept your point as hypocritical but since these are my morals I'm talking about then I'm allowed to operate whatever sliding scale I want.

Spen666, see above quote. Simple has already agreed. You are still calling him a hypocrite, and he has already acceded the point. Move on please.

I am not prepared to let matters simply drop. Salmon did not just conceed the point but then had a go at me.

I'm not the one who was all moralistic about actions and then lied and then revealed they behaved in the same was as the person they were so moralistic about.

Salmon has done the same in the past

I give up. It was all hypothetical anyway. I fail to see where Salmon lied though. A little hypocritical yes, he said he would not hand himself in, but sort of expected your guy to. He also said he would admit to whatever if he was caught.

However this niggling is getting well off topic, and will detract from the good debate that has been on here.

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

cjw wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I would have thought being fair in a dispute was the whole point - you hear two sides and decide the fairest outcome based on what is most likely the truth.

But these are not disputes. That is Civil Law. This is the state prosecuting in a criminal matter. That is not a dispute.

Most likely the truth is not part of criminnal law - standard Crown must reach is beyond all reasonable doubt - a much higher test


Salmon -you are living in a utopia - a state where there would be no need for laws as people would be so nice to each other and so considerate.

Where its a case of your freedom or not people are going to defend themselves

And.......... no lawyers. But to dream oh to dream ...............

I like the Simpsons' sketch where one of the cartoon characters muses - the world would be a far happier place with more lawyers and then they cut to hundreds of lawyers dancing holding hands in large circles, in meadows of flowers and flowers in their hair .....

I think SS has a good point. The lawyers on here or those that work in the legal profession are so cynical and mercenary they have sold their souls........ if they ever had one.

I was accused by Spen of denying an accused their human rights and innocence until proven guilty when I questioned the deliberate frustration of the legal process by the defence. I shall state again that it is right and proper that a defendant should rgiorously defend themselves and challenge what is put to them, but to knowingly frustrate the course of justice to gain acquittal is just plain wrong. I believe any solicitor or counsel has primary duties to the court and legal process above and beyond the needs of their client. To do otherwise IMHO is to bring the judicial system into disrepute.

But the same old clap trap that is written now is spouted against the principles of right, wrong and fairness which is what the legal system or process likes to think it adheres to,. However the criminal justice system seems to frequently fail to serve the people it is put in place to protect or control.

If I am fatally injured this evening by a another dangerous driver I would expect the State to vigorously investigate, prosecute, convict and punish the driver. But judging by recent performances I know that this won't be the case - SMIDSY or momentary loss of concentration or blinded by the sun :shock:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/search/?q=eilidh+cairns

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news ... ?ID=451662

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... vans-22830

http://www.roadpeace.org/documents/HGV% ... 0Guide.pdf

http://cms.met.police.uk/news/publicity ... ign_launch

The driver who knocked me down as he approached me fast from behind whilst I was riding around a roundabout in 1999 causing me quite serious injury was only convicted of driving without due care and attention despite his drivng IMHO being dangerous. The RAC chap who witnessed it said "The driver still hit him (me) even though he (me) was lit up like a Christams tree!" The defence tried to make out I was a poor cyclist, didn't have control of my bike, all over the road, the defence barrister even tried to suggest I was a nervous novice who had caused the collision! The b4stard. It was a deeply unsettling experience. But the magistrates must have preferred my version of events as in response to the defence barrister I said I was gripping the bars firmly like Eddy Merkx in the Tour de France which I was was and demonstrated this in the witness box. However when I went onto point out that I had 6 bright rear lights the defence barrister tried to stop me speaking (even bigger b4stard by now), but the magistrates (3) told me to continue. Heheheheheeee..... The driver a Mr Frank Leigh had his driving license endorsed with only 3 points and was fined £60. Pathetic. I know it wasn't the fault of the magistrates as they found him guilty, but that of the pathetic sentencing policy at the time laid down by the government which tbh has changed little. The driver never showed any remorse. He tried to drive around me as I and my bike lay splatted on the road in front of him. I guess the noise of my bike graunching on the road under the air dam of his car made him think better of it plus their was a lot of other traffic around who presumably at that time had seen what had happened which proved to be the case. Mr Leigh was a nasty piece of work. When the ambulance and police arrived he pushed in front of them to try to remonstrate with them that it was my fault for the accident. I lay injured requiring medical help. The b4stard. I remember as I lay waiting for the ambulance and police that the RAC chap who was one of the witnesses and who attended to me, bless him, telling Mr Leigh in no uncetain terms to ****ing leave me alone as he (Mr Leigh) was in my face the whole time saying the collision was all my fault!!! Yet he was driving his car behind me, driving straight into the back of me taking me out, sending me flying through the air. Another also witness confirmed this. Mr Leigh never showed any regard for my safety or condition. He was a complete b4stard. We in the UK should have a similar law that they have in France that it is a criminal offence to decline support or walk away from some who has been injured who needs medical attention.

So this case with Stubbs brings it all back for me and the Spink family have my full sympathy for their loss of Anthony. Stubbs sounds a really nasty piece of work. I'm only sorry that the Spink family were dealt a double blow by the trauma of the legal process which seems to have let yet another family down.

TN I would suggest you approach families of other cyclists who have been killed on the roads. I believe Eilidh Cairns' mum, in conjunction with road safety groups and the Met Police, eg Roadpeace, have launched campaigns to improve safety for cyclists and awareness on the roads by educating both cyclists and HGVs of the dangers when we come into close proximity, and pushing for more mirrors to eradicate blind spots on large vehicles. Just a thought, better than continually beating yourself up on here by reading the frankly insensitive stuff written by some posters on here.............

spen666

dilemna wrote:

...
.....

The driver who knocked me down as he approached me fast from behind whilst I was riding around a roundabout in 1999 causing me quite serious injury was only convicted of driving without due care and attention despite his drivng IMHO being dangerous. The RAC chap who witnessed it said "The driver still hit him (me) even though he (me) was lit up like a Christams tree!" The defence tried to make out I was a poor cyclist, didn't have control of my bike, all over the road, the defence barrister even tried to suggest I was a nervous novice who had caused the collision! The b4stard. It was a deeply unsettling experience. But the magistrates must have preferred my version of events as in response to the defence barrister I said I was gripping the bars firmly like Eddy Merkx in the Tour de France which I was was and demonstrated this in the witness box. However when I went onto point out that I had 6 bright rear lights the defence barrister tried to stop me speaking (even bigger b4stard by now), but the magistrates (3) told me to continue. Heheheheheeee..... The driver a Mr Frank Leigh had his driving license endorsed with only 3 points and was fined £60. Pathetic. I know it wasn't the fault of the magistrates as they found him guilty, but that of the pathetic sentencing policy at the time laid down by the government which tbh has changed little.

interesting you seek to acquit the magistrates of blame for the sentence.

They could have fined him up to £2500 and banned him friom driving for life.

There was no sentencing policy that justified such a derisory sentence at that time- or even now

The driver never showed any remorse. He tried to drive around me as I and my bike lay splatted on the road in front of him. I guess the noise of my bike graunching on the road under the air dam of his car made him think better of it plus their was a lot of other traffic around who presumably at that time had seen what had happened which proved to be the case. Mr Leigh was a nasty piece of work. When the ambulance and police arrived he pushed in front of them to try to remonstrate with them that it was my fault for the accident. I lay injured requiring medical help. The b4stard. I remember as I lay waiting for the ambulance and police that the RAC chap who was one of the witnesses and who attended to me, bless him, telling Mr Leigh in no uncetain terms to ****ing leave me alone as he (Mr Leigh) was in my face the whole time saying the collision was all my fault!!! Yet the car was behind me and he drove straight into the back of me taking me out, sending me flying through the air. Another witness confirmed this. Mr Leigh never showed any regard for my safety or condition. He was a complete b4stard. We in the UK should have a similar law that they have in France that it is a criminal offence to decline support or walk away from some who has been injured who needs medical attention.

I wouldn't like such a law. You would then have incompetent people trying to administer first aid for fear of being prosecuted. Potentially cauusing more harm.

Imagine in your case the driver trying to treat you- despite his being so angry etc- he'd cause you more fear and anxiety and distress not to say injury.
it must be a moral duty not a legal one IMHO

So this case with Stubbs brings it all back for me and the Spink family have my full sympathy for their loss of Anthony. Stubbs sounds a really nasty piece of work. I'm only sorry that the Spink family were dealt a double blow by the trauma of the legal process which seems to have let yet another family down.

TN I would suggest you approach families of other cyclists who have been killed on the roads. I believe Eilidh Cairns' mum, in conjunction with road safety groups and the Met Police, eg Roadpeace, have launched campaigns to improve safety for cyclists and awareness on the roads by educating both cyclists and HGVs of the dangers when we come into close proximity, and pushing for more mirrors to eradicate blind spots on large vehicles. Just a thought, better than continually beating yourself up on here by reading the frankly insensitive stuff written by some posters on here.............

Things wil never improve whilst we blame the wrong people.

We need to calm the rants about motorists/ courts/ cps etc down and calmly apportion blame to therelevant bodies and look how it can be improved.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I accept your point as hypocritical but since these are my morals I'm talking about then I'm allowed to operate whatever sliding scale I want.

Spen666, see above quote. Simple has already agreed. You are still calling him a hypocrite, and he has already acceded the point. Move on please.

I am not prepared to let matters simply drop. Salmon did not just conceed the point but then had a go at me.

I'm not the one who was all moralistic about actions and then lied and then revealed they behaved in the same was as the person they were so moralistic about.

Salmon has done the same in the past

cee

spen666 wrote:

I wouldn't like such a law. You would then have incompetent people trying to administer first aid for fear of being prosecuted. Potentially cauusing more harm.

Imagine in your case the driver trying to treat you- despite his being so angry etc- he'd cause you more fear and anxiety and distress not to say injury.
it must be a moral duty not a legal one IMHO

I agree with this....

i also think i remember that someone somewhere was taken to court (apoogies...cannot remember if it was a criminal or civil case....my first thought is that it was a civil case) for administering first aid and causing more harm.....might have been in america....or i might have made it up....

spen....do you happen to know the legal position of a person who administers first aid and makes the injury worse?

simple_salmon

I would have liked to have had a discussion regarding moral behaviour versus the law but I'm no longer going to take part.

Spen - on two threads you've now accused me of lying; I let the first one go but you have done so again and offered no evidence. If you are unable to debate without resorting to childish insults then that's up to you but I've got better things to do.

Point out where I lied and I will apologise here to everyone for ruining this thread.