Artic wrote:

This bloke could be a serial ****wit, a mobile disaster area. There are
many of them around.

"Could be". Well that's a sound basis for an argument. He "could be" any
number of things.


Just because he's killed his own child, that doesn't mean he's learned
any kind of lesson.

Alright. Come up with a worse punishment, then. I'm struggling to think
of anything beyond re-introducing the stocks although there's nothing to
say he'll learn from that either. Yes, the world is full of serial
idiots but, and it pains me to say this, you can't line then all up
against a wall and shoot 'em.


Claiming "it could be any of us" is ********.

Such hubris. Are you suggesting that you don't have the capacity to make
such a mistake then?

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Scott M scribbled...


Artic wrote:

This bloke could be a serial ****wit, a mobile disaster area. There are
many of them around.

"Could be". Well that's a sound basis for an argument. He "could be" any
number of things.


Just because he's killed his own child, that doesn't mean he's learned
any kind of lesson.

Alright. Come up with a worse punishment, then. I'm struggling to think
of anything beyond re-introducing the stocks although there's nothing to
say he'll learn from that either. Yes, the world is full of serial
idiots but, and it pains me to say this, you can't line then all up
against a wall and shoot 'em.


Claiming "it could be any of us" is ********.

Such hubris. Are you suggesting that you don't have the capacity to make
such a mistake then?


YFI

Artic wrote:
Scott M scribbled...

Artic wrote:

This bloke could be a serial ****wit, a mobile disaster area. There are
many of them around.
"Could be". Well that's a sound basis for an argument. He "could be" any
number of things.


Just because he's killed his own child, that doesn't mean he's learned
any kind of lesson.
Alright. Come up with a worse punishment, then. I'm struggling to think
of anything beyond re-introducing the stocks although there's nothing to
say he'll learn from that either. Yes, the world is full of serial
idiots but, and it pains me to say this, you can't line then all up
against a wall and shoot 'em.


Claiming "it could be any of us" is ********.
Such hubris. Are you suggesting that you don't have the capacity to make
such a mistake then?


YFI

Well, that told me. I prostrate myself before such an intelligence.

--
Scott

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 23:29:32 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
SteveW wrote:
There is a difference from dogs
though, they mainly have to be on leads to stop them attacking
people or animals

Not so - they can be off the lead in parks etc. So it's to do with
road safety.

My little(ish) dog can be a bit aggresive with other dogs so it's best
to keep him on a lead in parks. Besides most parks (officially) ask
that dogs are kept on leads. I have a longish retracting lead so
Charlie can sitill gad about a bit, as well as a long training line.


That takes me back some years. A park I used to walk my dog around had a
notice saying "Please put your dog on a lead in this area". Well my dog was
very well trained and very well behaved. I did not put the dog on the lead.
I could call it back to heel whenever I wanted (Border Terriers are
brilliant dogs)

One day a park warden approached me and demanded that I put my dog on a
lead. The bit that annoyed me was that he had his dog with him and his dog
was not on a lead.


--
Adam

"Scott M" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:
"Baz" wrote in message
...
Snip

RIP the little girl. And thoughts go out to the Dad and family.

I was an accident.

Hindsight is easy.

Bloody nonesense.
It was predictable, has happened before on many ocasions and he deserves
to be prosecuted or his negligence.

Tell me, Harry, is it that you do it on purpose to get a rise from people
or are your thought processes really this strange? Did you do a lot of LSD
in the 60s? Or did you go in for a cosmetic lobotomy once? Maybe it's a
comprehension issue - which also seems to affect anyone with Harry as a
moniker. More likely tho, judging by other posts, it's simply this, which
I see a lot in life: You're old and stupid but you use the former to
insist the latter's not true.

So let's go back to your statements and take a sledgehammer to them, shall
we? "Prosecuted for negligence." This bloke has caused the death of his
child; in what way is being censured by a faceless bureaucracy going to
make how he feels /worse/? And what could they possibly do that would
teach him a better reminder should he ever face doing something similar
again? Or do you envision him up some scaffolding thumping away at things
with a carefree whistle even now?

Ideally he would havebeen prosecurted before the accident.
But then you have had the DM reading "elf&safety" nuts whinging.
These people are such great guys until the million too ne accident happens.

But he killed that little girl.
It could have been anyone's little girl.
He was a stupid **** that needs to spend time in jail for manslaughter.
If he'd killed her with a knife say he'd go to jail for her murder.

She won't be coming back and he needs to be punished for manslaughter.
People like him shouldn't have kids. Too irresponsible.

"Scott M" wrote in message
...
Artic wrote:
Scott M scribbled...

Artic wrote:

This bloke could be a serial ****wit, a mobile disaster area. There
are many of them around.
"Could be". Well that's a sound basis for an argument. He "could be" any
number of things.


Just because he's killed his own child, that doesn't mean he's learned
any kind of lesson.
Alright. Come up with a worse punishment, then. I'm struggling to think
of anything beyond re-introducing the stocks although there's nothing to
say he'll learn from that either. Yes, the world is full of serial
idiots but, and it pains me to say this, you can't line then all up
against a wall and shoot 'em.


Claiming "it could be any of us" is ********.
Such hubris. Are you suggesting that you don't have the capacity to make
such a mistake then?


YFI

Well, that told me. I prostrate myself before such an intelligence.


It's common sense. Something you're seriously lacking.
You keep kids well away from building work esp. demolition.
This sort of thing has happened many times before. All this was so
uneccessary.

We only have to have these rules for idiots.
Such as yourself.

I expect he will be prosecuted by the HSE.

In message sting.com,
Artic writes
Scott M scribbled...


harryagain wrote:
"Baz" wrote in message
...
Snip

RIP the little girl. And thoughts go out to the Dad and family.

I was an accident.

Hindsight is easy.

Bloody nonesense.
It was predictable, has happened before on many ocasions and he
deserves to
be prosecuted or his negligence.

Tell me, Harry, is it that you do it on purpose to get a rise from
people or are your thought processes really this strange? Did you do a
lot of LSD in the 60s? Or did you go in for a cosmetic lobotomy once?
Maybe it's a comprehension issue - which also seems to affect anyone
with Harry as a moniker. More likely tho, judging by other posts, it's
simply this, which I see a lot in life: You're old and stupid but you
use the former to insist the latter's not true.

So let's go back to your statements and take a sledgehammer to them,
shall we? "Prosecuted for negligence." This bloke has caused the death
of his child; in what way is being censured by a faceless bureaucracy
going to make how he feels /worse/? And what could they possibly do that
would teach him a better reminder should he ever face doing something
similar again? Or do you envision him up some scaffolding thumping away
at things with a carefree whistle even now?


This bloke could be a serial ****wit, a mobile disaster area. There are
many of them around.

Just because he's killed his own child, that doesn't mean he's learned
any kind of lesson. There are plenty of examples of people who've been
involved in more than one fatal incident. **** knows how many drunk
drivers/speed mad/mobile phone users kill their kids every year. They
know their driving is dangerous, but they still continue until they kill
someone.
Exactly - UNTIL they kill someone - this guy has. Door bolted horse
stable after closing has - rearrange into a well known phrase or saying.

Snip
--
bert

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:59:03 +0100, harryagain wrote:

I expect he will be prosecuted by the HSE.

Don't think the HSE care a flying fig about DIY.

Now if he was a builder employed to demolish the wall it becomes a
"work place" and the HSE would be interested.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message , harryagain
writes

"Scott M" wrote in message
...
Artic wrote:
Scott M scribbled...

Artic wrote:

This bloke could be a serial ****wit, a mobile disaster area. There
are many of them around.
"Could be". Well that's a sound basis for an argument. He "could be" any
number of things.


Just because he's killed his own child, that doesn't mean he's learned
any kind of lesson.
Alright. Come up with a worse punishment, then. I'm struggling to think
of anything beyond re-introducing the stocks although there's nothing to
say he'll learn from that either. Yes, the world is full of serial
idiots but, and it pains me to say this, you can't line then all up
against a wall and shoot 'em.


Claiming "it could be any of us" is ********.
Such hubris. Are you suggesting that you don't have the capacity to make
such a mistake then?


YFI

Well, that told me. I prostrate myself before such an intelligence.


It's common sense. Something you're seriously lacking.
You keep kids well away from building work esp. demolition.
This sort of thing has happened many times before. All this was so
uneccessary.

We only have to have these rules for idiots.
Such as yourself.

I expect he will be prosecuted by the HSE.


HSE only looks at workplace incidents.
--
bert

In message , harryagain
writes

"Scott M" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:
"Baz" wrote in message
...
Snip

RIP the little girl. And thoughts go out to the Dad and family.

I was an accident.

Hindsight is easy.

Bloody nonesense.
It was predictable, has happened before on many ocasions and he deserves
to be prosecuted or his negligence.

Tell me, Harry, is it that you do it on purpose to get a rise from people
or are your thought processes really this strange? Did you do a lot of LSD
in the 60s? Or did you go in for a cosmetic lobotomy once? Maybe it's a
comprehension issue - which also seems to affect anyone with Harry as a
moniker. More likely tho, judging by other posts, it's simply this, which
I see a lot in life: You're old and stupid but you use the former to
insist the latter's not true.

So let's go back to your statements and take a sledgehammer to them, shall
we? "Prosecuted for negligence." This bloke has caused the death of his
child; in what way is being censured by a faceless bureaucracy going to
make how he feels /worse/? And what could they possibly do that would
teach him a better reminder should he ever face doing something similar
again? Or do you envision him up some scaffolding thumping away at things
with a carefree whistle even now?

Ideally he would havebeen prosecurted before the accident.
But then you have had the DM reading "elf&safety" nuts whinging.
These people are such great guys until the million too ne accident happens.

But he killed that little girl.
It could have been anyone's little girl.
He was a stupid **** that needs to spend time in jail for manslaughter.
If he'd killed her with a knife say he'd go to jail for her murder.

It's not the weapon or method of killing that differentiates between
murder and manslaughter but the intent.
She won't be coming back and he needs to be punished for manslaughter.
People like him shouldn't have kids. Too irresponsible.



--
bert

On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:32:47 +0100, "Baz"
wrote:

I was an accident.

A lot of us were, you know.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 08:54:48 +0100, Scott M
wrote:

Maybe it's a comprehension issue - which also seems to affect anyone
with Harry as a moniker.

That's unfair on the other Harry.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:52:46 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

But he killed that little girl.
It could have been anyone's little girl.
He was a stupid **** that needs to spend time in jail for manslaughter.
If he'd killed her with a knife say he'd go to jail for her murder.

Christ on a bike. I didn't think you could show yourself to be a
bigger arsehole than you have on several occasions.

harryagain wrote:

Ideally he would havebeen prosecurted before the accident.

Right, ok. Been watching Minority Report again?

--
Scott

bert wrote:

Exactly - UNTIL they kill someone - this guy has. Door bolted horse
stable after closing has - rearrange into a well known phrase or saying.

Sorry, what is this? Clairvoyants anonymous?

--
Scott

harryagain wrote:

I expect he will be prosecuted by the HSE.

Because, naturally, the HSE goes round prosecuting private individuals.

--
Scott

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 08:54:48 +0100, Scott M
wrote:

Maybe it's a comprehension issue - which also seems to affect anyone
with Harry as a moniker.

That's unfair on the other Harry.

This is true. I thought this one was different to the troglodyte one
(and I'd forgotten about Mr Bloomfield) as I could have sworn there was
an overlap in posting at one point.

--
Scott

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 00:46:25 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

But he killed that little girl.
It could have been anyone's little girl.
He was a stupid **** that needs to spend time in jail for
manslaughter.
If he'd killed her with a knife say he'd go to jail for her
murder.

Christ on a bike. I didn't think you could show yourself to be a
bigger arsehole than you have on several occasions.

But it does raise an interesting point about manslaughter but not
murder as I think that requires premeditation of some sort.

If he had been employed to demolish the wall could he be facing a
manslaughter charge or causing death by negligence? Why does the
employment status or any other factor for that matter change the
"responsibilty"?

What if the wall had fallen into a neighbours property and killed
their daughter?

Why does the fact he killed his own daughter change things? Yes, he
has to live with that, he would also have to live with killing his
neighbours daughter. Is it any different?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 24/08/2013 18:52, harryagain wrote:
"Scott M" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:
"Baz" wrote in message
...
Snip

RIP the little girl. And thoughts go out to the Dad and family.

I was an accident.

Hindsight is easy.

Bloody nonesense.
It was predictable, has happened before on many ocasions and he deserves
to be prosecuted or his negligence.

Tell me, Harry, is it that you do it on purpose to get a rise from people
or are your thought processes really this strange? Did you do a lot of LSD
in the 60s? Or did you go in for a cosmetic lobotomy once? Maybe it's a
comprehension issue - which also seems to affect anyone with Harry as a
moniker. More likely tho, judging by other posts, it's simply this, which
I see a lot in life: You're old and stupid but you use the former to
insist the latter's not true.

So let's go back to your statements and take a sledgehammer to them, shall
we? "Prosecuted for negligence." This bloke has caused the death of his
child; in what way is being censured by a faceless bureaucracy going to
make how he feels /worse/? And what could they possibly do that would
teach him a better reminder should he ever face doing something similar
again? Or do you envision him up some scaffolding thumping away at things
with a carefree whistle even now?

Ideally he would havebeen prosecurted before the accident.
But then you have had the DM reading "elf&safety" nuts whinging.
These people are such great guys until the million too ne accident happens.

But he killed that little girl.
It could have been anyone's little girl.
He was a stupid **** that needs to spend time in jail for manslaughter.
If he'd killed her with a knife say he'd go to jail for her murder.

She won't be coming back and he needs to be punished for manslaughter.
People like him shouldn't have kids. Too irresponsible.

Have you ever lost a child? Don't you think he's been punished enough?