Kill in a park and avoid prison. - Page 7

Tom Crispin wrote:

> tenzin@dsl.pipex.com (Terry) wrote:

>>> My belief was incorrect. Is it wrong to be wrong occasionally?

>> That's not really the point, is it? You should take a quiet moment to ask
>> yourself whether it was wrong to broadcast your belief of a "strong
>> possibility" that the two restaurants, which you helpfully identifed by
>> name and street address, were connected to a killer driver.

> Is is wrong to express ones suspicions? I don't think so. Naming the
> restaurants which I believed he may have been attached to certainly
> hasn't done any harm.

What makes you think you know that?

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:28:57 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> tenzin@dsl.pipex.com (Terry) wrote:
>
>>>> My belief was incorrect. Is it wrong to be wrong occasionally?
>
>>> That's not really the point, is it? You should take a quiet moment to ask
>>> yourself whether it was wrong to broadcast your belief of a "strong
>>> possibility" that the two restaurants, which you helpfully identifed by
>>> name and street address, were connected to a killer driver.
>
>> Is is wrong to express ones suspicions? I don't think so. Naming the
>> restaurants which I believed he may have been attached to certainly
>> hasn't done any harm.
>
>What makes you think you know that?

The same that made the judge in the Diana death enquiry reach the
conclusion that Prince Philip played no part in the death of the late
Princess of Wales. A complete lack of evidence to the contrary.

In article <r2dlv316b9lo6fs9jintsbrpo4d2ekpd74@4ax.com>,
kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge (Tom Crispin) wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:02 +0100 (BST), tenzin@dsl.pipex.com (Terry)
> wrote:
>
> >My belief was incorrect. Is it wrong
> >> to be wrong occasionally?
> >
> >That's not really the point, is it? You should take a quiet moment
> to ask
> >yourself whether it was wrong to broadcast your belief of a "strong
> >possibility" that the two restaurants, which you helpfully
> identifed by
> >name and street address, were connected to a killer driver.
>
> Is is wrong to express ones suspicions? I don't think so. Naming
> the restaurants which I believed he may have been attached to certainly
> hasn't done any harm.

You have no way of knowing that so claiming an absence of harm doesn't
really work as an excuse for your actions.

I turned the question around because it seemed that while focused only on
excusing your own behaviour you haven't put yourself in the position of
an innocent person who has been tainted by rumour. If you do that you may
be better placed to consider the rights and wrongs of publishing the
names and addresses of two restaurants about which you had heard a rumour,
and asserting a strong possibility of their association with a killer
driver in a public forum.

Considering the context also helps. We live in an intolerant society
where paediatricians have been attacked by illiterate vigilantes and
where foreigners and immigrants are routinely demonised & worse.

You can have the last word but you should know that I've read all your
contributions and I understand your passion and admire your efforts in
general. It's your effort to name & shame that was wrong-headed.

Terry writtificated

> We live in an intolerant society
> where paediatricians have been attacked by illiterate vigilantes

IIRC one had something written on their door. I can't remember whether the
graffiti was relevent to paediatricians or paedophiles.

>On Mar 30, 10:16 pm, Tom Crispin
><kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>> From Anthony Austin's (Chair of Greenwich Cyclists) report:
>> "The crown prosecution said Voong's Honda had negotiated the
>> roundabout at the top of The Avenue in the park at around 4.45 pm on
>> June 26 and was heading downhill."

I went past the site of the death today. There were recent flowers at
the spot where the cyclist was killed. The card read:

"Sorry" - you are always in my thoughts.

There was no name, but I expect the flowers were left by Voong.