Death in Greenwich Park - verdict



Correspondents may recall a fatal crash in Greenwich Park which was
discussed at the time in June 2007. The cyclist was cycling up the
hill and was hit head on and killed by the driver of a car coming down
the hill who was overtaking another vehicle. The driver has
apparently pleaded guilty to an offence. PR follows:

"Coong Duong Voong, 59, of Red Barracks Road, Woolwich, pleaded guilty
at Woolwich Crown Court on February 28 to causing death by dangerous
driving when his car was in collision with a cyclist in Greenwich Park
on June 26, 2007, the Metropolitan Police press office said.

"The defendant is due to be sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court on March
26.

"The victim, Leonard Woods, was a regular commuter by cycle from his
home in Burnt Ash Lane, Bromley, to work in Tower Hamlets."

best wishes
james
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
wrote:

>Correspondents may recall a fatal crash in Greenwich Park which was
>discussed at the time in June 2007. The cyclist was cycling up the
>hill and was hit head on and killed by the driver of a car coming down
>the hill who was overtaking another vehicle. The driver has
>apparently pleaded guilty to an offence. PR follows:
>
>"Coong Duong Voong, 59, of Red Barracks Road, Woolwich, pleaded guilty
>at Woolwich Crown Court on February 28 to causing death by dangerous
>driving when his car was in collision with a cyclist in Greenwich Park
>on June 26, 2007, the Metropolitan Police press office said.
>
>"The defendant is due to be sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court on March
>26.
>
>"The victim, Leonard Woods, was a regular commuter by cycle from his
>home in Burnt Ash Lane, Bromley, to work in Tower Hamlets."


Rumours at the time were that the driver was the owner of a restaurant
in Greenwich in a hurry to open up. The only Vietnamese restaurants I
know in Greenwich are The Saigon Restaurant, at 16 Nelson Road and The
Vietnam Restaurant, 17 King William Walk. These restaurants are just
at the foot of Greenwich Park, and the route from Red Barracks Road to
them, through Greenwich Park, is obvious at that time of day.

This is purely circumstantial - and other rumours were that the
motorist was pulling over to use the toilets in the park when he
killed the cyclist.
 
G

GeoffC

Guest
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
> wrote:
>
>> Correspondents may recall a fatal crash in Greenwich Park which was
>> discussed at the time in June 2007. The cyclist was cycling up the
>> hill and was hit head on and killed by the driver of a car coming
>> down the hill who was overtaking another vehicle. The driver has
>> apparently pleaded guilty to an offence. PR follows:
>>
>> "Coong Duong Voong, 59, of Red Barracks Road, Woolwich, pleaded
>> guilty at Woolwich Crown Court on February 28 to causing death by
>> dangerous driving when his car was in collision with a cyclist in
>> Greenwich Park on June 26, 2007, the Metropolitan Police press
>> office said.
>>
>> "The defendant is due to be sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court on
>> March
>> 26.
>>
>> "The victim, Leonard Woods, was a regular commuter by cycle from
>> his
>> home in Burnt Ash Lane, Bromley, to work in Tower Hamlets."

>
> Rumours at the time were that the driver was the owner of a
> restaurant
> in Greenwich in a hurry to open up. The only Vietnamese restaurants
> I
> know in Greenwich are The Saigon Restaurant, at 16 Nelson Road and
> The
> Vietnam Restaurant, 17 King William Walk. These restaurants are
> just
> at the foot of Greenwich Park, and the route from Red Barracks Road
> to
> them, through Greenwich Park, is obvious at that time of day.
>
> This is purely circumstantial - and other rumours were that the
> motorist was pulling over to use the toilets in the park when he
> killed the cyclist.


This is one of the drawbacks of publishing defendant's names IMO. It
often leads to a lot of silly rumour and tittle-tattle, which in turn
almost always leads to grief for some unconnected party. At best it
often results in punishment for the defendants family who are, in most
cases, totally innocent.

--

Geoff
 
N

Nick

Guest
GeoffC wrote:
> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Correspondents may recall a fatal crash in Greenwich Park which was
>>> discussed at the time in June 2007. The cyclist was cycling up the
>>> hill and was hit head on and killed by the driver of a car coming
>>> down the hill who was overtaking another vehicle. The driver has
>>> apparently pleaded guilty to an offence. PR follows:
>>>
>>> "Coong Duong Voong, 59, of Red Barracks Road, Woolwich, pleaded
>>> guilty at Woolwich Crown Court on February 28 to causing death by
>>> dangerous driving when his car was in collision with a cyclist in
>>> Greenwich Park on June 26, 2007, the Metropolitan Police press
>>> office said.
>>>
>>> "The defendant is due to be sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court on
>>> March
>>> 26.
>>>
>>> "The victim, Leonard Woods, was a regular commuter by cycle from
>>> his
>>> home in Burnt Ash Lane, Bromley, to work in Tower Hamlets."

>> Rumours at the time were that the driver was the owner of a
>> restaurant
>> in Greenwich in a hurry to open up. The only Vietnamese restaurants
>> I
>> know in Greenwich are The Saigon Restaurant, at 16 Nelson Road and
>> The
>> Vietnam Restaurant, 17 King William Walk. These restaurants are
>> just
>> at the foot of Greenwich Park, and the route from Red Barracks Road
>> to
>> them, through Greenwich Park, is obvious at that time of day.
>>
>> This is purely circumstantial - and other rumours were that the
>> motorist was pulling over to use the toilets in the park when he
>> killed the cyclist.

>
> This is one of the drawbacks of publishing defendant's names IMO. It
> often leads to a lot of silly rumour and tittle-tattle, which in turn
> almost always leads to grief for some unconnected party. At best it
> often results in punishment for the defendants family who are, in most
> cases, totally innocent.
>


He has admitted guilt so is a little more than just a defendant.

The family are connected to him, they benefit from his actions, why is
unfair that they should also share to some extent in the consequences of
his negative actions.

I don't think Tom was suggesting vigilante action. However I for one
will make sure I do not eat in these restaurants until I am sure they
are unconnected with Mr Voong.

> --
>
> Geoff
>
>
 
G

GeoffC

Guest
Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> GeoffC wrote:
>> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT),
>>> [email protected]
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Correspondents may recall a fatal crash in Greenwich Park which
>>>> was
>>>> discussed at the time in June 2007. The cyclist was cycling up
>>>> the
>>>> hill and was hit head on and killed by the driver of a car coming
>>>> down the hill who was overtaking another vehicle. The driver has
>>>> apparently pleaded guilty to an offence. PR follows:
>>>>
>>>> "Coong Duong Voong, 59, of Red Barracks Road, Woolwich, pleaded
>>>> guilty at Woolwich Crown Court on February 28 to causing death by
>>>> dangerous driving when his car was in collision with a cyclist in
>>>> Greenwich Park on June 26, 2007, the Metropolitan Police press
>>>> office said.
>>>>
>>>> "The defendant is due to be sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court on
>>>> March
>>>> 26.
>>>>
>>>> "The victim, Leonard Woods, was a regular commuter by cycle from
>>>> his
>>>> home in Burnt Ash Lane, Bromley, to work in Tower Hamlets."
>>> Rumours at the time were that the driver was the owner of a
>>> restaurant
>>> in Greenwich in a hurry to open up. The only Vietnamese
>>> restaurants
>>> I
>>> know in Greenwich are The Saigon Restaurant, at 16 Nelson Road and
>>> The
>>> Vietnam Restaurant, 17 King William Walk. These restaurants are
>>> just
>>> at the foot of Greenwich Park, and the route from Red Barracks
>>> Road
>>> to
>>> them, through Greenwich Park, is obvious at that time of day.
>>>
>>> This is purely circumstantial - and other rumours were that the
>>> motorist was pulling over to use the toilets in the park when he
>>> killed the cyclist.

>>
>> This is one of the drawbacks of publishing defendant's names IMO.
>> It
>> often leads to a lot of silly rumour and tittle-tattle, which in
>> turn
>> almost always leads to grief for some unconnected party. At best it
>> often results in punishment for the defendants family who are, in
>> most cases, totally innocent.
>>

>
> He has admitted guilt so is a little more than just a defendant.
>
> The family are connected to him, they benefit from his actions, why
> is
> unfair that they should also share to some extent in the
> consequences
> of his negative actions.


A slightly ridiculous suggestion if I may say so. How far back would
you want to take this "collective responsibility" ? His driving
instructor maybe? What about his primary school teacher?

>
> I don't think Tom was suggesting vigilante action. However I for one
> will make sure I do not eat in these restaurants until I am sure
> they
> are unconnected with Mr Voong.
>


So unless the gentleman concerned is owner of both restaurants, you
will be punishing one innocent family certainly and maybe two. Or do
you think that the Vietnamese community as a whole should bear
responsibility for the crime?


--

Geoff
 
I

Ian Jackson

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't think Tom was suggesting vigilante action. However I for one
>will make sure I do not eat in these restaurants until I am sure they
>are unconnected with Mr Voong.


This is surely exactly the kind of `collateral damage' which GeoffC
was complaining about.

If there are two restaurants of which the offender may have been
connected with one, then with your policy as you say above, you are
punishing at least one set of perfectly innocent people - based
entirely on their race and occupation.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]ark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
 
N

Nick

Guest
GeoffC wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> GeoffC wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Correspondents may recall a fatal crash in Greenwich Park which
>>>>> was
>>>>> discussed at the time in June 2007. The cyclist was cycling up
>>>>> the
>>>>> hill and was hit head on and killed by the driver of a car coming
>>>>> down the hill who was overtaking another vehicle. The driver has
>>>>> apparently pleaded guilty to an offence. PR follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Coong Duong Voong, 59, of Red Barracks Road, Woolwich, pleaded
>>>>> guilty at Woolwich Crown Court on February 28 to causing death by
>>>>> dangerous driving when his car was in collision with a cyclist in
>>>>> Greenwich Park on June 26, 2007, the Metropolitan Police press
>>>>> office said.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The defendant is due to be sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court on
>>>>> March
>>>>> 26.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The victim, Leonard Woods, was a regular commuter by cycle from
>>>>> his
>>>>> home in Burnt Ash Lane, Bromley, to work in Tower Hamlets."
>>>> Rumours at the time were that the driver was the owner of a
>>>> restaurant
>>>> in Greenwich in a hurry to open up. The only Vietnamese
>>>> restaurants
>>>> I
>>>> know in Greenwich are The Saigon Restaurant, at 16 Nelson Road and
>>>> The
>>>> Vietnam Restaurant, 17 King William Walk. These restaurants are
>>>> just
>>>> at the foot of Greenwich Park, and the route from Red Barracks
>>>> Road
>>>> to
>>>> them, through Greenwich Park, is obvious at that time of day.
>>>>
>>>> This is purely circumstantial - and other rumours were that the
>>>> motorist was pulling over to use the toilets in the park when he
>>>> killed the cyclist.
>>> This is one of the drawbacks of publishing defendant's names IMO.
>>> It
>>> often leads to a lot of silly rumour and tittle-tattle, which in
>>> turn
>>> almost always leads to grief for some unconnected party. At best it
>>> often results in punishment for the defendants family who are, in
>>> most cases, totally innocent.
>>>

>> He has admitted guilt so is a little more than just a defendant.
>>
>> The family are connected to him, they benefit from his actions, why
>> is
>> unfair that they should also share to some extent in the
>> consequences
>> of his negative actions.

>
> A slightly ridiculous suggestion if I may say so. How far back would
> you want to take this "collective responsibility" ? His driving
> instructor maybe? What about his primary school teacher?
>


Group success and failure is a part of life. We choose to associate with
people who offer us advantage, we choose to avoid people whose actions
would disadvantage the group. If we remove negative consequence for the
group we remove part of their incentive to influence the individual.

The man's family are directly connected to him in a way that a driving
instructor or teacher are not. I doubt very much his primary school
teacher or driving instructor were benefiting from his actions.


>> I don't think Tom was suggesting vigilante action. However I for one
>> will make sure I do not eat in these restaurants until I am sure
>> they
>> are unconnected with Mr Voong.
>>

>
> So unless the gentleman concerned is owner of both restaurants, you
> will be punishing one innocent family certainly and maybe two. Or do
> you think that the Vietnamese community as a whole should bear
> responsibility for the crime?
>


No only restaurants that there is a significant chance he is connected with.

Do you know anything about game theory?

>
> --
>
> Geoff
>
>
 
N

Nick

Guest
Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't think Tom was suggesting vigilante action. However I for one
>> will make sure I do not eat in these restaurants until I am sure they
>> are unconnected with Mr Voong.

>
> This is surely exactly the kind of `collateral damage' which GeoffC
> was complaining about.
>
> If there are two restaurants of which the offender may have been
> connected with one, then with your policy as you say above, you are
> punishing at least one set of perfectly innocent people - based
> entirely on their race and occupation.
>


Based upon a probable connection yes. I believe the positive benefit of
my (as part of society) showing disapproval of mr Voong's driving
outweighs the negative effects of the "collateral damage".

Forget the propoganda. Why do you think this is wrong.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:28:17 +0000, Nick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>No only restaurants that there is a significant chance he is connected with.


Both restraunts are owned by the same person. Whether or not that
person is Mr Voong I am unsure and can only speculate.
 
S

SmegHead

Guest
Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't think Tom was suggesting vigilante action. However I for one
>> will make sure I do not eat in these restaurants until I am sure they
>> are unconnected with Mr Voong.

>
> This is surely exactly the kind of `collateral damage' which GeoffC
> was complaining about.
>
> If there are two restaurants of which the offender may have been
> connected with one, then with your policy as you say above, you are
> punishing at least one set of perfectly innocent people - based
> entirely on their race and occupation.
>


Why play the race card? - The only thing mentioned are his name and a
country, both are independent of race.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:02:03 +0100, "GeoffC" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> This is purely circumstantial - and other rumours were that the
>> motorist was pulling over to use the toilets in the park when he
>> killed the cyclist.

>
>This is one of the drawbacks of publishing defendant's names IMO. It
>often leads to a lot of silly rumour and tittle-tattle, which in turn
>almost always leads to grief for some unconnected party. At best it
>often results in punishment for the defendants family who are, in most
>cases, totally innocent.


I felt that I put forward a balanced case. There is a strong
possibility that the guilty party is connected to the two restaurants
- I know the restaurants have a common owner.

However, there is also the chance that the killing was caused by
dangerous (pulling over to use the toilet) driving rather than what I
would consider to be reckless (overtaking a moving car on a narrow
road) driving, and that the driver is unconnected with the
restaurants.

It is up to the reader to make up their mind what is likely, but the
following is known:

1. A cyclist moving slowly up a hill on the left was killed by a
driver on the right of the road.

2. The driver is guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.

3. Rumours at the time were that the driver was a rastaurant owner in
Greenwich.

4. Other later rumours were that the driver was pulling over to use
the toilet.

5. The driver's name appears to be Vietnamese.

6. There are two Vietnamese restaurants in Greenwich historic centre
with a common owner.

7. The obvious route for the driver from his known home to the
restaurants is through Greenwich Park at that time of day.

As I say, much of this is circumstantial. It would therefore be wrong
to draw solid conclusions.
 
G

GeoffC

Guest
Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> GeoffC wrote:
>> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> GeoffC wrote:


>>>
>>> The family are connected to him, they benefit from his actions,
>>> why
>>> is
>>> unfair that they should also share to some extent in the
>>> consequences
>>> of his negative actions.

>>
>> A slightly ridiculous suggestion if I may say so. How far back
>> would
>> you want to take this "collective responsibility" ? His driving
>> instructor maybe? What about his primary school teacher?
>>

>
> Group success and failure is a part of life. We choose to associate
> with people who offer us advantage, we choose to avoid people whose
> actions would disadvantage the group. If we remove negative
> consequence for the group we remove part of their incentive to
> influence the individual.


You mean his children should have realised he is **** driver and gone
to live with someone else?

> The man's family are directly connected to him in a way that a
> driving
> instructor or teacher are not. I doubt very much his primary school
> teacher or driving instructor were benefiting from his actions.
>


But his driving instructor obviously didn't teach him to drive
properly and his primary school teacher should have taught him to pay
more attention to lessons. Must they not share a part of the blame?


>>> I don't think Tom was suggesting vigilante action. However I for
>>> one
>>> will make sure I do not eat in these restaurants until I am sure
>>> they
>>> are unconnected with Mr Voong.
>>>

>>
>> So unless the gentleman concerned is owner of both restaurants, you
>> will be punishing one innocent family certainly and maybe two. Or
>> do
>> you think that the Vietnamese community as a whole should bear
>> responsibility for the crime?
>>

>
> No only restaurants that there is a significant chance he is
> connected with.


Since when should a punishment be dealt on the basis of a "significant
chance"

> Do you know anything about game theory?


Only that the bloke who invented it is/was a raving nutter and if that
is not bad enough, Mrs Thatcher believes in it too.

--

Geoff
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:12:34 +0100, "GeoffC" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Since when should a punishment be dealt on the basis of a "significant
>chance"


I boycott Nestle products and McDonalds on a "significant chance".
It's a choice I make.
 
G

GeoffC

Guest
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:12:34 +0100, "GeoffC" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Since when should a punishment be dealt on the basis of a
>> "significant chance"

>
> I boycott Nestle products and McDonalds on a "significant chance".
> It's a choice I make.


No that is more than a significant chance. Their products WILL make
you fat.
What is your alternative burger supplier?

--

Geoff
 
N

Nick

Guest
GeoffC wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> GeoffC wrote:
>>> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> GeoffC wrote:

>
>>>> The family are connected to him, they benefit from his actions,
>>>> why
>>>> is
>>>> unfair that they should also share to some extent in the
>>>> consequences
>>>> of his negative actions.
>>> A slightly ridiculous suggestion if I may say so. How far back
>>> would
>>> you want to take this "collective responsibility" ? His driving
>>> instructor maybe? What about his primary school teacher?
>>>

>> Group success and failure is a part of life. We choose to associate
>> with people who offer us advantage, we choose to avoid people whose
>> actions would disadvantage the group. If we remove negative
>> consequence for the group we remove part of their incentive to
>> influence the individual.

>
> You mean his children should have realised he is **** driver and gone
> to live with someone else?
>


I mean that they should take the bad with the good. If he was a poor
businessman they would suffer, if his service was bad I would never eat
in his restaurant.

You appear to be saying you would say you would be happy to continue to
eat in the restaurant of a killer because if you stopped his kids might
suffer?


>> The man's family are directly connected to him in a way that a
>> driving
>> instructor or teacher are not. I doubt very much his primary school
>> teacher or driving instructor were benefiting from his actions.
>>

>
> But his driving instructor obviously didn't teach him to drive
> properly and his primary school teacher should have taught him to pay
> more attention to lessons. Must they not share a part of the blame?
>


This is just ludicrous. We are discussing people who would suffer as a
secondary effect of not doing business with him. We are not discussing
deliberately seeking out other people to punish for for his crime.

>
>>>> I don't think Tom was suggesting vigilante action. However I for
>>>> one
>>>> will make sure I do not eat in these restaurants until I am sure
>>>> they
>>>> are unconnected with Mr Voong.
>>>>
>>> So unless the gentleman concerned is owner of both restaurants, you
>>> will be punishing one innocent family certainly and maybe two. Or
>>> do
>>> you think that the Vietnamese community as a whole should bear
>>> responsibility for the crime?
>>>

>> No only restaurants that there is a significant chance he is
>> connected with.

>
> Since when should a punishment be dealt on the basis of a "significant
> chance"
>


Always has been. The trick is to convince the public that they couldn't
be convicted. That is why they are so lenient on motoring offences. On
the other hand people don't care that a misfit is jailed on a
significant chance because they do not empathise.

But we aren't even talking punishment we are talking not doing business
with.

>> Do you know anything about game theory?

>
> Only that the bloke who invented it is/was a raving nutter and if that
> is not bad enough, Mrs Thatcher believes in it too.
>


Game Theory is not to be believed or disbelieved it is a language that
allows us describe these kinds of problems and discuss them in a
meaningful way.

I'm a bit shocked that you would be happy to continue to eat in this
guy's restaurant.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Nick wrote:

> GeoffC wrote:


>> Since when should a punishment be dealt on the basis of a "significant
>> chance"


> Always has been. The trick is to convince the public that they couldn't
> be convicted. That is why they are so lenient on motoring offences. On
> the other hand people don't care that a misfit is jailed on a
> significant chance because they do not empathise.
> But we aren't even talking punishment we are talking not doing business
> with.


>>> Do you know anything about game theory?


[ ... ]

> Game Theory is not to be believed or disbelieved it is a language that
> allows us describe these kinds of problems and discuss them in a
> meaningful way.


> I'm a bit shocked that you would be happy to continue to eat in this
> guy's restaurant.


What's the food like?

Is it good value (we know it isn't going to be haute cuisine)?

Does this chap (whether he is the owner of a restaurant or just someone
with a name similar to a restauranteur) deserve to spend the rest of his
life without a livelihood? Would a change of career for him satisfy you?
If he went to work as a chef in a different restaurant, would you
boycott that?
 
N

Nick

Guest
JNugent wrote:

> What's the food like?
>
> Is it good value (we know it isn't going to be haute cuisine)?
>
> Does this chap (whether he is the owner of a restaurant or just someone
> with a name similar to a restauranteur) deserve to spend the rest of his
> life without a livelihood?


A little bit of hyperbole here.

> Would a change of career for him satisfy you?
> If he went to work as a chef in a different restaurant, would you
> boycott that?
>


Yes, If I could I would never do any business with him ever. That is not
the same as denying him a livelihood as I know any boycott would be
limited.

I would never knowingly do business with you either. ;o)
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:29:02 +0100, "GeoffC" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:12:34 +0100, "GeoffC" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Since when should a punishment be dealt on the basis of a
>>> "significant chance"

>>
>> I boycott Nestle products and McDonalds on a "significant chance".
>> It's a choice I make.

>
>No that is more than a significant chance. Their products WILL make
>you fat.


I think you mean *fatter*. However, that is not true in moderation as
part of a balanced diet. My reasons for boycotting Nestle them,
however, has nothing to do with my personal health.

http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/boycott.html
http://www.mcspotlight.org/
 
P

Paul Rudin

Guest
"GeoffC" <[email protected]> writes:

> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:12:34 +0100, "GeoffC" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Since when should a punishment be dealt on the basis of a
>>> "significant chance"

>>
>> I boycott Nestle products and McDonalds on a "significant chance".
>> It's a choice I make.

>
> No that is more than a significant chance. Their products WILL make
> you fat.


Well - only if you consume them to excess. Fruit and veg will make you
fat if you eat too much of it...
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Nick wrote:

> JNugent wrote:


>> What's the food like?
>> Is it good value (we know it isn't going to be haute cuisine)?
>> Does this chap (whether he is the owner of a restaurant or just
>> someone with a name similar to a restauranteur) deserve to spend the
>> rest of his life without a livelihood?


> A little bit of hyperbole here.


In what way? Surely it's your odd reaction which is OTT?

>> Would a change of career for him satisfy you? If he went to work as a
>> chef in a different restaurant, would you boycott that?


> Yes, If I could I would never do any business with him ever. That is not
> the same as denying him a livelihood as I know any boycott would be
> limited.


But only limited by your limited personal powers of persuasion. The
logic of your position (perhaps "logic" isn't the ideal word) is that if
you could, you would prevent/persuade others from dealing with the chap,
or even from dealing with people of the same ethnic extraction with
similarly transliterated names "just in case".

By the way, how you you feel about paediatricians?

Deserve everything they get, do they?

> I would never knowingly do business with you either. ;o)


If we were doing business, you would know about it. You might not have a
choice about it though.