Death in Greenwich Park - verdict



J

JNugent

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:

> "GeoffC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "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/


To decide not to consume something is not to "boycott" it.

If it were otherwise, I'd have been engaged in a lifelong boycott of,
say, Guinness. Or tripe or brawn. Or Piccalilli. Or those disgusting
vomit-tasting "Bombay Mix" things (heave...). But I simply don't like
them. For me, others may consume as much of them as they like.
 
N

Nick

Guest
JNugent wrote:
> 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?
>


OTT? The guy killed someone! I know you don't think killing another
person is a big deal but I do.

>>> 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".
>


So why do you think my argument is not logical? From you response I
guess you have some difficulty understanding logic based on probability.
1 in a 1000 is the same as 1 in 3 to you?

Yes I would like to persuade others to also avoid doing business with
this man. However this is obviously limited and hence it is pointless to
discuss hypothetical out comes.

If my powers of persuasion were up to it I would persuade society to
regard dangerous driving as a serious crime.


> By the way, how you you feel about paediatricians?
>
> Deserve everything they get, do they?
>


Are you trying to imply there is something obviously wrong with my
argument? If so why not be explicit.


>> 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.


What do you mean?
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, PK
[email protected] says...
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:p[email protected]
> >
> > By the way, how you you feel about paediatricians?
> >
> > Deserve everything they get, do they?

>
>
> oops! i trust that was a typo?
>

It was a reference to paediatricians who have suffered at the hands of
those too stupid to realise that not every word starting paed- has the
same meaning.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:21:20 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> "GeoffC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "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/

>
>To decide not to consume something is not to "boycott" it.


It can be, and in my case it is the manafacturer I boycott - not the
product. I eat burgers at BBQs , and almost daily I enjoy coffee, but
never buy nestle's coffee.

>If it were otherwise, I'd have been engaged in a lifelong boycott of,
>say, Guinness. Or tripe or brawn. Or Piccalilli. Or those disgusting
>vomit-tasting "Bombay Mix" things (heave...). But I simply don't like
>them. For me, others may consume as much of them as they like.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Nick wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> 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?


> OTT? The guy killed someone! I know you don't think killing another
> person is a big deal but I do.


You're changing your stance. It was originally that you thought it right
to boycott Vietnamese restaurants in case they were owned by that
driver. You've now modified that (or are trying to).

>>>> 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".


> So why do you think my argument is not logical? From you response I
> guess you have some difficulty understanding logic based on probability.
> 1 in a 1000 is the same as 1 in 3 to you?


Now you're so desperate to try to justify your original wild "reasoning"
that you are resorting to wild ad-hominems. It is not a logical response
to a case involving a Vietnamese driver to urge (or even to desire) the
boycotting of Vitenamese restaurants, any more than it would be to
picket the Irish Tourist Board if the driver's surname was Hegarty, or
the Jamaican tourism office if his first name was Leroy.

> Yes I would like to persuade others to also avoid doing business with
> this man. However this is obviously limited and hence it is pointless to
> discuss hypothetical out comes.


But you are admitting that you are not interested in limiting the
"punishment" for any reasons grounded in moral philosophy or any (even
home-made) jurisprudence. You are simply recognising your own inability
to punish extra-judicially as much as you would like to - and are
treating your own limitations as a moral line.

> If my powers of persuasion were up to it I would persuade society to
> regard dangerous driving as a serious crime.


That's a completely different matter. Dangerous driving *is* treated as
a serious crime (more seriously than say, a typical act of burglary, as
a Hampsdhire mother can tell you this week).

And you're trying to change the subject with that non-sequitur.

>> By the way, how you you feel about paediatricians?


>> Deserve everything they get, do they?


> Are you trying to imply there is something obviously wrong with my
> argument? If so why not be explicit.


Oh, now, let's see... what could *possibly* be wrong with urging members
of the public to boycott restaurants run my members of a particular
ethnic minority just in case they are run by someone you've decided you
don't like and are justified in trying to hurt (with their family as
collateral damage) more than the law sees fit?

>>> 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.


> What do you mean?


I'm not going to expand on it.
 
T

Terry

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:

> 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.


Circumstantial is inference from known facts. Rumour is what you're
spreading. Narrow-minded & nasty is how it sounds.
 
N

Nick

Guest
JNugent wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> 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?

>
>> OTT? The guy killed someone! I know you don't think killing another
>> person is a big deal but I do.

>
> You're changing your stance. It was originally that you thought it right
> to boycott Vietnamese restaurants in case they were owned by that
> driver. You've now modified that (or are trying to).
>


What? I said I didn't want to eat in two restaurants until I was sure
they were not connected to a killer. Apparently I have modified this?
Where did this volte-face occur?

>>>>> 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".

>
>> So why do you think my argument is not logical? From you response I
>> guess you have some difficulty understanding logic based on
>> probability. 1 in a 1000 is the same as 1 in 3 to you?

>
> Now you're so desperate to try to justify your original wild "reasoning"
> that you are resorting to wild ad-hominems. It is not a logical response
> to a case involving a Vietnamese driver to urge (or even to desire) the
> boycotting of Vitenamese restaurants, any more than it would be to
> picket the Irish Tourist Board if the driver's surname was Hegarty, or
> the Jamaican tourism office if his first name was Leroy.
>


But it wasn't just based upon his name. It was based upon the name, the
location and the rumour. This was not a normal road. The fact he was on
it suggest very strongly that he was going somewhere very local, to that
particular part of Greenwich. The area is basically full of shops pubs
and restaurants. Given these facts I would think the odds are
significant (in the 1/3 region) that he worked in an oriental restaurant
there. So these institutions would be intimately linked with the man.
The examples you give are far more tenuous. This is why I made the
comment about you not understanding the difference between 1/3 and
1/1000. It wasn't an ad-hominem it was a comment about your arguments, a
comment which has been re-enforced by you subsequent statements.

Hopefully we will find out for sure when he is sentenced or when there
is a press report.

You also seem to be implying that my action is far more proactive than
it is. I have not suggested pickets or any such action.

>> Yes I would like to persuade others to also avoid doing business with
>> this man. However this is obviously limited and hence it is pointless
>> to discuss hypothetical out comes.

>
> But you are admitting that you are not interested in limiting the
> "punishment" for any reasons grounded in moral philosophy or any (even
> home-made) jurisprudence. You are simply recognising your own inability
> to punish extra-judicially as much as you would like to - and are
> treating your own limitations as a moral line.
>


Eh? My suggested action was very limited. Was I going to kill him and
murder his kids, no. Was I going to break his legs and take his money,
no. Was I urging members of the public to stand outside his work or
place of business and shout their disapproval, no. All I said is that I
would never want to do business with him, a very limited "punishment"
that I also indicated I would wish to apply to you. Punishment is your
term too, I am more interested in an example. Showing others how I feel
about this crime.

>> If my powers of persuasion were up to it I would persuade society to
>> regard dangerous driving as a serious crime.

>
> That's a completely different matter. Dangerous driving *is* treated as
> a serious crime (more seriously than say, a typical act of burglary, as
> a Hampsdhire mother can tell you this week).
>


No dangerous driving is not treated as a serious crime. If you actually
rode a bike you would realise this. The very fact you are comparing an
action that kills people to a typical burglary (which in my experience
is a relatively minor event) shows your mindset.

> And you're trying to change the subject with that non-sequitur.
>


Dangerous driving is the subject, it always has been.

>>> By the way, how you you feel about paediatricians?

>
>>> Deserve everything they get, do they?

>
>> Are you trying to imply there is something obviously wrong with my
>> argument? If so why not be explicit.

>
> Oh, now, let's see... what could *possibly* be wrong with urging members
> of the public to boycott restaurants run my members of a particular
> ethnic minority just in case they are run by someone you've decided you
> don't like and are justified in trying to hurt (with their family as
> collateral damage) more than the law sees fit?
>


I have not urged a boycott, you are in danger of whipping yourself into
a frenzy here. You have certainly seem to have lost touch with reality.

Lets put this in context. If I had been to the restaurant and he had
been rude to me or even just served **** food, My response would also be
that I would never go there again and suggest this idea to others. Thus
also "punishing" his family for his crime.

Regarding the probabilistic nature of the argument, if I had heard there
was a significant chance a restaurant was connected to a supplier with a
history of selling meat with e. coli bacteria in it, I would have the
same response, to avoid going there.

So I guess the real objection you have must be that I am seeking to
supplant the legal system, extra judicial action. Even if it is a
totally passive action.

How does it go... I mean its not like this guy is a real criminal is it?
Hasn't this guy suffered enough, he will have this terrible death on
his conscience, how was he to know that driving at high speed downhill
on the wrong side of the road through the middle of a park would cause
an accident. It could happen to anyone.

>>>> 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.

>
>> What do you mean?

>
> I'm not going to expand on it.


It doesn't surprise me that you are in a profession where people can't
choose to stay away from you.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
[email protected] (Terry) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
>Circumstantial is inference from known facts. Rumour is what you're
>spreading. Narrow-minded & nasty is how it sounds.


I am not spreading rumour. I have made it very clear what is fact and
what is conjecture.

We shall know a little more about the facts of the case in two weeks.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:24:26 +0000, Nick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Given these facts I would think the odds are
>significant (in the 1/3 region) that he worked in an oriental restaurant
>there.


At 3/1 I'd wager a a not insignificant sum that Mr Voong works at one
of those restaurants.

However, I still feel that the Park authority have a lot to answer for
the death. The cycle path up and down the hill is wholly inadequate.
Here's a photo I took of a troop of children cycling down that same
hill a couple of weeks ago as they cycled to their swimming lessons:

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/troop

The two-way cycle lane is on the right. Mr Woods was killed, on the
road, at about the spot where the electric vehicle is.

I won't allow children to cycle on the cycle path: the camber is
dangerous, it's used by pedestrians, cyclists tear down the path, it
is far too narrow.

Greenwich Cyclists have called for the following: the cycle path to be
relocated to the left of the road for cyclists going up only,
overtaking on the road prohibited, the speed through the park limited
to 20mph in common with the residential roads either side of the park
and roads in Richmond Park.
 
N

Nick

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:24:26 +0000, Nick <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Given these facts I would think the odds are
>> significant (in the 1/3 region) that he worked in an oriental restaurant
>> there.

>
> At 3/1 I'd wager a a not insignificant sum that Mr Voong works at one
> of those restaurants.
>


I was just looking for a ballpark figure to try and bring a touch of
reality to Mr Nugent.

The trouble with probability and usenet is that many people assume only
three values: cetainly will, certainly won't and maybe. Under these
rules a maybe like Derby winning the league is the same as a maybe like
Man U winning it.

> However, I still feel that the Park authority have a lot to answer for
> the death. The cycle path up and down the hill is wholly inadequate.
> Here's a photo I took of a troop of children cycling down that same
> hill a couple of weeks ago as they cycled to their swimming lessons:
>
> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/troop
>
> The two-way cycle lane is on the right. Mr Woods was killed, on the
> road, at about the spot where the electric vehicle is.
>
> I won't allow children to cycle on the cycle path: the camber is
> dangerous, it's used by pedestrians, cyclists tear down the path, it
> is far too narrow.
>


Yep, I know the road intimately. Although I normally only rode down
hill, by the time I went home the park was normally closed.

My view is the road shouldn't be there. It is dangerous in a car it is
dangerous on a bike. It is a 40 mph hill without really pedalling. Not
what you want in the middle of a park.

I think we have had this discussion before.

> Greenwich Cyclists have called for the following: the cycle path to be
> relocated to the left of the road for cyclists going up only,
> overtaking on the road prohibited, the speed through the park limited
> to 20mph in common with the residential roads either side of the park
> and roads in Richmond Park.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
T

Terry

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:


> >> 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.
> >>

> >
> > Rumour is what you're spreading.

>
> I am not spreading rumour.


Edited for clarity.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
[email protected] (Terry) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:

>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Rumour is what you're spreading.

>>
>> I am not spreading rumour.

>
>Edited for clarity.


Reporting a rumour as being just a rumour isn't spreading a rumour.
 
M

Mark McNeill

Guest
Response to Tom Crispin
> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Rumour is what you're spreading.
> >>
> >> I am not spreading rumour.

> >
> >Edited for clarity.

>
> Reporting a rumour as being just a rumour isn't spreading a rumour.



Actually it is; I *think* it would be an example of what lit crits call
the intentional fallacy, but ICWBW.


--
Mark, UK
"I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set,
I go into the other room and read a book."
 
G

GeoffC

Guest
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:52:07 +0100, "GeoffC" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Here's a photo I took of a troop of children cycling down that
>>> same
>>> hill a couple of weeks ago as they cycled to their swimming
>>> lessons:
>>>
>>> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/troop
>>>

>>
>> Is it me or is the second child wearing a German army helmet?

>
> It's you. The helmet is definitely air force, not army.
>
> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/helmet


Luftwaffe?

--

Geoff
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:11:57 -0000, Mark McNeill
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Response to Tom Crispin
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Rumour is what you're spreading.
>> >>
>> >> I am not spreading rumour.
>> >
>> >Edited for clarity.

>>
>> Reporting a rumour as being just a rumour isn't spreading a rumour.

>
>
>Actually it is; I *think* it would be an example of what lit crits call
>the intentional fallacy, but ICWBW.


Well, if that is the case, the two rumours I've been spreading are
contradictory.

If he was in a hurry to open his restaurant a few yards away, it would
be unlikely that he was pulling over to use the park toilets.

If he was pulling over to use the park toilets, it would be unlikely
that he was in a hurry to open his restaurant a few yards away.
 
C

congokid

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> writes

>I think you mean *fatter*. However, that is not true in moderation as
>part of a balanced diet.


Does a 'balanced diet' even exist these days?

It should mean a diet that contains adequate amounts of all the
necessary nutrients required for healthy growth and activity, but the
term seems to have been hijacked by the food giants. They often piously
intone their products 'can be enjoyed as part of a balanced diet',
conveniently ignoring the fact that their consumer base has no idea what
that might be.

Throwing more facts at us doesn't appear to be the solution.

If you take the UK as an example, overweight/obesity is running at about
30 per cent. I don't know the figures for anorexia/bulimia, but it seems
to me that on average we're eating far more fats, sugars, carbohydrates,
etc than we need. And the picture's getting grimmer each year as obesity
rates rise among kids (one in four of children starting primary school
are either overweight or obese), setting them firmly on the path of
overeating as adults and all the health problems that brings.

To reverse current rates, we'd have to completely exclude food items
such as those from Nestle and McDonald's from our diets for several
generations just to get back to a level playing field. But it's an
impossible task. Food retailers spend hundreds of millions of pounds
each year in the UK persuading us to consume even more of their
products. Anyone remember the adverts for cornflakes as an evening
snack? Sweets for breakfast and supper? Balanced it might be, but it's
not really within the spirit of the original definition.

So is there even room for just one more waffer thin mint in a 'balanced
diet'?
--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com
 
T

Terry

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> >> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:

> >
> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Rumour is what you're spreading.
> >>
> >> I am not spreading rumour.

> >
> >Edited for clarity.

>
> Reporting a rumour as being just a rumour isn't spreading a rumour.


On which planet does that hold true?

The rumour you have spread is essential to connecting the driver to the
restaurants. Your use of it constitutes conjecture. You would have done
better to take your own advice & wait for the facts to emerge. As it
stands you have set the table for the hard of thinking & bigots.