Kill in a park and avoid prison.

[Ekul Namsob]

Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The cause of the windscreen shattering remains a mystery. I would
> > have expected police investigations to pick up a cause such as a loose
> > stone, or branch falling from a tree.
> >
>
> Is it possible that the windscreen shattered because of a previous chip or
> two that hadn't been repaired? It is possible for windscreen chips to become
> cracks. That has happened to someone I know.

While on holiday in Bavaria last summer, we discovered a two-inch crack
in our windscreen that, within a day or two, had developed into a foot
long crack. As soon as we discovered the crack, we contacted the car's
insurers about a windscreen replacement and were advised that we should
not be concerned and we could safely have the screen replaced on our
return to the UK, around 1500 miles later.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:25:35 +0000, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I do not know if they offer takeaways. I expect they do.

I have a small amount of further information from a friend who was at
the court to hear sentence.

Voong owns a Chinese takeaway in Woolwich.

Voong's English is poor.

Voong gave no account of why his car suddenly veered over to the
right.

He says that his windscreen went "white". The windscreen shattered at
the point of impact; there is no liklihood of it happening earlier.

Voong's wife and children were in court to hear sentence passed and
were distraught by the evidence of what Voong had done.

There is no evidence that Voong was exceeding the speed limit - the
defence made much of this claiming that excessive speed was not the
cause of the crash.


As all this happened outside the park toilets, and with Voong being
unable to account for his veering over to the right, I believe that he
was pulling across the road to use the toilets. This being the case,
and that he failed to look properly along a road with clear lines of
sight, I think that he deserved to be jailed, and the judge was wrong
to let him go with a fine and driving ban.

Motorists need to be given a strong and clear message that if they
kill while driving in a manner that falls far below the normal
standard of driving, that they will loose their liberty for a period
of time. Voong showed a complete lack of responsibility to other park
users. As others have put it, he was driving like a complete ****,
and killed while doing so.

It would take an act of parliament to reduce the Park's speed limit to
20mph. I would prefer to see the park closed to all through motor
traffic at all times. A park is no place for a rush hour rat run.

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:25:35 +0000, Tom Crispin
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have a small amount of further information from a friend who was
> at the court to hear sentence.
>
> Voong owns a Chinese takeaway in Woolwich.

More to the point, what news of the two restaurants you fingered when you
were rumour-mongering? Presumably you recall posting their full names and
street addresses and writing, "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."

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:00 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Terry)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:25:35 +0000, Tom Crispin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I have a small amount of further information from a friend who was
>> at the court to hear sentence.
>>
>> Voong owns a Chinese takeaway in Woolwich.
>
>More to the point, what news of the two restaurants you fingered when you
>were rumour-mongering? Presumably you recall posting their full names and
>street addresses and writing, "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."

I have no news of them. I cycled past them earlier today and they
were still there.

Nothing I said was incorrect. My suspicion that Voong may have owned
them was incorrect - but I took no action against them and made no
suggestion that others should.

 

[Terry]

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

> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:00 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Terry)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:25:35 +0000, Tom Crispin
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I have a small amount of further information from a friend who
> >> was at the court to hear sentence.
> >>
> >> Voong owns a Chinese takeaway in Woolwich.
> >
> >More to the point, what news of the two restaurants you fingered
> when you were rumour-mongering? Presumably you recall posting their
> full names and street addresses and writing, "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."
>
> I have no news of them. I cycled past them earlier today and they
> were still there.
>
> Nothing I said was incorrect. My suspicion that Voong may have
> owned them was incorrect

Surely you meant to say that nothing you said was incorrect except for
the lie you spread that a cyclist killer owned the restaurants.

>- but I took no action against them and made no
> suggestion that others should.

Yes of course. Everyone can see that. All you did was, in your own words,
to "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."

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 18:52 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Terry)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:00 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Terry)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:25:35 +0000, Tom Crispin
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I have a small amount of further information from a friend who
>> >> was at the court to hear sentence.
>> >>
>> >> Voong owns a Chinese takeaway in Woolwich.
>> >
>> >More to the point, what news of the two restaurants you fingered
>> when you were rumour-mongering? Presumably you recall posting their
>> full names and street addresses and writing, "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."
>>
>> I have no news of them. I cycled past them earlier today and they
>> were still there.
>>
>> Nothing I said was incorrect. My suspicion that Voong may have
>> owned them was incorrect
>
>Surely you meant to say that nothing you said was incorrect except for
>the lie you spread that a cyclist killer owned the restaurants.

I never said that. I correctly identified Voong's name as Vietnamese.
I linked that to rumours at the time (which turned out to be correct)
that the driver was a restaurant owner. I correctly identified two
Vietnamese resaurants in Greenwich. I correctly stated that the facts
are "purely circumstantial".

>>- but I took no action against them and made no
>> suggestion that others should.
>
>Yes of course. Everyone can see that. All you did was, in your own words,
>to "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."

Yes, and there was a time that I believed that Mr Voong was connected
to the restaurants. My belief was incorrect. Is it wrong to be wrong
occasionally?

 

[Mark T]

Terry writtificated

> Surely you meant to say that nothing you said was incorrect except for
> the lie you spread that a cyclist killer owned the restaurants.

I can see where Tom was wrong in his speculation, I can't see where he
lied.

Can you post the bit where he lied?

 

[Terry]

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

> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 18:52 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Terry)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:00 +0100 (BST), [email protected]
> (Terry)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:25:35 +0000, Tom Crispin
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I have a small amount of further information from a friend
> who >> >> was at the court to hear sentence.
> >> >>
> >> >> Voong owns a Chinese takeaway in Woolwich.
> >> >
> >> >More to the point, what news of the two restaurants you
> fingered >> when you were rumour-mongering? Presumably you recall
> posting their >> full names and street addresses and writing,
> "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." >> >> I have no news of them. I cycled past them earlier
> today and they
> >> were still there.
> >>
> >> Nothing I said was incorrect. My suspicion that Voong may have
> >> owned them was incorrect
> >
> >Surely you meant to say that nothing you said was incorrect except
> for
> >the lie you spread that a cyclist killer owned the restaurants.
>
> I never said that. I correctly identified Voong's name as
> Vietnamese.
> I linked that to rumours at the time (which turned out to be
> correct)
> that the driver was a restaurant owner. I correctly identified two
> Vietnamese resaurants in Greenwich. I correctly stated that the
> facts
> are "purely circumstantial".
>
> >>- but I took no action against them and made no
> >> suggestion that others should.
> >
> >Yes of course. Everyone can see that. All you did was, in your own
> words,
> >to "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."
>
> Yes, and there was a time that I believed that Mr Voong was
> connected to the restaurants. 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.

 

[Mark T]

Terry writtificated

> 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,

A strong possibility of one of the two restaurants.

Why are you still banging on about this?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:02 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (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.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> [email protected] (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?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:28:57 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> [email protected] (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.

 

[Terry]

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

> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:02 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (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.

 

[Mark T]

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.

 

[Tom Crispin]

>On Mar 30, 10:16 pm, Tom Crispin
><[email protected]> 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.