Mr Loophole Strikes Again . . . .

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
MikeF
Posts: 2377
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Pedestrians forced to wear reflectives?

Postby MikeF » 9 Jun 2014, 11:36pm

JohnW wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Leech,parasite,creep,slickly excuse for humanity.Take your pick...............


John - I think you're being unnecessarily complementary about this sewer rat.

Or even complimentary :wink:
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

reohn2
Posts: 23730
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Pedestrians forced to wear reflectives?

Postby reohn2 » 9 Jun 2014, 11:38pm

JohnW wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Leech,parasite,creep,slickly excuse for humanity.Take your pick...............


John - I think you're being unnecessarily complementary about this sewer rat.

I was just trying to be kind to the gentleman :roll:

thirdcrank
Posts: 22122
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Location: Gildersome, Sth Leeds

Re: Mr Loophole Strikes Again . . . .

Postby thirdcrank » 10 Jun 2014, 6:19am

As this thread is more about mitigation than loopholes, I'll mention one of my own hobbyhorses: remorse. This is a general point, rather than about this case.

Sentencing guidelines now require that a discount should be given to a defendant who shows remorse. This can be significant eg making the difference between custody and liberty. Fair enough, since if a defendant sincerely recognises their error then they are part way there already. OTOH, I get the impression that remorse is now routinely chucked into many mitigation speeches as though the discount is there for the asking.

There are various ways in which remorse might be shown eg an early indication of a guilty plea, especially when the evidence doesn't make a conviction inevitable anyway. OTOH, it would be reassuring to hear a report of a judge saying "Since you seem to blame everybody but yourself for what happened, there will be no discount for remorse."
Gang warily.

JohnW
Posts: 4887
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Pedestrians forced to wear reflectives?

Postby JohnW » 10 Jun 2014, 11:35am

MikeF wrote:
JohnW wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Leech,parasite,creep,slickly excuse for humanity.Take your pick...............


John - I think you're being unnecessarily complementary about this sewer rat.

Or even complimentary :wink:
:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:.....so that's 0 out of 10 for spelling then. :( :( :( :( :(
Last edited by JohnW on 10 Jun 2014, 11:38am, edited 1 time in total.

JohnW
Posts: 4887
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Pedestrians forced to wear reflectives?

Postby JohnW » 10 Jun 2014, 11:37am

reohn2 wrote:
JohnW wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Leech,parasite,creep,slickly excuse for humanity.Take your pick...............


John - I think you're being unnecessarily complementary about this sewer rat.

I was just trying to be kind to the gentleman :roll:


.........and unrealistic :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Italia50
Posts: 109
Joined: 1 Jun 2014, 10:05am

Re: Mr Loophole Strikes Again . . . .

Postby Italia50 » 10 Jun 2014, 3:12pm

There are probably sewer rats out there who will be writing in to complain of the comparison :D

JohnW
Posts: 4887
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Mr Loophole Strikes Again . . . .

Postby JohnW » 10 Jun 2014, 5:10pm

Italia50 wrote:There are probably sewer rats out there who will be writing in to complain of the comparison :D


I'd never thought of that..........I feel really dreadful now :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:


Return to “On the road”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jezer and 4 guests