Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[MacB]

But as entertaining as ganging up on a forum member is (for some), it's got nothing to do with the topic

Wrong again, is this some sort of record? No-one is ganging up on a member they are ganging up on the use of a term that is both foreign and descriptive of an offence that DOESN'T EXIST IN THE UK but is trying to be used to describe something that happened in the UK. If you stopped using the term and maybe even acknowledged that you were wrong in the first place then this would all go away.

That you can't and instead keep doubling down and trying to throw in yet more irrelevant bollocks...that's what's got you riding that pale horse right into the centre of Nobbersville. You can still ride on through rather then making a play to be the new Nobbersheriff in Nobbersville...you know the right thing to do, but will your pride let you?

 

[Pale Rider]

Wrong again, is this some sort of record? No-one is ganging up on a member they are ganging up on the use of a term that is both foreign and descriptive of an offence that DOESN'T EXIST IN THE UK but is trying to be used to describe something that happened in the UK. If you stopped using the term and maybe even acknowledged that you were wrong in the first place then this would all go away.

That you can't and instead keep doubling down and trying to throw in yet more irrelevant bollocks...that's what's got you riding that pale horse right into the centre of Nobbersville. You can still ride on through rather then making a play to be the new Nobbersheriff in Nobbersville...you know the right thing to do, but will your pride let you?

Calm down, dear, it's all big dos and little dos and will be forgotten about within a week.

 

[MacB]

Calm down, dear, it's all big dos and little dos and will be forgotten about within a week.

It's not me screaming about everyone ganging up on me while trying to tell them that I don't care anyway....I love contradictions like that.

Now stop trying to make this all about you, the entity Pale Rider is unimportant in this discussion, anyone else using the term jaywalking in the manner you have would have met the same response.

 

[Pale Rider]

the entity Pale Rider is unimportant in this discussion.

More progress, carry on in this vein and we might get back on topic.

 

[Buddfox]

I don't know, the use of the term jaywalking in that context made perfect sense to me. Oh well!

 

[growingvegetables]

It's not me screaming about everyone ganging up on me while trying to tell them that I don't care anyway....I love contradictions like that.

Now stop trying to make this all about you, the entity Pale Rider is unimportant in this discussion, anyone else using the term jaywalking in the manner you have would have met the same response.

Not sure. Not at all sure "the entity Pale Rider " considers himself "unimportant in this discussion".

But that's his problem. He chose his avatar. Nobody else.

 

[Pale Rider]

I don't know, the use of the term jaywalking in that context made perfect sense to me. Oh well!

Made sense to the Alliston jury as well - if their decision to acquit on manslaughter is anything to go by.

Not sure. Not at all sure "the entity Pale Rider " considers himself "unimportant in this discussion".

But that's his problem. He chose his avatar. Nobody else.

As a general point, we are all at the centre of our own universe, but I doubt anyone else gives a toss one way or the other.

 

[Inertia]

I don't know, the use of the term jaywalking in that context made perfect sense to me. Oh well!

What did it mean to you?

 

[swansonj]

Let's try one more time.

"The pedestrian was not on a pedestrian crossing" is a neutral descriptive fact and is acceptable because facts are always acceptable.

""The pedestrian should have been on a pedestrian crossing" is a statement of opinion and is acceptable because statements of legitimate opinions are always acceptable.

"The pedestrian was jaywalking" is a statement of opinion disguised as a fact, but the fact it is disguised as is an incorrect fact. It conveys your disapproval of the pedestrian's action by labelling it a crime when it is not a crime. That is being challenged because incorrect facts should not be acceptable - and because debate usually proceeds better when we present our opinions as such and don't try to claim a status for them that they don't have.

 

[Dan B]

"The pedestrian was crossing the road" / "the pedestrian was jay walking"

"The defendant was traveling at 18mph" / "The defendant was speeding"

"I an unable to say whether the traffic signal was red or green" / "the cyclist may have jumped a red light"

The facts in each pair of statements are the same but the implication in the mind of the audience is not

 

[DaveReading]

Interesting, and perhaps illuminating, article here:

Here’s Why People Won’t Admit They’re Wrong

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing when the red man shows is crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing, aka crossing the road, it isn't jaywalking.
Crossing the road near a pedestrian crossing is crossing the road near a pedestrian crossing, aka crossing the road, it ain't jaywalking.
Crossing the road nowhere near a pedestrian crossing is crossing the road nowhere near a pedestrian crossing, aka crossing the road, it ain't jaywalking.

Jaywalking is an American pejorative term. Jaywalking does not exist in the UK. (EDIT: GB) If lawyers and judges and coroners are now talking about jaywalking, as if it was a UK thing, then they are as colossally ignorant, and as guilty of attempted victim-blaming, as some folks in these parts, who also should know better.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

appaz it is an offence in NI. Sometimes.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Whilst in local FFS! news http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news...after-car-collides-with-pedestrians-1-8143687

 

[T4tomo]

appaz it is an offence in NI. Sometimes.

And in Germany and Singapore I believe, but not GB