Some sick people on our roads

[col]

Bollox. If it was an accident why dump the body in a layby. He gave this excuse in interview no doubt, and because there's no way to prove how the lead was attached to the car as he wasn't stopped at the time, it doesn't reach the
evidential burden of proof required by our courts.

I suspect the tone taken in the paper is a calculated one to try and reduce the chance of animal rights protestors attacking him, which will be a likelehood.

Maybe he was scared? Possibly he cacked himself when he realised what had happened, and panicked, it doesnt make him guilty. I only wish these animal rights people had a human rights group so they could react in the same way to murderers and rapists.

 

[ComedyPilot]

It doesnt matter what your personal belief is, the law is satisfied thats it. They have looked at it and havnt knee jerk reacted like you.

No, they have done as CopperCyclist has described, they couldn't get enough evidence to support a charge - that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Svendo]

Given what we know from the news reports, there's a range of possibilities, from

1) the lead genuinely got caught accidentally, the dog wasn't visible in mirrors; but the driver was enough of a d**k to dump the body when he did discover it rather than take responsibility for his part in a tragic accident.

to

2) this was a malicious and deliberate act and the guy is actually a dangerous sociopath, but clever or lucky enough to have sufficient plausible deniability to get away with it.

Either way it's a terrible sad thing to happen for the dog and it's owners.

 

[col]

No, they have done as CopperCyclist has described, they couldn't get enough evidence to support a charge - that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And you have the evidence to prove him guilty do you?

 

[ComedyPilot]

Maybe he was scared? Possibly he cacked himself when he realised what had happened, and panicked, it doesnt make him guilty. I only wish these animal rights people had a human rights group so they could react in the same way to murderers and rapists.

Right, we're getting somewhere - dialogue.

Evidence - we have a dead dog, a motorist who drove with the dog lead snagged on the car, a number of witnesses seeing the car driving with the dog dragging, and the body being dumped.

Question time - Exactly where was the dog when he got in the car? Why did it have it's lead on? Where was the partner, and what do they say? How was the lead snagged? Where is the lead? What did the witnesses state they saw/heard?

You see, although it's only a dog, there are a lot of questions (and more) that have not been reported. As CopperCyclist has stated, revenge attacks could be the reason for the way this has been reported.

BTW we do have human rights, and you'll find the murderers and rapists are well looked after in that respect.

 

[ComedyPilot]

And you have the evidence to prove him guilty do you?

No, I am merely puzzled as to the domestic angle that was reported and strangely never referred to again - why is this?

I am only commenting on the reported facts, and I find the subsequent result hard to understand given the initial report.

And the fact I am a dog owner/driver/ex-police officer.

 

[col]

Right, we're getting somewhere - dialogue.

Evidence - we have a dead dog, a motorist who drove with the dog lead snagged on the car, a number of witnesses seeing the car driving with the dog dragging, and the body being dumped.

Question time - Exactly where was the dog when he got in the car? Why did it have it's lead on? Where was the partner, and what do they say? How was the lead snagged? Where is the lead? What did the witnesses state they saw/heard?

You see, although it's only a dog, there are a lot of questions (and more) that have not been reported. As CopperCyclist has stated, revenge attacks could be the reason for the way this has been reported.

BTW we do have human rights, and you'll find the murderers and rapists are well looked after in that respect.

The revenge attacks are from people who are their own judge and jury, not bothered what the law says. But they are right and act on it, a very dangerous way to go.
You ask questions about what happened, but dont have the answers. does this make him guilty?
The fact of driving 70 mph with a dog attatched to the back of the car is something no sane person would do. Does this mean the driver is insane, or does it mean a terrible accident, or does it mean the driver has been prejudged as a vile person who needs his car trashing and beaten up. Without real proof an innocent man could be just that.
Would you be comfortable with this man being illegaly harrassed and injured with his property smashed on the evidence available?

 

[col]

No, I am merely puzzled as to the domestic angle that was reported and strangely never referred to again - why is this?

I am only commenting on the reported facts, and I find the subsequent result hard to understand given the initial report.

And the fact I am a dog owner/driver/ex-police officer.

Your ex police? Im shocked at your argument.

 

[ComedyPilot]

The revenge attacks are from people who are their own judge and jury, not bothered what the law says. But they are right and act on it, a very dangerous way to go.
You ask questions about what happened, but dont have the answers. does this make him guilty?
The fact of driving 70 mph with a dog attatched to the back of the car is something no sane person would do. Does this mean the driver is insane, or does it mean a terrible accident, or does it mean the driver has been prejudged as a vile person who needs his car trashing and beaten up. Without real proof an innocent man could be just that.
Would you be comfortable with this man being illegaly harrassed and injured with his property smashed on the evidence available?

Col, at no point have I stated he should be attacked in revenge - I just find the whole episode lacking in information and devoid of answers to the reported facts, don't you?

 

[ComedyPilot]

Your ex police? Im shocked at your argument.

As a police officer, I was encouraged to be suspicious. And being presented with a story like this, my suspicions have been aroused, but the questions I have don't seem to have been answered in the last report.

I find it a worrying thing for a society not to question the judiciary and their findings.

 

[col]

Col, at no point have I stated he should be attacked in revenge - I just find the whole episode lacking in information and devoid of answers to the reported facts, don't you?

You seem to be easing on the he looks guilty because of unanswered questions? It seemed you were trying to convince he was guilty.
It doesnt matter what I/we think, we werent there, we dont know the facts. Its all just guesswork, and we cant convict on that can we.
My own thought on it was what a terrible accident. Then when you and others started with the he sounds guilty route, it made me think what a bad way to go. Its akin to mob rule and knee jerk reaction without proof.
Even the law gets it wrong and innocent peoepl have been convicted, so people without proof or facts are going to get it wrong much more. I know which way I would rather go.

 

[col]

As a police officer, I was encouraged to be suspicious. And being presented with a story like this, my suspicions have been aroused, but the questions I have don't seem to have been answered in the last report.

I find it a worrying thing for a society not to question the judiciary and their findings.

The point is the law has made it decision based on the facts and information they have, and I think they would have been just as suspicious as you, if not more so.
What I find worrying, is that you and others are too keen on dissagreeing with the laws decision, even though your using guesswork to come to that decision.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

I susspect there will be more anger and a bigger outcry over the dog than there was over Mingwei Tan

 

[ComedyPilot]

I susspect there will be more anger and a bigger outcry over the dog than there was over Mingwei Tan

Or the pensioner run over on the dual carriageway.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Col, this is going round in circles. I am asking questions based on the facts reported in the initial report, and answering your posts, but you don't seem to have any answer to my posts other than call me a vigilante or lynch-mob member.

So in the spirit of cycling, it's au revoir for now.