Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey I'm no Leeming apologist. I'm just trying to understand Rockets ", in his position as an elected official, could he be prejudicing a future case " comment. I get that he's not Leeming's biggest cheerleader but this all feels a bit Daily Fail to me.

40 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Could Cllr Leeming been accused of exerting political pressure on the police to influence a decision?

Oh come on. This is beginning to look like an ITV drama. A crap one.

  • Agree 2
20 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Why can we not express an opinion? 

Because your opinion seems to default to car accident = dangerous driving. But then you whine about a culture war when someone complains about bad cycling.

12 minutes ago, ed_pete said:

I'm just trying to understand Rockets ", in his position as an elected official, could he be prejudicing a future case " comment. I get that he's not Leeming's biggest cheerleader but this all feels a bit Daily Fail to me.

I am just wondering why, as an elected official, Cllr Leeming feels it is his place to pass judgement on whether someone should receive a driving ban. As far as I am aware local councillors can't issue driving bans and he's hardly presuming innocence until someone is found guilty and if an arrest was made then I just wonder if it could be interpeted as political pressure to influence a decision - what was the name of that lawyer that used to get celebs off driving bans on technicalities - I bet he would have had a field day with something like this.

Cllr Leeming has a history of putting his foot in it and, like so many others when posting about car accidents, really needs to engage brain before posting.

Because most collisions involving drivers are due to driver error.  That is a fact.  Therefore the probability is very high that in this case it was due to driver error.  And as stated if you do a runner, there is also a high probability that you have done something very wrong. And similarly highly likely if you get caught you will be banned.  And in Lee Hughes case he got a six years prison sentence.

I have given the stats on cyclists going to court.  Prosecutions happen but on a far lower number than drivers.  The likelihood of harm to the individual from poor cycling to humans and to property etc are much lower due to physics.  That is why society focuses on bad driving.  That does not excuse bad cycling.

I've thought about 'accidents'.  My only no blame collision is when a deer ran out in front of me whilst driving and a cat whilst cycling - I came off worse in the latter and was quite upset about the former.  As it was a black cat I assume that I had upset a witch,  I've also had a pigeon and a bat (really? I thought they had such good radar) hit me whilst cycling but that resulted in no harm.  Perhaps a bit of satellite coming to ground or a meteorite would be classed as a no fault incident.  Can't think of any no fault collisions other than these.

2 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

That is the assumption that any normal person would make upon coming across a smashed up abandoned car that's been driven on the wrong side of the road and flattened a traffic light, yes.

Perhaps that, or possibly, since this happened in the very early morning, that this was a car stolen by an individual and, certainly, badly driven but perhaps by someone intent on reckless driving. Throw the book at them certainly, but perhaps don't add them to your 'all car drivers are careless b*rstards' list.

9 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

That is the assumption that any normal person would make upon coming across a smashed up abandoned car that's been driven on the wrong side of the road and flattened a traffic light, yes.

MV5BNzIxZmIzYjEtZGMyZi00NDAwLWJmODktYTAwOWU2ZjkwZjdlXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg.a79206127973c32181328e66c118e3b5.jpg

Except most people are not ward councillors. You'd hope your local rep wouldn't be so ready to take to social media before being crystal about the facts, but it seems that is what you Dulwich Roads lot do.

 

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

I just wonder if it could be interpeted as political pressure to influence a decision

I'm sure that they be more subtle - I'm imagining the head of the Met meeting with the leader of the council in a dark room, probably a private members club, brandies in hand a councillor with an agenda walks in with some blackmail material...meanwhile it turns out the driver was a paediatrician who'd been working all night to save a set of twins from near certain death having been called into the hospital from an anniversary dinner with her husband and skidded to avoid a family of foxes crossing the road on her way home...(Ad Break).

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1

The left don't meet with the Met - they don't like them, unless they need them for something of course!!! 😉

Bottom-line is unless Cllr Leeming knows exactly what happened and that the driver is guilty of an offence worthy of a ban  there is no way he should be saying they should be banned - but, like Dulwich Roads, it seems Cllr Leeming also does not engage brain before posting and his posts are based on hope rather than reality!

 

21 hours ago, malumbu said:

If you have crashed a car and then run away then if you are caught in all likeliness you will get a ban which you will most likely deserve.  That is what most people will think.  Why can we not express an opinion? 

If you have crashed a car and then run away then if you are caught in all likeliness you will not have a full licence or any insurance, so you won't get a ban or a prison sentence which you will most likely deserve, as the prisons are full.  Opinion expressed. 

Edited by Kathleen Olander
Punctuation

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...