Gresham Family tragedy takes a twist

Not when faced with an insult to the years of evolution our forbears have put in.

I have posted a few times on this topic, not that you read anything before foaming at all and sundry.

Of course not, they've not prosecuted him yet!

So why is it you want his name and will post it?

Right, so shut up, don't post twaddle to the authorities (not that they'll take any notice) and stop demanding that the other driver's name is given to you so you can parade it.

You get the respect you deserve.

I said if I got a reply from the CPS I would post it. I said nothing about posting the other driver's name which I would not do whilst the matter is sub-judice.

Seems you cannot read Ian - perhaps a trip back to infant school??????

David

That's often an indicator that the man has been 'leaked' against and the press knows some detail that isn't yet in the public realm.

You said;

"I also pointed out that the name of the other driver has never been revealed - is it a state secret I go on to wonder? I have asked the CPS to reply if they have the guts to - if they do, I will post it!!!!"

I see you're now trying to wheedle your way out of it?

You've more than deserved a toasting, now please just sod off back into whatever hole you suddenly crawled out of.

As do you!

Oh sorry, forgive me for thinking before posting, I can see you don't approve of such things.

So the CPS think he's done something wrong, his wife thinks he's done something wrong, but you think he's fine and the other driver has some secret significance? And you're prepared to fire off posts to people and moan at newspapers about imagined "bias" in their reporting based on the idea that they are calling him by his *last name*? How about your bias? Are you still pre-judging this case from a very great distance or have you decided to smarten up and stop taking sides based on someone's choice of car.

Maybe, but for the grace of god, go i, or you Ian, or any other car owner, whether land rover or not.

I cannot help but wonder why the secrecy over the other driver, and also a lack of any statement (unless there was one and its been suppressed) from him or her at the coroners inquest or indeed publicly.

Why did the CPS take 10 months to decide? Thats a long time to wait with a sword hanging over your head.

We are all guessing - it will all come out eventually!

Not really, that's in an accidental case, which this may or may not be.

You've still not explained why you think the other drivers' name should be revealed or that they've not spoken out, and why this is suspicious.

Did they take 10 months to decide, is that unreasonable, and did his wife's decision play a part in the delay, and did extra evidence (including additional statements) come to light later in the case, or is it all down to the CPS who surely must be incompetent idiots and the country is going to the dogs etc?

Yes we are all guessing, but some of us are firing off angry letters to the authorities and demanding that the other driver is revealed, and others are stomping about moaning about the justice system and how it's going the dogs.

Not really, especially in a case like this, you'd have a whole shitload of landy owners going off half-cocked trying to hunt the driver down for a start.

Personally I don't think anyone in any court case should be named until the case has been heard and only then if someone gets sentenced. Dragging people's names through the muck for everyone to see and leap to conclusions doesn't seem helpful.

Yeah, but why name anyone then? I can't believe for one minute there would be loads of Landy owners gunning for him.

That's kind of what I'd prefer to be honest.

In most cases they eventually release the names of the victims, but not normally that of those also around at the time, and they don't even normally name the accused until there *is* an accused, and even then they don't always name them. Incidental characters don't get named normally from what I've seen.

Probably not, but if he (or she) isn't a suspect then there's nothing to be gained from naming them, and you can be damned sure that tongues will start wagging and people will put 2 and 2 together and make 22. If someone crashed into your rangie and died, and your name was released despite not having any real part to play, I'm sure you'd be unhappy and there'd bound to be some f*****ts who'd start the old "no smoke without fire" dance, or someone who would blame you for it for no particular reason and so on. There's too many people watching for there not to be a few f*****ts and it only takes one or two to piss you off and get in the way.

Unhappily, I've got to agree with this .. without knowing all the facts ... but presumably the Police do, hence the further proceedings.

Anyone read this?

Mike

Well that's me pretty much buggered if I have a crash like that too then.

This is a travesty. How can they claim it unroadworthy 9 months later?????????? And what "parts" of the 5 vehicles are there - surely there's only ONE chassis???

Oh FFS here we go again.

??>> This is a travesty.

IR> Oh FFS here we go again.

Thats very interesting, when taken with part of Nigel's blog

However, there is nothing wrong at all with building a vehicle up from several different vehicle parts so long as its done properly. How did it come to have an MOT if it was that unroadworthy and if it did have an MOT, how come the MOT inspector concerned is not stood in the dock too?

There are lots of questions - we will have to wait until the court case gets rolling, but that mirror report does give us a clue in that it appears to be being alleged the vehicle was not fit to be on the road - a bit inconsistent with the safety concerns of the driver who belted all his kids in proper harnesses, not just lap and diags, and two of them were in proper child seats.

No idea, how significant is it in this case and what state is the vehicle concerned in, given you think it's "a travesty".

No vehicle is built from one if you're going to be pedantic, I've replaced my wipers for example. WRT to this case, the state of the vehicle was investigated a long time ago IIRC so the Sun may just be catching up. Also whether a charge of dangerous driving would be bought against someone driving such a vehicle I don't know, I'd have thought more specific ones existed for that.