Jump to content
BANGKOK

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

rooster59

Phuket Police formally charge British boyfriend for death of Sophie Anderson

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, paz said:

Reasoning like you do there would be no road code, just criminal law. 

Typical thinking of the hang them high brigade, which can't grasp the concept of intent as well many other that fortunately exist in law.

 

 

What has intent to do with it? We are writing about responsibility.  

The "hang 'em high' nonsense comes from you. You seems to have a habit of attempting to label people who disagree with your point of view, as "haters". That is sad.

 

I note that he mentions that he didn't exceed the speed limit. That's not the same as "moving with the flow of traffic" or "proceeding slowly".

If the speed limit there is 60km/hr, that is too fast for the traffic that is seen in the CCTV.

 

So how fast were you going, Danny? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JamJar said:

 

What has intent to do with it? We are writing about responsibility.  

The "hang 'em high' nonsense comes from you. You seems to have a habit of attempting to label people who disagree with your point of view, as "haters". That is sad.

We "who"? One guy mentioned "on purpose". Another (was it you? not sure anymore), "criminal element". They appears unable to distinguish between a common road accident, and one provoked by continued, seriously negligent approach.

 

In this type of attitude I perceive -if you allow me- a very negative range of feelings (sad is very right indeed), that goes from uncalled and uninformed accusation, to straight hate, intended as the desire for someone else to suffer. And I as others like to use the phrase that tickled you so much, "hang them high brigade" to be quickly and unequivocally understood.

 

Fortunately, these forum characters will never be prosecutor or jury in any trial, not here and not in their home country. And I don't think that there will be any trial about this tragic accident either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, paz said:

We "who"? One guy mentioned "on purpose". Another (was it you? not sure anymore), "criminal element". They appears unable to distinguish between a common road accident, and one provoked by continued, seriously negligent approach.

 

In this type of attitude I perceive -if you allow me- a very negative range of feelings (sad is very right indeed), that goes from uncalled and uninformed accusation, to straight hate, intended as the desire for someone else to suffer. And I as others like to use the phrase that tickled you so much, "hang them high brigade" to be quickly and unequivocally understood.

 

Fortunately, these forum characters will never be prosecutor or jury in any trial, not here and not in their home country. And I don't think that there will be any trial about this tragic accident either.

 

 

Someone suggested that "he didn't do it on purpose".  What kind of nonsensical statement is that?

No one suggested that he was trying to murder Sophie and the unborn child. But the fact is that his actions caused it.

Not, as his claim, the vehicle in front braking sharply. His words "“I went to brake because a car all of a sudden braked in front of me."

 

We can see from the CCTV footage that is not the case.  So who is uniformed? I utilise my experience as a motorcycle rider, alongside the CCTV footage.

This is rider error. No one else to blame. 

Apart from that, the man appears totally disingenuous. Narcisstic to the point of disgusting.

He said he would stop the video blogs "until the time was right". That didn't take long did it?

 

 

Calling people "haters" is hardly a positive reaction to those who have a different perspective to yours.

I have my perspective and you have yours. Live and let live.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JamJar said:

Someone suggested that "he didn't do it on purpose".  What kind of nonsensical statement is that?

It is simply the opposite of "on purpose", which is the nonsensical  defamatory accusation that you've been trumpeting against the man during all this thread.

 

Quote

 

Of course he did it on purpose.

 

on purpose
phrase of purpose
  1. 1.
    intentional

And then you get irked again at my usage of the word "hater", which I've explained before already, with perhaps too many words for you to understand.  

 

Time to drop it really, in this you're right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, paz said:

It is simply the opposite of "on purpose", which is the nonsensical  defamatory accusation that you've been trumpeting against the man during all this thread.

 

on purpose
phrase of purpose
  1. 1.
    intentional

And then you get irked again at my usage of the word "hater", which I've explained before already, with perhaps too many words for you to understand.  

 

Time to drop it really, in this you're right.

 

 

 

 

He caused the incident. His speed and approach were intentional. His braking, as he put it, was intentional. Responsibility. 

If someone is driving too fast, that is intentional. If that leaves them unable to manoeuvre successfully, they have only themselves to blame.

It is not reasonable to complain that for the other vehicles on the road......

One has to take into account your environment. So for me, his actions were intentional and the incident arose from them.

It's a matter of perspective. Mine perhaps different from yours.

 

I'm not irked by your usage of the Americanism "hater", as long as you don't keep repeating it ad nauseam.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JamJar said:

 

What is the relevance of your post? Especially when you appear to agree with me that it is not the truck driver who is necessarily at fault and Mr Glass does not appear to suggest that the truck driver is at fault.

 

The CCTV(and his own words) proves conclusively that he wasn't trying to avoid a "parked car".

As to what he would be charged with in the UK that isn't the issue. I haven't broached the legal side of what has occurred. I have simply stated that he is at fault, not the car in front for "stopping suddenly" as Mr Glass appears to suggest.

 

So why exactly have you mentioned me in your post?

 

 

So why exactly have you mentioned me in your post?

 

Read the previous threads where "this whole saga has already been done to death."  :smile:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, paz said:

Reasoning like you do there would be no road code, just criminal law. 

Typical thinking of the hang them high brigade, which can't grasp the concept of intent as well many other that fortunately exist in law.

 

Why does there need to be intent for it to be a punishable offence?

Does that mean If im speeding doing 180 km/h, and lose control of a vehicle killing your family, your cool with just saying "oh well, no intent soo just let them walk away".

Your the problem with the world today, letting ppl think they have no responsiblitly to their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

Yes and now we have a tale of two trials. Will they be similar? Highly doubt it. 

Since one of them is to blame for the accident and the other is not, I really hope they are not similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ianf said:

Such an unnecessary and sad comment. I know Danny and I know this guy is totally devastated. No need to be charged in this case. I wish him the best of luck under the so-called Thai 'justice' system.

He is to blame for the accident, which means in Thailand he will be charged. That is always the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nip said:

All over the Internet this man has been exposed by people who knew him. I would suggest those who support him do a quick search. His videos for eg that detail how he rode his motorbike recklessly have been taken down. However the videos of his girlfriend stating he scared her are still there because he can't remove them. His excuse for the accident changed from one video to the next. His first video hours after the accident is to cover his ass and shows no remorse in fact at the end he says ah well life goes on. This guy is a nasty piece of work and it's there for all to see.

"His first video hours after the accident is to cover his ass and shows no remorse in fact at the end he says ah well life goes on."

 

I don't know about the rest, but this statement is clearly not true. After the accident in his first video he admitted that he misbraked and the motorbike slid. A clear admission of guilt, and that video was full of remorse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stevenl said:

"His first video hours after the accident is to cover his ass and shows no remorse in fact at the end he says ah well life goes on."

 

I don't know about the rest, but this statement is clearly not true. After the accident in his first video he admitted that he misbraked and the motorbike slid. A clear admission of guilt, and that video was full of remorse.

Yes remorse is a funny thing. We can flash it or stash it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Ghastly and just goes to show the inherent danger of riding a m/c in Thailand. The poor guy had to stop suddenly to avoid crashing into a car which had just suddenly stopped in front of him , his partner fell off and a truck ran over her. It was just a terrible accident for both truck driver and m/c driver. In my opinion, if anyone was to blame it was the car driver who hit his brakes, probably without bothering to look in his rear mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2017 at 9:01 AM, LivinginKata said:

Clearluky he needed to be charged with the death. But he is no so cocky now. Before on Facebook.  No w hiding his face. Says it all ....

Yeah, lets all hope it happens to you or yours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2017 at 10:52 AM, KhunBENQ said:

I don't see anything unusual in formally charging both drivers.

What would happen in your country in such a case?

The video evidence that I have seen clearly ridicule his statements:

No sudden/hard break in front of him. Slow traffic on the left lane, that's all. He simply "woke up late".

Rubbish !  I see cars suddenly braking all the time, only yesterday whilst driving on the main road behind another car, the driver suddenly stopped, no signal, to allow a car to come out of a side Soi. Lucky for me i always keep a good distance. Most Thai drivers just do not know who has the "right of way"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, oldsailor35 said:

This is Ghastly and just goes to show the inherent danger of riding a m/c in Thailand. The poor guy had to stop suddenly to avoid crashing into a car which had just suddenly stopped in front of him , his partner fell off and a truck ran over her. It was just a terrible accident for both truck driver and m/c driver. In my opinion, if anyone was to blame it was the car driver who hit his brakes, probably without bothering to look in his rear mirror.

.....and if it was a child that run out into the road, you'd check your rear-view mirror?

By the time you did check your mirror, it would probably be too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...