Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Paul_D

  1. Double sorry for this:


    1. This actually happened last year.


    2. I should have checked it worked before posting it, not sure why it isn't. Try swiping the url below into your address bar instead.


    Anyhow, I'm sure that the Sikh's or probably any other ethnic group would not have wanted this to happen, but it's a fact of life around these parts nowadays.



  2. FWIW I also agree with Corydoras on the 10 years bit - the problem is that it cannot happen in law today.


    There was a glaring clue in what I posted Ken.


    I knew it was a bad idea to get involved in a debate on here nowadays. I'll retire from this now and leave it to the 'regulars'.



  3. I think that a lot of people suspect that the accident was directly atributable to him texting but as he wasn't actually pressing buttons at the time of impact (He may have been reading a text but that won't have been electronically recorded with a time stamp) it can't be proved that the use of the phone whilst driving actually contributed directly to the death. If it can't be proven, you can't be sentenced for it. What can be proven is dangerous driving.


    Exactly. And how many people could be sentenced to serve a jail sentence EVERY DAY because they were compiling a text message when plod saw them? They guy was rightfully convicted of dangerous driving, he admitted it unlike most would, the sentence, though, is totally disproportionate.


    FWIW I also agree with Corydoras on the 10 years bit - the problem is that it cannot happen in law today. My own 'business use vehicle' is fitted with a hands free kit because my employers want to speak to me whilst driving. They (handsfree's - not my employers :D ) should be banned too - I know that I don't pay a lot of attention to the road whilst I'm speaking on the thing; It's a friggin' menace to other road users (I actually tend to wait for voice mail messages to come through nowadays).

  4. I don't think so, what's the 'possible offence he didn't commit'?


    The possible offence was that he wasn't texting at the time he happened upon a vehicle which was stationary, straddled across two lanes in a dark section of the motorway, having hit the central reservation because the driver was drunk.


    The Judge said that the texting Ahmed HAD been doing, but had ceased doing several miles up the motorway, in no way contributed to the fatal accident.


    I'm wondering what exactly has he been sent to jail for. It smacks (to me) of the Judge thinking that he should make an example of a sentence someone could expect if they WERE texting and became involved in an accident.

  5. Standard prosecution - peer or not. like this here.. Whether intentional or not the issue is the same. If he is a peer, he should be more sensible. As a politician, if one of his constituents were killled and the Family asked him to lobby on their behalf I am sure that he would encourage a sentence.


    You're missing the point mate!

  6. Sorry, but it's an absolute travesty of justice. The man was texting whilst driving - fair enough. He wasn't caught for that though and happened to (innocently) become embroiled in a drunken man's accident some way down the road. He hadn't been texting for however many miles prior to the accident......Book him for the offence he did commit, not the possible offence he didn't. Absolute ******!

  7. No, that's what I'd like to find out. As I say, I believe he was Scottish but married and died in England. It's very strange that I cannot find any sign of him.


    My grandfather was called Hugh Hay Dale. On Hugh's marriage certificate his father is listed as a witness and is called James M Dale. This is all that I have to go on and I can find no trace of either.


    On Scotlandspeople you get the option of doing a search using 'soundex' i.e. similar sounding names. This threw up a couple of Hugh Hay Dall's - one born in 1910 and one in 1911. I sent of for both birth certificates and neither gave James M as the father. Similarly, there was a Hugh Dale born in Oldham, England in 1911 but again i wasn't him.......as I say, it's frustrating lol.

  8. Thanks for the replies folks. I think I might well contact your fellow Norrie if he comes recommended.


    As I say, I've come up against a brickwall. Basically, my Grandfather apparently was a bit of a Toerag and nobody would ever speak to me about him. He served a prison sentence in Leicester for whatever reason and it seems whoever he 'upset' took their revenge out on him. He is recorded as having died of head injuries in 1945. Sadly, most of my immediate family are now dead so I'll probably not find out what happened- including my father. I was always told though that he was Scottish.


    I have copies of his death and marriage certificates so I know he was born in 1911 - hence too young for WW1 but his fathers occupation is given as an Army pensioner on my grandfathers marriage cert. I've tried the WW1 pensions and medals records and there are possibles but do not tally with his middle initial. His serving in the Army might well be the reason why I can't find him in the 1901 census.


    I've tried the Scotlands People thing and also forums like TalkingScot - very helpful but they just couldn't nail him for definite.


    It's intriguing but very frustrating this researching your family history lark.....

  9. Do they have access to information that the general public do not e.g. The 1911/1922 Scottish Census' etc? I ask because I've come up against a complete brickwall in trying to find my grandfathers birth details and I was wondering if it's time to pay for someone in the know to have a look for me.

  10. Personally, I'm quite sad at what's going on at Subaru GB. They seem to be giving up on the UK turbo market and throwing the Diesel unit into everything. My wife decided to trade in our '56 Forester XT for a crappy Mondeo (despite my protestations). As we've had a little bit more snow this year than recently she's now seen the shortcomings of the Ford and it's stupid low profile tyres and is looking to swap in September. Subaru, though, have dropped the 2.5 Turbo Forester, it also looks like the Turbo Exiga is not destined for the UK. It looks like the Mazda CX7 is the one for a test drive...... :(

  11. Rebates for those who qualify



    If you have a child born between 6th April 1986 and 5th April 2003 you COULD claim a tax rebate.

    The year before tax credits were introduced, there was a different allowance available which was very poorly publicised by the Inland Revenue, now HMRC. You can still claim this £529 - £1,048 allowance and this website has been setup to help you do so.

    IMPORTANT: Claims must be submitted by the 31st January 2009 deadline.

    You are eligible to claim £529 allowance if:


    * You have a child born between 6th April 1986 and 5th April 2003.

    * The child lived with you for all or part of 2002/2003.

    * You worked and paid tax for all or part of 2002/2003.


    You are eligible to claim £1,048 allowance if:


    You can answer yes to the above questions and one of your children was born between 6th April 2002 and 5th April 2003.




    * Making the claim does not affect your current or future working / child tax credits.

    * Your marital status does not affect your claim. You may be eligible, if you were single, married or living with a partner.

    * You or your partner has to have earned £6,000+ in the 2002/2003 tax year.

    * If you have claimed the allowance back in 2002, you cannot claim it now.

    * If your final tax code on your April 03 P60 ended in a H or a T, you have already had the allowance. (If you are not sure, please apply and we will check it for you.)

    * Entitlements Agency will retain any interest and £94exc vat for processing/administration


    You need this form or call the tax man


  12. Different jurisdiction? He broke the law in Scotland, where the system is different? He is a terrorist?


    He was convicted in England though. Whilst I think that both crimes were thoroughly despicable, one of those pieces of dirt failed in his attempt to kill. There's too much discrepancy in the sentencing for me.

  13. Three men died on Christmas Eve and were met by Saint Peter at the pearly gates.


    "in honour of this holy season" St. Peter said, "You must each possess something that symbolises Christmas to get into heaven."


    The first man fumbled through his pockets and pulled out a lighter. He flicked it on. "It represents a candle," he said.


    "You may pass through the pearly gates" St. Peter said.


    The second man reached into his pocket and pulled out a set of keys. He shook them and said, "They're bells."


    "You may pass through the pearly gates" St. Peter said.


    The third man started searching desperately through his pockets and finally pulled out a pair of women's panties.


    St. Peter looked at the man with a raised eyebrow and asked, "And just what do those symbolise?"


    The man replied, "These are Carol's."

  • Create New...