Someone find me the ‘aw jeez’ pic.
Rob K:
Someone find me the ‘aw jeez’ pic.
If you don’t like the discussion - ignore it.
Boomerang Dave:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Its not the end of the matter.
And the facts are, that no one purposely caused this incident which also makes it an accident. Not my opinion, just the facts of the story.And going back to my original but maybe crude scenario of someone soiling themselves, why is that a kid has an accident and not an incident?
The difference between your arse-hole and your mouth may be confusing - I’ll give you that…
As I have said already, this is a matter of legal terminology (not my decisions), your opinion on the matter has no bearing - neither does mine. And to top-gun, notwithstanding that they both were at fault, which was obviously considered by the Judge and reflected in the sentence, It always remains an incident.
It’s an incident for all the reasons I have already given, and we are now starting to go around in circles. Hole in my bucket etc.
I don’t decide what the terminology is, but in this instance I agree with the lawyers, judges and legal academics/experts.
I like that first bit!!
I dont disagree that they are all incidents, but my opinion is of that it can be an accident at the same time and shouldn’t be disregarded as such just because someone is at fault for whatever reason.
It is also my opinion that the word “accident” has been made politically incorrect in a court of law because of the grey area of the meaning of the word that could ultimately get someone off the hook as diminishing responsibility from their own actions, Which good very smart lawyers obviously have done in the past prompting the change to “incidents”.
FarnboroughBoy11:
It is also my opinion that the word “accident” has been made politically incorrect in a court of law because of the grey area of the meaning of the word that could ultimately get someone off the hook… etc.
Without doubt, that is a factor.
But more importantly, those investigating any incident should always keep an open mind.
The moment you call something an accident - you have offered an explanation to the cause. Whereas using the word incident, leaves the cause open to further investigation. That is the main reason why police and other incident investigators do not use the word accident anymore… which I have already explained in detail in this thread.
Did you read the bit about suicide, or road rage incidents?
It becomes a point of law if you use the word accident, which as you have rightly said, lawyers will jump on without hesitation. It’s what they are paid to do.
Boomerang Dave:
Something…
Contraflow,
This is a discussion between grown-ups. If you need entertaining see this: Link
Boomerang Dave:
There is no such thing as a nuclear accident!
So that’s why I was apart of the Navy’s NARO (Nuclear Accident Response Organisation)!!!
:
So that’s why I was apart of the Navy’s NARO (Nuclear Accident Response Organisation)!!!
Aye - of course you were.
How many nuclear accidents have you dealt with? - excluding the contents of FarnboroughBoy11’s pants.
Boomerang Dave:
:
Aye - of course you were.How many nuclear accidents have you dealt with? - excluding the contents of FarnboroughBoy11’s pants.
One! and no not FarnboroughBoy11’s pants. It’s one of those organisations you really don’t want, but you have to have! It was a good job, took me to a couple of interesting places.
Infact the DAF in this picture is the one I used to drive, It’s why the Navy paid for my Class 2 licence.
Any way, enough thread hijacking for one day!
LOL @ contraflows pic wrecking the thread alignment. My smiley box is about 13 miles over in that direction >>>>>>>
:
Infact the DAF in this picture is the one I used to drive
Of course you did. Let me guess, it’s all top secret and you can’t tell us about it. There’s a bloke down our local pub, whenever anyone walks in - he gives em the thousand yard stare, when we get a few pints down him (he often does) - he likes to regale us with his top secret stories of when he was in the SAS, I bet he’ll vouch for you. We call him Walt, do you know him?
Can you tell me, as someone who worked for such a prestigious organisation, why you chose to link to Wiki, an unreliable source of information that anyone can scribble on. Rather than link to the official information about NARO?
Perhaps you can also explain how the existence of an organisation trained in dealing with potential nuclear incidents, has anything to do with RTC’s?
None of it is secret… Many radioactive items are moved by road. Examples being Calibration sources for hospital equipment and radioactive monitoring instruments, materials used for luminous dials, sources for smoke detectors and many more that I don’t know about.
I couldn’t be bothered doing anything more than a quick google search and using a convenient link, wiki was the result. After all I was just highlighting a point not thinking about having to defend my integrity. If you want better results, you can do the searching.
If you don’t want to believe me then that’s OK by me, I have nothing to prove to you or any one else and you are allowed to be a cynical as you wish about the whole subject.
I usually find that when someone doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about then attack usually masks that persons ignorance, or, maybe on this occasion I should congratulate you on a good Troll post?
Either way lets get back on topic shall we.
I must say Boomerang Dave, I do so much prefer this incarnation of you over the last one you used. 
Neil,
It’s amazing what you can learn here. The Royal Navy’s specialist nuclear accident team deal with radioactive waste from hospitals - and there’s me thinking that was a job for a glorified refuse collector. Please excuse my ignorance on the subject of the RN’s involvement in radioactive waste from hospitals - but it does have a whiff of FarnboroughBoy11’s underwear about it mate… or should I say shipmate… or more accurately: Walter!
Must have taken you ages to find that copyrighted photo on the web, you sir are a genius. How do you do such amazing things? Just wait until I see the SAS bloke down the pub, I’ll now have stories of my own to regale ‘him’ with… about some other delusional ■■■■ - with no ability to realise his story is about as water tight as Jamie Oliver’s colander.
the maoster,
FYI, I’m a new member, I’ve only recently discovered these forums. I’ve no doubt that other people have come across the forums and argued points, found themselves slipping deeper into debates, noting that whilst some are able to discuss a subject, others ‘the ■■■■-less few’ offer nothing on the actual issues being discussed or debated.
The issue isn’t me, nor is it Neil’s imaginary heroics disposing of soiled nappies aboard HMS… whoops NHS nappy rash. It’s about a brave woman and her family who are big enough to forgive a man who admits being at fault - responsible for abruptly ending the life of her husband and the father of her children. The HGV driver, who is very humble and IMO… better than most posting in this thread, was big enough to admit his fault. He hasn’t tried to hide behind inappropriate excuses such as accident and no amount of ■■■■-heads who shouldn’t be let loose with a wheelbarrow, let alone a HGV can defend bad decisions that end up in such tragic circumstances.
There does appear to be a mindset amongst some members of this forum, who think that for some inexplicable reason - HGV drivers should be absolved of their legal responsibilities. See the latest offering: Yet again another cyclist dies.
Now it’s been a long 48 hours for me, hardly any kip, so if there’s a few smelling ■■■■■■■■■ etc above. Apols offered.
It sems to me that there should have been no connection made between the red light offence and the collision with the cyclist.IE both obviously jumped the same light at the same time which means that the red light issue was not a contributory factor at all and in which case should have been a seperate offence unconnected with the collision.Which just leaves the issue as to how the cyclist and the truck came into conflict bearing in mind that the same course of conflict would have still existed even if they’d have both crossed the same light when it was at green.Yet again we’re seeing a biased regime being applied based on vulnerability not an unbiased view of a collision and it’s cause.Probably not surprising bearing in mind that the average truck driver can’t afford the very best defence laywers. 
What year was Chernobyl ? 1986? Think that was a nuclear accident. as was probably Fukushima? Quick one for you ; do you give way AT the roundabout? Or ON the roundabout ? 
as we’re talking terminology and phraseology as lawyers MIGHT JUMP ON! Waste of time as if YOU’RE involved in an accident, would you ADMIT LIABILITY ( neither would the other driver ) thus rendering it an investigation into said accident! Really accidents do happen in real life! 
Anyway, PTSD never existed because the governmint said so, no REALLY 
after the Falklands it never existed nor Northern Ireland, no it never really happened but after the first gulf in 1991 it took over ten to fifteen years for troops to become recognised for PTSD, but as it never happened they ADMITTED IT bit like American A10 tankbusters dropping bombs onto British tanks by ACCIDENT! Honestly they do happen.
The problem is ambulance chasing lawyers, who always want to aportion blame to secure compo.
I assume “accident” makes this more difficult.
A man has a heart attack and crashes his car into someone else’s, noone is to blame = Accident.
Kids trespass onto someone’s land, climbs tree, kid falls out of tree and breaks arm and leg = Accident
I had several cyclists ride quickly up my inside in my car through a cross roads junction the other day. I was trying to turn left into a parking area for shops in my car which were immediately after the cross roads. They were riding the same way as me. As soon as I pulled into the middle of the junction, left indicator on, slowed down, good job I checked my mirror as they just carried on up the inside regardless, surging forward. They could see my indicator, it was obvious what I wanted to do. No doubt if I had not seen them in spite if checking and knocked one down, I would be in the ■■■■, even though they shouldn’t have been riding in that way.
Have you noticed how most of these “events” 
Involve commuters? You don’t hear about so many accidents in the countryside with people riding for fun. Always seems to be in London too.