newmercman:
The driver’s nationality or that of the people inside the trailer is irrelevant, I’ve removed one racist comment, the next one will get this thread shut down.
Moderator when I opened this thread as I’m sure you saw I did request that it’s for information and adult discussion and no racist remarks. If people on here who are responsible enough to be in charge of a 44 ton truck on a public highway aren’t responsible enough to keep racism to themselves then please do remove the thread as there’s no place for it on a thread that I started. Thanks.
Much as I agree with your sentiments, when you start a thread, you “release it into the wild”. It will take on its own course. Anything going too far should be censored, or the whole thing deleted if needs be, but its now pretty much out of your control.
I don`t think anyone would hold you morally responsible for the gibberings of idiots, because you were the first poster.
Spardo:
Having tried very hard on another forum to make the case for the driver’s innocence I am very disappointed at this news and, if he is guilty, cannot believe how stupid he’s been.
I thought he was in custody for so long was because they wanted to get as much info from him to find the real culprits.
So, if he knew why he was sent to collect that trailer, and was experienced with frigos therefore knowing they were all but airtight, he did at least show some spark of humanity in opening the doors within 15 minutes of picking it up, re-inforced by his call to the ambulance. That is why he will have been charged, knowing what he was asked to do, but I hope that his taking the risk of prosecution onto himself because of his humanity, will be duly recognised in sentencing if found guilty.
He was charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, conspiracy over immigration, money laundering. He wasnt charged for opening the doors. Will see what he pleads in court tomorrow, if its guilty then it’s likely he has spilt the beans, if it’s not guilty then it’s likely the evidence was found rather then given.
newmercman:
The driver’s nationality or that of the people inside the trailer is irrelevant, I’ve removed one racist comment, the next one will get this thread shut down.
Moderator when I opened this thread as I’m sure you saw I did request that it’s for information and adult discussion and no racist remarks. If people on here who are responsible enough to be in charge of a 44 ton truck on a public highway aren’t responsible enough to keep racism to themselves then please do remove the thread as there’s no place for it on a thread that I started. Thanks.
Much as I agree with your sentiments, when you start a thread, you “release it into the wild”. It will take on its own course. Anything going too far should be censored, or the whole thing deleted if needs be, but its now pretty much out of your control.
I don`t think anyone would hold you morally responsible for the gibberings of idiots, because you were the first poster.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
id have thought it was pretty pointless/ignorant/meaningless/silly or whatever to start a thread piggybacking exactly the same as the other one that remained running and is also obviously majorly popular since started.
surely the mods would have merged it before now anyway?
newmercman:
The driver’s nationality or that of the people inside the trailer is irrelevant, I’ve removed one racist comment, the next one will get this thread shut down.
Moderator when I opened this thread as I’m sure you saw I did request that it’s for information and adult discussion and no racist remarks. If people on here who are responsible enough to be in charge of a 44 ton truck on a public highway aren’t responsible enough to keep racism to themselves then please do remove the thread as there’s no place for it on a thread that I started. Thanks.
Much as I agree with your sentiments, when you start a thread, you “release it into the wild”. It will take on its own course. Anything going too far should be censored, or the whole thing deleted if needs be, but its now pretty much out of your control.
I don`t think anyone would hold you morally responsible for the gibberings of idiots, because you were the first poster.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
id have thought it was pretty pointless/ignorant/meaningless/silly or whatever to start a thread piggybacking exactly the same as the other one that remained running and is also obviously majorly popular since started.
surely the mods would have merged it before now anyway?
If one thread goes “off piste” and needs closing, then t`other one will remain?
the 1st one got the usual lock shortly after it started hence we had another one,then this one also,but fair point as its incredibly frustrating and irritating not to be able to voice your opinion without immediately seeing the race card popping up.
Mazzer2:
My take on it is whether he is innocent or guilty the way the press have jumped in with both feet and continually published utter crap and still are needs looking into, it is a court that finds you guilty not the Sun or Sky News. Yesterdays Daily Mail being a prime example anyone who has ever shipped a trailer and not produced a ‘waybill’ to the port authorities has apparently broken the law and needs to hand themselves in ASAP.
He has gone from being a mass murderer up there with Harold Shipman to being charged with manslaughter a big difference in legal terms. Several years ago a friend of mine was in a similar situation and charged with the murder of one immigrant, by the time it went to court the charge was reduced to trafficking of which when presented with the facts the jury found him not guilty, he was also vilified in the press when arrested, oddly enough there were no major headlines when he was found innocent.
There is an argument that all arrested and charged individuals should remain anonymous until proven guilty at trial. Keep them out of the press and media (if that`s possible today!) to protect the reputation of those who are innocent.
Cliff Richard and the media circus when his home was searched. Probably some still whispering “smoke and fire” there.
The contrary argument is that justice should be open, so it seen to be done. Generally daylight acts as a disinfectant: get it in the open to look at it properly.
Stuart Hall`s case had further victims coming forward after his arrest on the first ■■■ charges.
There is no answer that is 100% correct, and any attempt to go on a “case by case” basis would be open to error or abuse.
So, I reckon we are stuck with naming those charged, BUT that doesnt include giving prejudicial evidence in advance of trial. Although I dont know how it could be practically enforced, a stricter look at lies and false info on social media is desperately needed.
There’s also the other argument that naming people is an important part of the investigation as often it’ll lead to people coming forward with evidence
If your opinion is racist, your entitled to that opinion, but keep it off a public forum. Simple as that. Then it can remain open for mature and non offensive discussion for others who don’t share your racist opinions.
Mazzer2:
My take on it is whether he is innocent or guilty the way the press have jumped in with both feet and continually published utter crap and still are needs looking into, it is a court that finds you guilty not the Sun or Sky News. Yesterdays Daily Mail being a prime example anyone who has ever shipped a trailer and not produced a ‘waybill’ to the port authorities has apparently broken the law and needs to hand themselves in ASAP.
He has gone from being a mass murderer up there with Harold Shipman to being charged with manslaughter a big difference in legal terms. Several years ago a friend of mine was in a similar situation and charged with the murder of one immigrant, by the time it went to court the charge was reduced to trafficking of which when presented with the facts the jury found him not guilty, he was also vilified in the press when arrested, oddly enough there were no major headlines when he was found innocent.
There is an argument that all arrested and charged individuals should remain anonymous until proven guilty at trial. Keep them out of the press and media (if that`s possible today!) to protect the reputation of those who are innocent.
Cliff Richard and the media circus when his home was searched. Probably some still whispering “smoke and fire” there.
The contrary argument is that justice should be open, so it seen to be done. Generally daylight acts as a disinfectant: get it in the open to look at it properly.
Stuart Hall`s case had further victims coming forward after his arrest on the first ■■■ charges.
There is no answer that is 100% correct, and any attempt to go on a “case by case” basis would be open to error or abuse.
So, I reckon we are stuck with naming those charged, BUT that doesnt include giving prejudicial evidence in advance of trial. Although I dont know how it could be practically enforced, a stricter look at lies and false info on social media is desperately needed.
There’s also the other argument that naming people is an important part of the investigation as often it’ll lead to people coming forward with evidence
Yes. My second paragraph citing the Stuart Hall case.
MegaHips:
I think its pretty clear they have something on the lad. They wouldn’t just throw a money laundering charge into the mix for fun, they’ve clearly come across some solid evidence against him somewhere along the line. If he was involved then he doesn’t make a good driver nor a very good criminal, i hope for his own sake that he hasn’t been stupid enough to [zb] his life up this early on as he’s only 25, but then again there’s no telling some peoples greed/stupidity.
I reckon they will have found 39 bottles of water in the cab, or something like that, immediately from the way they jumped on him from the getgo. I think they must have established very quickly he knew they were in there.
On another forum theres a driver who lives near him and reckons they found £160k cash in his house. That’s just hearsay though, but if true then this clearly wasnt his first time doing it
Rowley010:
If your opinion is racist, your entitled to that opinion, but keep it off a public forum. Simple as that. Then it can remain open for mature and non offensive discussion for others who don’t share your racist opinions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
my mature opinion is not particulary racist,more factual and bluntly accurate but that is my opinion the same way as you have your opinion.
as soon as theres anything said that tends to be descriptive and truthful then all the snowflakes pull out the race card which i personally find offensive but its a public form so you just have to accept that and ■■■■ it up…
Rowley010:
If your opinion is racist, your entitled to that opinion, but keep it off a public forum. Simple as that. Then it can remain open for mature and non offensive discussion for others who don’t share your racist opinions.
I haven’t seen any racism.
Some xenophobia perhaps, but mainly the statement of facts pertaining to the motivation of the majority of illegals seeking entry here.
Some of these views may have been expressed in an insensitive manner, but this is your problem.
Offence is in the eye of the offended.
What you are actually asking for is for any opinions that differ to yours, to be censored.
This is a popular mantra amongst the woke, much easier to bury inconvenient truths than have to confront them
robbiepete:
He was charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, conspiracy over immigration, money laundering. He wasnt charged for opening the doors. Will see what he pleads in court tomorrow, if its guilty then it’s likely he has spilt the beans, if it’s not guilty then it’s likely the evidence was found rather then given.
Tomorrow’s hearing will effectively be a simple administrative rubber-stamping job by a magistrates court to remand him in custody to appear at Crown Court in due course. He won’t be entering any plea tomorrow. I doubt he’ll be entering a plea on his first appearance at Crown Court either - that will come later.
Rowley010:
If your opinion is racist, your entitled to that opinion, but keep it off a public forum. Simple as that. Then it can remain open for mature and non offensive discussion for others who don’t share your racist opinions.
I haven’t seen any racism.
Some xenophobia perhaps, but mainly the statement of facts pertaining to the motivation of the majority of illegals seeking entry here.
Some of these views may have been expressed in an insensitive manner, but this is your problem.
Offence is in the eye of the offended.
What you are actually asking for is for any opinions that differ to yours, to be censored.
This is a popular mantra amongst the woke, much easier to bury inconvenient truths than have to confront them
Rowley010:
Moderator when I opened this thread as I’m sure you saw I did request that it’s for information and adult discussion and no racist remarks. If people on here who are responsible enough to be in charge of a 44 ton truck on a public highway aren’t responsible enough to keep racism to themselves then please do remove the thread as there’s no place for it on a thread that I started. Thanks.
Ya see that’s the problem with racism (perceived or real), it’s very subjective. If for example I said that black people of African descent make better marathon runners than most other races would I be racist or would I merely be highlighting proven statistics? If I said that white people make the most successful Olympic swimmers would I be racist by implying white supremacy or would I merely be highlighting statistics?
Taking offence does not necessarily give a person the moral high ground, but it does often show that that person is incapable of independant thought or deed.
Rowley010:
If your opinion is racist, your entitled to that opinion, but keep it off a public forum. Simple as that. Then it can remain open for mature and non offensive discussion for others who don’t share your racist opinions.
I haven’t seen any racism.
Some xenophobia perhaps, but mainly the statement of facts pertaining to the motivation of the majority of illegals seeking entry here.
Some of these views may have been expressed in an insensitive manner, but this is your problem.
Offence is in the eye of the offended.
What you are actually asking for is for any opinions that differ to yours, to be censored.
This is a popular mantra amongst the woke, much easier to bury inconvenient truths than have to confront them
What facts do you offer about the “motivation of the majority of illegals”? Or are you making generalizations about a group?
Offence can be caused by words, as much as a poke in the eye. Would you be the victim of your nervous system causing you pain, if you were poked in the eye, or the victim of the person doing the poking?
There is a place for debate on all subjects, but it doesn`t need to be offensively made.
Does anyone know where Mo. got his two experience? Am finding it strange that we have a multi million pound industry going on in our Countries ,that the Government knows nothing about. Why haven’t they been out there taxing, regulating and legislating?
Rowley010:
If your opinion is racist, your entitled to that opinion, but keep it off a public forum. Simple as that. Then it can remain open for mature and non offensive discussion for others who don’t share your racist opinions.
I haven’t seen any racism.
Some xenophobia perhaps, but mainly the statement of facts pertaining to the motivation of the majority of illegals seeking entry here.
Some of these views may have been expressed in an insensitive manner, but this is your problem.
Offence is in the eye of the offended.
What you are actually asking for is for any opinions that differ to yours, to be censored.
This is a popular mantra amongst the woke, much easier to bury inconvenient truths than have to confront them
The reason you haven’t seen any racism is because I deleted the post.
As posted on another thread and on Sky News and Mail Online the Scania entered the country via Holyhead unit only on Sunday 20th October, having travelled over from Dublin, then travelled all the way down to Essex, tractor unit only!
moomooland:
As posted on another thread and on Sky News and Mail Online the Scania entered the country via Holyhead unit only on Sunday 20th October, having travelled over from Dublin, then travelled all the way down to Essex, tractor unit only!
How in reality could this pay? Just a thought.
How do they know that? We’ve been told the unit entered the UK via Holyhead. I’ve not seen anything to state that it was running solo at that point. Even if it did, who is to say what other trailer(s) it may have picked up and dropped off in the intervening days?
