₦airaland Forum

ileobatojo: It doesn't matter who started the argument. Both were responsible for keeping it going. The shortest arguments you will ever see me have are the ones that happen when I'm in a moving car. I immediately truncate the argument by telling the driver to concentrate on the road or if I'm the driver by telling the passenger to shut up cos I need to concentrate on the road. If this does not lead to the proper response, my next step to ensure my safety will be to pull over until everyone calms the heck down before proceeding. I personally would not play with my life like that and I hope that you all are not telling me that you would jeopardize your own lives like that by carrying on a heated argument while in a moving vehicle.

he didn't carry on though - he got off the car. he was either asked to leave or he got off himself having had enough rants from his wife. if he was interested in arguments, he would remain in the car & continue exchanging words with her.

chaircover: I dont know why she even bothered arguing with him. All she had to do was to clear out the account in his absence or call the card company to say that the card was lost and the card will be cancelled. I am assuming that its a joint account, so the bank will deal with her requests.

This tragedy is really painful because it could have been avoided

she couldn't have done that cos the card belonged to the deceased. it wasn't a joint account cos then each of them should have their own separate cards - this is why they twisted the story & claimed it's a family card.

what the heck is a family card?

ileobatojo: No. That's not quite what happened. What I said was in response to babyosisi's claim that he was mute the entire time while the wife was shouting. I said if that was so, he should have seen the warning signs and he would have known it was an active lane and therefore would not have put his life in danger by getting out of the car. In other words, I don't believe he was mute the entire time.

he couldn't have been mute throughout the entire journey but i believe the woman initiated the argument. the woman must have asked him for the debit card which i also believe was in the possession of the man at the time.

What I actually said was that he should not have contributed to distracting her so much while she was driving knowing that she was in control of a moving vehicle of which he was a passenger. Since, her being distracted would also put him in danger. I never said he was the ONLY one that contributed to distracting her. I said he had a role to play in that.

who do you think would have started this argument out of the two? the man was with the card, the woman didn't want him to be with the card. if anything, the woman created the distraction.

when the man had enough, he stormed off as his holy book must have told him. proverb 21:19 said It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman.

meracool: Guys we Will play Against Tottenham Dec 1st 2013 and also Jan 1st 2014

as long as we have one everyone healthy by then & moyes sorts his head, tottenham are doable. we could be on top of the table by january.

just give anderson a run of games - his superb run against leverkusen was a breath of fresh air. he's our only midfielder capable of such.

ileobatojo: No. It is NOT the same thing.

you said if he had remained in the car, what happened could have been avoided. in a worst case scenario, he would have survived like his wife.

then you went on to say both should have been responsible which means you are tacitly passing the blame to the deceased when he had no control at any point throughout.

his wife parked cos she wanted him out - remember she sat down there while the hubby was getting his suitcase from the trunk & watched as her husband walked away.

ileobatojo: How is what you just quoted the same as this?

what's the difference?
blaming him for contributing to his death & saying he should have remained in the car is the same thing.

ileobatojo: Silence?

had to quickly grab my dinner.

freecocoa: Coogar.

cocoa?

ileobatojo: I never said that.

who wrote this?

ileobatojo: Oh please stop being dramatic. He got down from the car because the wife stopped moving. If he wanted to avoid GNP, he should have cut off the argument long ago. He contributed to his own death by distracting the driver. They both should have been more responsible.

babyosisi: You have said it again
She had no business being behind the wheels then since she is unable to control herself
Either way you slice it,it is entirely her fault
His crime was keeping his debit card and marrying a mean spirited witch

she couldn't have wished death on her husband or pre-planned what happened but she was 100% culpable for the accident. she shouldn't have stopped by the road, there are tons of gas stations on that strip - pull over there & then sort out their arguments. she could have even postponed their debate till they got to heathrow.

ileobatojo: Of course the person at the wheel is the one responsible for where the car was parked. Where did I say differently? Where did I blame the man for where the car was parked?

The fact is that you are jumping on my post without really listening to what I'm saying.

i am countering the point you made earlier that the man should take some blame as well for storming off.

ileobatojo: If I were the passenger of a rabid person at the wheel driving, my eyes would be glued to the road, to ensure my safety. I would hope this man was not daft enough to be reading a newspaper while a completely deranged lover of heated self arguments was in control of his life.

but one can argue the person at the wheel is responsible for where the car was parked, not the passenger. the person at the wheel was the one qualified to drive, not the passenger. how are we even sure the man does not have eye defects? why are you blaming the passenger for an offence the driver committed.

had the police got to them before the accident, who do you think they would fine? the passenger?

ileobatojo: With zero evidence, no witness testimony (as in the woman wasn't there to say that was what happened)? That's quite a high burden of proof don't you think?

Please stop making up implausible scenarios.

they will find evidence.
speak to the neighbours, scour police database to see if there's ever been a report of any abuse in the past, check emails & texts, and trust me - they would link the merest of quarrels they have had in the last 10 years to this incident.

so unless you think every couple live a quarrel-free lives, a guilty verdict might not be too far away. i know the system & i know how they are eager to criminalise any man in this kinda scenario.

ileobatojo: But no woman has died yet, so again, no evidence as of right now. Furthermore, in a case of someone walking out of the car after a heated argument with video evidence of zero physical hitting, I see no reason why this alone would prompt prosecution for abuse. This is just a scenario you are making up. If they saw video of him pushing her in front of the lorry, then, we would be talking.

ileoba, calm down.....
i said if the reverse was the case - i.e. a man was at the wheel, with the wife storming off & eventually dying then the husband would have gotten a harsher treatment than the pampering this woman seems to be getting.

with zero physical hitting, CPS would then build a case that the man might have threatened her or verbally abused her. it would be the accused's statement versus the CPS & we would be here also wondering why a woman would choose to get down from her car to continue her journey on foot!

it would make any man look very guilty....

Niseamaka: [/color]
On point. A popular sportsman in the country where i live went clubbing, hooked up with a girl, both got drunk and headed home in the wee hours of the morning. They showered, went to bed and did the obvious. The next day, she claimed they did it against her wish and the guy was arrested, detained and charged. If not that he is very popular, rich, well connected and can afford a very good lawyer, he wouldn`t have emerged from that encounter a free man. As you pointed out, the law is CRIMINALLY tilted in favour of women. A man is almost always wrong.

she didn't even need to say it was against her will, just because she didn't give consent was enough to put the man in jail. if a woman keeps mute throughout, she still hasn't given consent according to the law.

now, they have broadened the definition of rapë to include the penetration technicality. now imagine 2 teenagers with raging hormones making out. the girl puts his hands in the guy's pants to give him a handjob & the guy reciprocates to stick a finger in her. by law, he has räped the girl & the worst the girl gets is a sëxual assault.

ileobatojo: I understand this and I agree that some of these issues need to be reassessed. But, I am yet to see a good reason why bias is a factor in this particular case.

because the death of any woman in what may seem as spousal abuse is taken very very seriously. the CPS will take the case up & build a case around it. they would bring up e-mails from 1999 if they have to just to prove the man had a motive.

femmyb: To all of you complaining about the western world pro women laws and policies, who sent you to go and be living in oyinbos man countries, the white man suffers from something called the victorian complex and theres nothing you can do to change that, his culture is different from yours.

even their men are complaining so what's your point?

[quote author=tpia@]My brother, can you post the video so we can actually see him apologizing ( same way we saw the video of him and the widow).

Surely your question isnt a serious one because i'm still wondering if its sarcasm.

If his advisers asked him to apologize same way whoever had him do the other one, told him to do it, how exactly is my opinion the major thing here?

You never heard of script writing?

I still reiterate though, it is not normal for a nigerian to make that kind of utterance in public while cameras are rolling, there is something weird going on, just like with the aluu 4.[/quote]http://www.naijacenter.com/news/independent-television-itv-intentionally-edited-outrage-video-oshiomhole/

that's oshiomole live on camera apologising for saying "go & die". he's addressing the council of islamic women.

[quote author=tpia@]Please say no to violence and lynching in nigeria and beyond.

If you didnt like it when the indians did it to you, then dont advocate for such among yourselves.

Be civilized, not primitive and barbaric.[/quote]now that oshiomole has openly apologised for what he said, do you now believe it wasn't a set up like you insisted yesterday?

RuuDie: How very convenient - when UTD lose or draw, we (rather Moyes and a select set of players) are sh.y.te... when utd finally put up a decent showing, the other team is sh.y.te!

are you comfortable with our position on the table? draw at cardiff, draw against southampton & loss to wear brom(that's 7 points). even if we discount the losses against liverpool & man city, those 7 points are still enough to put us on top of the table.

we have been lucky our so called rivals have been napping too. city's been inconsistent away from home, mourinho can't put chelsea back to winning ways like his first stint at stamford bridge & liverpool have been liverpool - enough promises & broken dreams.

ileobatojo: Please be consistent with your arguments, first it was marital abuse, now it's 'verbal abuse and threats to life'. Pick one argument and stick with it. How would this case be a way for UK judges to prove abuse unless the video records the visible abuse going on in the car? If all they see in the video is someone getting out of the car of their own free will, how does that prove abuse?

if a husband verbally abuses his wife, is it not marital abuse? is it not verbal abuse, can it not be variated to mean threat to life & what not? you need to go to court & watch how the CPS prove their case. this is the UK....men get screwed all the time.

you don't get this, do you?
it's completely criminal for anyone to be male in the UK. the court would want to know why a woman finds it more comfortable getting out of the car to walk alone in the wee hours of the morning. it must mean what she's running away from must be more dangerous than walking alone with suitcases all by herself. if a man reports his wife to the cops that he's physically abused, he would be lucky not to be arrested. women can use loads of excuses to get away with murder, at the end of the day, her hormones is another reliable excuse.

the laws don't just create any safety net for the man. when 2 people of opposite sex drink to stupor & have sëx, the man cops a rapë charge, the woman walks free. even if the man reports he was held down against his will by the woman, she can only get sëxual assault cos technically a woman cannot räpe an adult man in the UK. the law is criminally biased towards the women & everyone knows it.

is he a youth or a toddler?

ileobatojo: Another bold faced lie.

You mean in the UK where there is cctv recording of everything? Please, spare me.

CCTV would prove verbal abuse & threat to life?

The only reason this woman has not been charged with manslaughter and the lesser charge of driving without due care and attention is exactly that. Because she is a woman, a beareaved woman and consideration is been given to any offspring.

The UK always takes a benign, if not blatantly favourable appraoch to women - especially in domestic affairs.

you are being too generous - the UK favours women all the time. female prisons would soon be closed in the UK cos they have concluded no woman is deemed dangerous enough to be locked behind bars.

YEBOBBY: Great leaders take responsibility for their actions and apologize whenever it is necessary.
We should all remember that we are human and prone to anger and mistakes.
Kudos Oshiomole!

kudos to oshiomole?
he should take his convoy to the woman's house & tender his apology. he should also tell his barbarian task force boys to return the widow's wares.

GustavoFring: I swear coogar must be paying starboard's school fees.

I have never seen such a level of sycophancy.

Even paid hacks Doyin Okupe and Reuben Abati are not as loyal to GEJ as starboard is to his master.

you are just looking for trouble & i am not interested. go & sort out your yeye team losing 6 points to basel.

fidatt: You don't need any confirmation from your pastor before you marry. Marry your best friend, the person who understands you and the person you love.

what if a guy has 6 female friends that he understands & loves?

[quote author=Efemena_xy]^^ Nope - Just had a look and they're only offering a £5.00 discount (£164.99)

http://www.valuebasket.com/en_GB/Amazon-Kindle-Paperwhite-3G-E-Reader-(Black)/mainproduct/view/11617-AA-BK

I knew the price you mentioned was too good to be true

Oh well... [/quote]https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/28/article-2515293-19B582B400000578-494_470x806.jpg

ileobatojo: This is a delusion. Or a deliberately concocted falsehood. The rest of your post has already been addressed.

how is it delusion?
a man that was supposed to be dropping his wife suddenly stopped at the wrong side of the road. the wife stormed off, went to the trunk & took her suitcases & was walking alone around 4am on M25 & later died - i can assure you the hubby would be in prison by now. it's the perfect case for UK judges to prove marital abuse.

ileobatojo: If he got out despite seeing the signs onto the middle of the highway at 4am in the morning, then he's wholly responsible for his own death.

he's a passenger in the car, his responsibility isn't watching out for road signs. the only question here is why did the wife stop? why was she trying to delay her husband? why did the wife(a licensed driver) fail to watch out for the road signs? why did the wife park in a spot that endangered the other road users?

For the second part of your question, the woman was in the car and still had an accident but didn't die. I never said staying in the car would have prevented the accident.

who knows what would have happened if the man didn't get out of the car? remember the woman moved the car some few metres before she got hit by the truck after the man got out? if the man didn't get out, the original position could have been more fatal or less fatal. no one knows....

however, if the roles were reversed with a woman storming off with her suitcases & getting hit by a truck, everyone would pass the blame to her husband. accusations of physical/verbal abuse, threat to life, etc would be levelled against the man. the driver(the woman) was 100% responsible for the death of her husband.

ileobatojo: If he kept mute while she was arguing with herself, he would have seen the signs and would not have gotten out of the car.

and it didn't occur to you he got out to avoid being late for his flight? it didn't occur to you that whether he got out or not wouldn't have stopped the accident?

ileoba, come on - this is not the time to blame the dead. the woman confessed she didn't feel comfortable driving again & she parked. whose responsibility was it to spot the road signs? the driver or the passenger?

StarBoard: Baby boy alert.
After blowing up all the hot air you possibly can, let us know.

don't mind the mumu - trying to impress us with his english. ask him to say those words & he would likely bite his own tongue.

ileobatojo: Oh please stop being dramatic. He got down from the car because the wife stopped moving. If he wanted to avoid GNP, he should have cut off the argument long ago. He contributed to his own death by distracting the driver. They both should have been more responsible.

contributed to his own death? christ!!!

bellong: Thanks for pointing it out, wanted to write she....

They run to spiritual houses because they seek assurance of what lies ahead. In most times, they do it the wrong way and out of fear which these commercial pastors capitalise on....

they should continue looking - the more they look, the more heartbroken they get. many of them have paid hundreds of thousands to fake spiritualists. some have even used their bodies in the process. being too over-religious can erode one's common sense.