Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

martin winter.

On 15 Dec 2009 at 2:05pm popeye wrote:
In reply to DOWN & OUT, your observation of the way Martin is behaving himself in public is a far cry from how he normally is. Anyone who knows him would describe him as being very shy. What you are seeing is a man that feels completely down and is putting up a front. I know this looks bad on t/v but its almost like he has pushed a self destruct button. And as for you LAMBRETTA its people like you that in the old days would push and shove people out of the way to get to the front of a public execution, then shuffle your way back to your hovel to await the next poor victim.No doubt you will reply but that is how you get your kicks.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 2:13pm DFE wrote:
your man love is worrying
On 15 Dec 2009 at 2:20pm popeye wrote:
Ha Ha, Worrying you by the sound of it. You must be one of Lambrettas side kicks. Anyway why are you home from school so early.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 2:32pm Bunter wrote:
Popeye - do you think it's the crime that counts or who commits it?
On 15 Dec 2009 at 2:33pm DFE wrote:
doesn't worry me, just everyone is blaming the fire brigade, the jury found him guity. thread over
On 15 Dec 2009 at 2:47pm popeye wrote:
DFE once again you are getting it wrong. Not everyone is blaming the fire brigade, we know they never put the fireworks in the container. All we are saying is they must share a proportion of the blame in regards to the outcome. And of course Bunter, its the crime that counts no-one is denying that but lets be fair there were mistakes all round. And as for DFE saying thread over, who the hell does he think he is, the b.....y judge.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 2:51pm The Arsonist wrote:
The British justice System found him guily as charged. End of.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 2:54pm Judge and Jury wrote:
The simple answer. Winter did wrong by storing illegal fireworks. Punish him.
The fire brigade leader in charge did wrong by not ordering his team out. Punish him.
Punish one but not the other. VERY VERY WRONG!
On 15 Dec 2009 at 3:02pm johnno wrote:
I know there are a lot if people on here who know martin and his family well and appreciate that the bonfire community stick together through thick and thin.
This does not hide the fact that the jury who had all information available(unlike us) found him guilty. the jury would not have known martin or the firefighters so had no preconceptions.
Obviously what Martin did and aid on that fateful night DID lead to the deaths of Geoff Wicker and Brian Wembridge or this decison would not have been reached!
On 15 Dec 2009 at 3:02pm popeye wrote:
Judge & Jury you are so right. And Arsonist you will find the British justice system did not find him GUILY. See, we all make mistakes, luckily for you the outcome of your bad spelling was not so serious.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 3:10pm Bunter wrote:
Popeye - I agree with you, there were mistakes all round. And there has been tragedy all round as well. But there's been a trial, defence barristers, a jury... that's all we know so far. And if there is an appeal and it succeeds, well that will be the final answer.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 3:29pm The Arsonist wrote:
Typical petty reply Popeye. Pick up on a simple typo when we are discussing two mens deaths and someones liberty. He has been found guilty by the system we have to live by. Its not a perfect system but until someone comes up with something better its all we have and we should abide by it. The judge and jury must have had all the evidence to make their decision on. Until the inevitable appeal that is game over for now.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 3:36pm ere be monsters wrote:
T**t is the quote. You can put in the missing letters yourself. You reckon it's twat, but then again you know him!!
On 15 Dec 2009 at 3:37pm Chuck wrote:
Sorry, I followed the thread which mentioned Michelle. Not once did Spinster post a comment. Anyway, this is a post about Martin Winter, not Michelle. Go and start a new one, if thats what you want, start it all off again why don't you?
On 15 Dec 2009 at 3:46pm ere be monsters wrote:
I apologise, but in my defence, it was you that refered to him as a twat not me.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 4:25pm Curious. wrote:
Lambretta's mate.Are you otherwise known as James by any chance?
Amd while we are on the subject of barring,what about DFE/ron/demon 2 (and half a dozen other names he uses) ??
I find his constant 'lighting the blue touchpaper and standing well back' attitude really off putting...It is hard to keep a thread going when he has posted some banal comment without feeding him,which I do not want to do and he/she appears to thrive on it.Is he what is known as a troll?
On 15 Dec 2009 at 4:26pm ere be monsters wrote:
I'm not saying it means anything, that is the whole point!!!!
Please read the thread you have just started.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 4:40pm Humbug wrote:
Derek Bentley
Judith Ward
Birmingham Six
Anne McGuire
Michael Hickey
Vincent Hickey
Jimmy Robinson
Patrick Molloy
Guildford Four
Winston Silcott
Sally Clark
Angela Cannings
These people were also found guilty by a jury.
Just goes to show they can get it wrong even if they have heard all the 'evidence'.
And Lambrettas mate is complaining about people not being treated fairly !!
On 15 Dec 2009 at 4:43pm teaboy wrote:
The verdict is probably fair. MSER gives clear separation distances for fireworks based on Net Explosive Content (NEC) and Hazard Type. These are given for a reason. The more dangerous the firework (HT 1) the lower the NEC. If these separation distances are not maintained (as in this case), or maximum NEC exceded (as in this case) then any fire is very likely to be intensified. Martin Winter KNEW this. He KNOWINGLY put people at risk.
The training received by the fire brigade, and their Operating Procedures in this situation will be based on the MSER levels that Martin Winter KNOWINGLY exceded. Whether the fire brigade's failure to withdraw would have contributed to the deaths IF storage levels were within MSER limits is IRRELEVENT.
I feel for both sides in this, but Martin Winter ran out of luck when the fire took hold. Firework storage should not be based on luck EXACTLY for these reasons.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 4:49pm ere be monsters wrote:
The point some of us are trying to make Teaboy, is the fire brigades lack of training and knowledge. It is this that led to the tragic end to this event. Had that training been carried out (Mr White at the trial said "it had been yerars") then the fatal end would have been avoided.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 7:10pm MOD wrote:
I think Lambretta is called James.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:25pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
Lambretta's Mate - I hope that the Webmaster swiftly answers your question and confirms that your accusation is false,
For the record, Spinster has neither abused or made personal comments towards anyone in recent weeks as your per your accusation.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:57pm Roly Mo wrote:
Good to see you back Spinster, we have missed you.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 10:19pm Birds of a Feather wrote:
Lambretta's Mate one can so easily see you are mate of Lambretta's...
Cliquey? - of course - more cliquey than any pub in town (where people also communicate with each other) - what percentage of Lewes residents view this site, let alone regularly comment?
This site is BRILLIANTLY managed to allow freedom of speech with specific regard to local affairs, unfortunately it has become hi-jacked in recent months by a number of small-minded, bitter, aggressive, vitriolic tw@s with personal axes to grind.
Chuck well-spotted and seconded, so be careful about penning comments based upon your personal observations "L's Mate" especially when they are W R O N G ! - I was more aware of Spinster being on the receiving end in fact
so "L's M" why would no one D A R E call Lambseywambsey a tw@ to his face? - Is he a thug? Why you so sensitive to "ere be"s comments - you are "formally complaining" are you? there there
On 15 Dec 2009 at 10:27pm sky rocket wrote:
martin knew he was not working within the law, years ago i used to get my fireworks from him and back then he was selling display fireworks to the public without a care so even back then he had no repect for the law
On 15 Dec 2009 at 10:31pm LG wrote:
We'll never really know who's who on here as so many people go under so many different names.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 11:05pm The Webmaster wrote:
I can confirm the aforementioned posts were not written by Spinster
I know she has a lot more class than that.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 11:26pm FRIEND wrote:
Can we all have our names cleared and the guilty ones names and shamed.
On 16 Dec 2009 at 11:48am teaboy wrote:
On Tue 15 Dec at: 16:49 'ere be monsters wrote:
The point some of us are trying to make Teaboy, is the fire brigades lack of training and knowledge. It is this that led to the tragic end to this event. Had that training been carried out (Mr White at the trial said "it had been yerars") then the fatal end would have been avoided.
Whether this is true or not does not affect the actions of Martin Winter PRIOR TO THE FIRE. There should be an investigation into the fire brigade's actions on the day, and prosecutions if necessary. HOWEVER, just because there were failures on the part of the fire brigade it does not mean that people should be able to store whatever they like however they like. Someone is responsible for the storage of the dangerous goods that led to the incident. Was that the fire brigade or Martin Winter?
On 16 Dec 2009 at 1:26pm NathanWinter wrote:
On 16 Dec 2009 at 1:55pm Twelve Good Men wrote:
Yes Teaboy, but you could equally say that just because there were failures on the part of Martin Winters it does not mean that the fire brigade should ignore safety procedures. It is true that safety regulations are there for a reason and no one is saying that Martin Winter should have been allowed to store whatever he wanted. If he was storing illegal fireworks as we are told then that is his crime, and he is guilty of it. The Fire Brigade meantime are also guilty of ignoring safety regulations and the combination is what led to this tragic incident. Whatever the cause of the explosion, be it legal or illegal fireworks, or indeed domestic gas cylinders, those men should have been well out of harms way when it happened. If one party is guilty of manslaughter therefore, then surely they both should be. It will be very interesting to see if the fire chief is put in the dock now, or does the fact that scapegoats have been made of the Winters absolve the fire brigade of their part in this.
On 16 Dec 2009 at 2:17pm teaboy wrote:
It is clear (to me, at least!) that there needs to be a full investigation into the practices of the fire brigade in incidents such as this (rare though they are, thankfully). However, the fire brigade did not cause it. I don't think scapegoats HAVE been made. Who else caused the incident that led to the deaths? The court have seen the evidence and have decided it was the Winters. However, if the fire brigade feel that they acted correctly then serious questions need to be asked.
On 16 Dec 2009 at 4:01pm Twelve Good Men wrote:
What I am trying to say Teaboy, is that OK, it was the Winters fireworks that caused the explosion, but equally the fire brigades actions put two of their men right in front of it when they should have been at a safe distance. Who in their right mind thinks it is a good idea to get people to stand next to a burning firework factory? What exactly did they think might happen? There is much talk about the fireworks being 'illegal', but what if they had been 'legal' ones. The outcome would have been the same - they all contain explosives - but who would have been to blame then ?
The fire brigade have procedures to protect their own men and the public from exactly such incidents. It seems on this occasion that they chose to do something else.
On 31 Dec 2009 at 11:53am The Simple Facts wrote:
I would like to point out that a number of comments have been made around "illegal fireworks". None of the fireworks were "illegal", it was the storage of them that was. In light of this it would be fair to state that where a crime has been commited (illegal storage of fireworks/explosives) a punishment is enforced. However, I also believe it to be fair that the Fire Services actions (allowing servicemen/women to be within a dangerous proximity of the container) be investigated on grounds of inedequate training on explosives and poor organisation at the scene. Both could be deemed to fall under the "Gross Negligance" category. My point being that if the container that exploded was legal and the same had happended, I would put money on the Fire Service being prosecuted on the above mentioned grounds. Martin Winter should therefore be punished for gross negligance for illegal storage of explosives, and the Fire Service prosecuted for gross negligance for failing to protect it's servicemen/women by lack of earlier withdrawal from the site and lack of appropriate training on explosives.
On 13 Jul 2015 at 12:57pm Samara wrote:
Check out your links below and you'll find that there are numerous more ideas absolutely help burn the fat.
The simple solution because of this dilemma is so that you can change her or his eating habits, avoid overeating yourself and you must avoid taking meals which might be an excellent source
of fats and calories. This will subsequently make food to advance too fast with the small intestine and hence this can avoid
the absorption with the nutrients and also the calories in one's body.

Check it out here »
On 14 Jul 2015 at 10:29am Maurice wrote:
Incredible story there. What happened after?

Check it out here »
On 15 Jul 2015 at 7:15pm Natisha wrote:
hi!,I like your writing so a lot! percentage we communicate extra approximately your post on AOL?
I require a specialist on this space to solve my problem.
Maybe that is you! Taking a look ahead to peer you.

Check it out here »

This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


Buskers in Lewes 17:132
Buskers in Lewes

Yes Green Sleeves, it continues to irritate me that the media (including the BBC) screech about the US death toll being the... more
Life begins at the end of your comfort zone