On 6 Oct, 09:24, Squashme wrote:
On 6 Oct, 08:30, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

the taxi drivers witness was out of the country, but the cyclist's witnesses
turned up, the taxi driver (on his own) was not found to be credible.

http://road.cc/content/news/25146-lo...led-taxi-drive...

The report in the standard has a slightly different slanthttp://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23884814-cyclist-is-cl...

the comments after it are telling: people are p@@@d off with cyclists in
London.

And remember JNugent:-

"Something you are likely to hear at some time on any given morning at
your
local Mags' Court:

"I'm not guilty, guv, it was all the other bloke's fault, honest, on
my
granny's eyes".

"Someone out there must have seen something"?

Well, quite. That appears to be this chap's problem. Advertising on
the
internet for a "witness" is more likely to devalue his defence than
strengthen it. It's obvious.

Let's see who the court believes."

Well, well.

The scary thing is that they all can vote and sit on juries!

--
Simon Mason