On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?

But that latter is what you were asking for.

However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that when
the police saw the video they just said diddums.

About what? The alleged obstruction?

...

(b) a deliberate act of criminal damage caused by a cyclist in a fit
of raging pique?

Such a leading question doesn't deserve a reply.

You mean you can't think of a wriggle to excuse the cyclist's blatant
and deliberate act of criminal damage.

I meant as I wrote. No more, no less.

You mean you can't think of a wriggle to excuse the cyclist's blatant
and deliberate act of criminal damage.

I thought that in UK law a person was not a criminal until found
guilty of a crime by a court?

Here's a hint: Sub-judice starts with the charge (when the matter is
now within the jurisdiction of a court), not at the moment of the crime.

Is that yes or no?

No particular person is being accused. The unknown criminal scarpered.
No charge will be laid (and therefore no bar on case comment will
commence) until he is traced and apprehended (criminal damage is an
arrestable offence).

I suspectthat even if you didn't already know the detail, you had a fair
idea that this is how it works.