|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 10/04/2017 16:49, MrCheerful wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ion-cycling-uk Also: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/06/uks-first-crowdfunded-prosecution-sees-defendant-acquitted-just/ And: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39516607 QUOTE: The jury at the Old Bailey took 17 minutes to clear [the driver] of causing death by careless driving. Cycling UK’s Cyclists’ Defence Fund (CDF), said it had taken up the case after the Metropolitan police refused to refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice on whether to charge [the driver]. ENDQUOTE Seventeen minutes jury consideration time leading to a "not guilty"? That's as clear as it can be that the prosecution evidence must have been poor. When the police and/or the CPS decline to prosecute, for any sort of case, it's probably for good reason, and juries are probably going to proceed on that common-sense basis. So within the world of private prosecutions (especially in these days of "crowd-funding"), this has to be a good result. It is necessary to remember that a man died in the incident and that his family were clearly devastated by that. Their desire for redress is understandable and entirely to be expected. We would all take the same attitude in similar circumstances. But it's a pity they were persuaded to relive the incident by the CDF. Everyone is entitled to have their part in an incident examined and considered (with a view to the possibility of legal proceedings) by an impartial and professional body whose objective is the public interest rather than sectional interest. So one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver has a case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the case and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have caused. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 10/04/17 17:52, JNugent wrote:
When the police and/or the CPS decline to prosecute... It is said that the police did not pass it to the CPS. CPS guidance is that all fatal collision cases should be referred. It is necessary to remember that a man died in the incident and that his family ... But it's a pity they were persuaded to relive the incident by the CDF. Who says the CDF approached the family? Everyone is entitled to have their part in an incident examined and considered (with a view to the possibility of legal proceedings) by an impartial and professional body whose objective is the public interest rather than sectional interest. “Given that the judge accepted that there was a case which the jury had to consider..." You seem to be trying to suggest that the CDF blundered ahead without taking professional advice. So one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver has a case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the case and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have caused. If you think a case has legs, put your own money forward. What have you got to lose? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:49:59 +0100, MrCheerful wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ion-cycling-uk Notice the surname? -- Snap-off parts, because it's French. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 10/04/2017 21:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/04/17 17:52, JNugent wrote: When the police and/or the CPS decline to prosecute... It is said that the police did not pass it to the CPS. CPS guidance is that all fatal collision cases should be referred. The police represent a necessary first-line filter of cases. That's their job (among other things). The elephant in the room in this case is pretty clear, and it has to do with how the two vehicles came to be in the formation where a collision could take place. It is fairly obvious that there can have been no acceptably-independent witnesses for the CDF's proposition. It is necessary to remember that a man died in the incident and that his family ... But it's a pity they were persuaded to relive the incident by the CDF. Who says the CDF approached the family? Nobody. Was there a point to your question? Everyone is entitled to have their part in an incident examined and considered (with a view to the possibility of legal proceedings) by an impartial and professional body whose objective is the public interest rather than sectional interest. “Given that the judge accepted that there was a case which the jury had to consider..." You seem to be trying to suggest that the CDF blundered ahead without taking professional advice. No. Without considering the evidence from an unbiased standpoint is how I would put it. I could - if I were silly enough, which I am not - run you off a list of well-known "professionals" whose independence and impartiality are notoriously non-existent. You can probably think of two or three of them immediately. So one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver has a case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the case and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have caused. If you think a case has legs, put your own money forward. What have you got to lose? It is for the parties to consider their options. But I would consider putting a tenner into a crowd-funding appeal for this wronged driver's civil case against the CDF. And that's about 250% more then the average of the donations to their case. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 10/04/17 23:55, JNugent wrote:
On 10/04/2017 21:05, TMS320 wrote: On 10/04/17 17:52, JNugent wrote: When the police and/or the CPS decline to prosecute... It is said that the police did not pass it to the CPS. CPS guidance is that all fatal collision cases should be referred. The police represent a necessary first-line filter of cases. That's their job (among other things). Err... "...fatal collision..." The elephant in the room in this case is pretty clear, and it has to do with how the two vehicles came to be in the formation where a collision could take place. It is fairly obvious that there can have been no acceptably-independent witnesses for the CDF's proposition. Where you an expert involved in the case? Tell us more. It is necessary to remember that a man died in the incident and that his family ... But it's a pity they were persuaded to relive the incident by the CDF. Who says the CDF approached the family? Nobody. Good. Was there a point to your question? It was a response to a paragraph that you wrote. You have obviously forgotten. Everyone is entitled to have their part in an incident examined and considered (with a view to the possibility of legal proceedings) by an impartial and professional body whose objective is the public interest rather than sectional interest. “Given that the judge accepted that there was a case which the jury had to consider..." You seem to be trying to suggest that the CDF blundered ahead without taking professional advice. No. Without considering the evidence from an unbiased standpoint is how I would put it. You haven't a clue how it was considered. It is just as likely that juries are biased in driver vs. cyclist cases. I could - if I were silly enough, which I am not - run you off a list of well-known "professionals" whose independence and impartiality are notoriously non-existent. You can probably think of two or three of them immediately. So one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver has a case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the case and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have caused. If you think a case has legs, put your own money forward. What have you got to lose? It is for the parties to consider their options. But I would consider putting a tenner into a crowd-funding appeal for this wronged driver's civil case against the CDF. And that's about 250% more then the average of the donations to their case. Your maths is faulty. Besides, I was expecting you to put your money where your mouth is and fund the whole amount. The word 'chicken' comes to mind. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 11/04/2017 09:37, TMS320 wrote:
You haven't a clue how it was considered. It is just as likely that juries are biased in driver vs. cyclist cases. I don't think it is that juries are biased. It is more that they are willing to use a much lower level of doubt to acquit defendants when they believe there is a chance they could be in the defendants position. Most jurors are motorists who have made mistakes. The CPS on the other hand do appear to be biased against prosecuting careless/dangerous driving case. Biased in that the case they do put forward have a very high conviction rate. Broadly speaking they are supposed to put cases before a jury if they think there is a 50% chance of conviction. I could - if I were silly enough, which I am not - run you off a list of well-known "professionals" whose independence and impartiality are notoriously non-existent. You can probably think of two or three of them immediately. So one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver has a case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the case and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have caused. If you think a case has legs, put your own money forward. What have you got to lose? It is for the parties to consider their options. But I would consider putting a tenner into a crowd-funding appeal for this wronged driver's civil case against the CDF. And that's about 250% more then the average of the donations to their case. Your maths is faulty. Besides, I was expecting you to put your money where your mouth is and fund the whole amount. The word 'chicken' comes to mind. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 11/04/2017 09:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/04/17 23:55, JNugent wrote: On 10/04/2017 21:05, TMS320 wrote: On 10/04/17 17:52, JNugent wrote: When the police and/or the CPS decline to prosecute... It is said that the police did not pass it to the CPS. CPS guidance is that all fatal collision cases should be referred. The police represent a necessary first-line filter of cases. That's their job (among other things). Err... "...fatal collision..." Not all fatal collisions are the fault, or even imply fault of the part of, random road-users who happen to be involved by reason of being in the wrong place at just th wrong time. Whisper it, but some fatal collisions are the fault of the deceased. The elephant in the room in this case is pretty clear, and it has to do with how the two vehicles came to be in the formation where a collision could take place. It is fairly obvious that there can have been no acceptably-independent witnesses for the CDF's proposition. Where you an expert involved in the case? Tell us more. Can you not read and comprehend? It took the jury just seventeen minutes to return a verdict. Those seventeen minutes will have been mainly composed of the technicalities and formalities of getting into the jury room, electing a forman, taking an initial vote to establish where the thinking lay, etc. There cannot have been much discussion because they must have been all of one mind in the immediate wake of hearing the evidence. It is necessary to remember that a man died in the incident and that his family ... But it's a pity they were persuaded to relive the incident by the CDF. Who says the CDF approached the family? Nobody. Good. Was there a point to your question? It was a response to a paragraph that you wrote. You have obviously forgotten. The CDF took the case to court. It is reasonable to assume that they assured the family something along the lines: "Leave i' wiv us, guv. We'll win it for ya. Stand on me". Everyone is entitled to have their part in an incident examined and considered (with a view to the possibility of legal proceedings) by an impartial and professional body whose objective is the public interest rather than sectional interest. “Given that the judge accepted that there was a case which the jury had to consider..." You seem to be trying to suggest that the CDF blundered ahead without taking professional advice. No. Without considering the evidence from an unbiased standpoint is how I would put it. You haven't a clue how it was considered. It is just as likely that juries are biased in driver vs. cyclist cases. Just read the comments from the CDF post-trial. They say they accept the jury's verdict. It was obvious that that was an untruth. They were slavering at the chops of a conviction of that innocent, acquitted, driver. I could - if I were silly enough, which I am not - run you off a list of well-known "professionals" whose independence and impartiality are notoriously non-existent. You can probably think of two or three of them immediately. So one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver has a case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the case and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have caused. If you think a case has legs, put your own money forward. What have you got to lose? It is for the parties to consider their options. But I would consider putting a tenner into a crowd-funding appeal for this wronged driver's civil case against the CDF. And that's about 250% more then the average of the donations to their case. Your maths is faulty. Mea culpa. I got the decimal point one position out, true. It doesn't change the logic of my position. Besides, I was expecting you to put your money where your mouth is and fund the whole amount. The word 'chicken' comes to mind. I am certainly not affluent enough to fund legal cases for third parties. I'm OK for money - I can't complain and don't complain - but I have other responsibilities in the short, medium and long term. But you seem to have difficulty in understanding the meaning of the sentence: "...one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver has a case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the case and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have caused". What do you understand the meanings of "wonders" and "whether" to be? --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 11/04/2017 10:12, Nick wrote:
On 11/04/2017 09:37, TMS320 wrote: You haven't a clue how it was considered. It is just as likely that juries are biased in driver vs. cyclist cases. I don't think it is that juries are biased. It is more that they are willing to use a much lower level of doubt to acquit defendants when they believe there is a chance they could be in the defendants position. Most jurors are motorists who have made mistakes. There is no doubt something in what you say. But a seventeen minute jury return is indicative of what can only have been a very high level of reasonable doubt about the prosecution case. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 11/04/17 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 11/04/2017 09:37, TMS320 wrote: On 10/04/17 23:55, JNugent wrote: On 10/04/2017 21:05, TMS320 wrote: On 10/04/17 17:52, JNugent wrote: When the police and/or the CPS decline to prosecute... It is said that the police did not pass it to the CPS. CPS guidance is that all fatal collision cases should be referred. The police represent a necessary first-line filter of cases. That's their job (among other things). Err... "...fatal collision..." Not all fatal collisions are the fault, or even imply fault of the part of, random road-users who happen to be involved by reason of being in the wrong place at just th wrong time. Whisper it, but some fatal collisions are the fault of the deceased. Your view provides no useful suggestion to why it did not reach the CPS to make the decision. There was never a question about the cyclist's conduct. The elephant in the room in this case is pretty clear, and it has to do with how the two vehicles came to be in the formation where a collision could take place. It is fairly obvious that there can have been no acceptably-independent witnesses for the CDF's proposition. Where you an expert involved in the case? Tell us more. Can you not read and comprehend? I can. It took the jury just seventeen minutes to return a verdict. Those seventeen minutes will have been mainly composed of the technicalities and formalities of getting into the jury room, electing a forman, taking an initial vote to establish where the thinking lay, etc. There cannot have been much discussion because they must have been all of one mind in the immediate wake of hearing the evidence. Yes, they obviously decided before they convened. It doesn't explain how your elephant got into the room. It is necessary to remember that a man died in the incident and that his family ... But it's a pity they were persuaded to relive the incident by the CDF. Who says the CDF approached the family? Nobody. Good. Was there a point to your question? It was a response to a paragraph that you wrote. You have obviously forgotten. The CDF took the case to court. It is reasonable to assume that they assured the family something along the lines: "Leave i' wiv us, guv. We'll win it for ya. Stand on me". You stated that the family "were persuaded". You haven't a clue about the direction of approach. As for the CDF doing the running... There was a preliminary hearing the previous September when the decision was made to put the case in front of a jury. Mind, it's always possible that the parties involved (which can't have been one sided) in the decision saw the money on offer and decided it was a nice little job creation scheme. Everyone is entitled to have their part in an incident examined and considered (with a view to the possibility of legal proceedings) by an impartial and professional body whose objective is the public interest rather than sectional interest. “Given that the judge accepted that there was a case which the jury had to consider..." You seem to be trying to suggest that the CDF blundered ahead without taking professional advice. No. Without considering the evidence from an unbiased standpoint is how I would put it. You haven't a clue how it was considered. It is just as likely that juries are biased in driver vs. cyclist cases. Just read the comments from the CDF post-trial. They say they accept the jury's verdict. It was obvious that that was an untruth. They were slavering at the chops of a conviction of that innocent, acquitted, driver. Nugent telepathy again. I could - if I were silly enough, which I am not - run you off a list of well-known "professionals" whose independence and impartiality are notoriously non-existent. You can probably think of two or three of them immediately. So one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver has a case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the case and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have caused. If you think a case has legs, put your own money forward. What have you got to lose? It is for the parties to consider their options. But I would consider putting a tenner into a crowd-funding appeal for this wronged driver's civil case against the CDF. And that's about 250% more then the average of the donations to their case. Your maths is faulty. Mea culpa. I got the decimal point one position out, true. It doesn't change the logic of my position. Besides, I was expecting you to put your money where your mouth is and fund the whole amount. The word 'chicken' comes to mind. I am certainly not affluent enough to fund legal cases for third parties. I'm OK for money - I can't complain and don't complain - but I have other responsibilities in the short, medium and long term. Best not to. You would be bitter about losing. But you seem to have difficulty in understanding the meaning of the sentence: "...one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver has a case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the case and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have caused". What do you understand the meanings of "wonders" and "whether" to be? You're doing all the spitting about turpitude from the CDF and the unfairness done to some poor, hard done by motorist. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This is what cyclists waste tax payers' money on | James Wilkinson Sword[_4_] | UK | 123 | February 12th 17 10:08 PM |
Bees love cyclists | Bertie Wooster[_2_] | UK | 4 | May 22nd 14 01:39 PM |
Panhandlers Asking Cyclists for Money for Fuel | Bret Cahill[_2_] | UK | 0 | May 22nd 13 12:18 AM |
selfish cyclists cause businesses to lose money | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 19 | September 27th 10 04:06 PM |
Wow, some cyclists don't make much money... | Keith | Racing | 1 | February 2nd 10 09:51 PM |