£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ion-cycling-uk

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.