Brutal driver walks

On 09/02/2016 02:56, Simon Jester wrote:

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:01:04 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

An obscenity of London cyclists.

I cannot imagine how sad it must be to live a life so full of hatred.
What traumatic event in your life made you like this?

You've clever never crossed the road in London, on a zebra crossing,
only to hear the plaintive cry of the approaching lesser-brained cycling
chav: "Get aht tha fackin' why"?

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:56:39 -0800 (PST), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:01:04 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

An obscenity of London cyclists.

I cannot imagine how sad it must be to live a life so full of hatred.
What traumatic event in your life made you like this?

I'm not sure what that makes our member for Hull who proposed "A
******* of drivers" and regularly calls people "scum".

On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 15:37:33 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:

It seems that the prosecution, in this case, have successfully proved that the registered keeper is refusing to give details of the driver.

It would appear not. The registered keeper is a company (who may have
sub let the vehicle through one or more intermediaries, but that has
no particular significance). The hire company last in the chain and
who were the registered keeper were almost certainly served with a
s172 RTA 1988 notice and correctly identified the hirer and that there
was one other authorised driver (the woman). The rental company would
have no way of knowing which of the two authorised drivers was
actually driving the car at the time of the incident.

Having been identified by the registered keeper the renter was
subsequently also served with a S172 notice, as was the other
potential driver, but neither responded. The man was prosecuted, as
he was the renter, for failure to provide the details of who was
driving. The woman was not as she would only be required to reply if
she was the driver - which cannot be proven.

The event did occur well over a year ago and despite Crispin and
others lurid and ill informed assertions there is no evidence it was
a deliberate attack or that there was any intent to harm, it may well
have been a moments inattention or distraction. Indeed neither renter
was ever charged with any moving motoring offense, much less assault.
They were charged only with failing to stop after an accident, failure
to report the accident and failure to comply with a S172 request. It
was only the last charge against the renter alone which went to court.

Peter Parry wrote:

The event did occur well over a year ago and despite Crispin and others
lurid and ill informed assertions there is no evidence it was a
deliberate attack or that there was any intent to harm, it may well have
been a moments inattention or distraction. Indeed neither renter was ever
charged with any moving motoring offense, much less assault. They were
charged only with failing to stop after an accident, failure to report
the accident and failure to comply with a S172 request. It was only the
last charge against the renter alone which went to court.

I love how you excuse what at the very least is an attempt to commit
grievous bodily harm under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861, and potentially the common law offence of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice.

Have you watched the video? I confess that I had not, as I'm quite
squeamish when it comes to attempts to maim and kill, but before responding
to you, I girded my loins and watched it. The Volvo quite clearly
accelerates towards the cyclist. He could only have been unaware of the
cyclist if he had been driving with his eyes closed, or was blind. Since
he negotiates the bend before accelerating, he wasn't blind and his eyes
were open.

Both of the persons involved are lying. The driver knows that he or she
was driving, and the other person knows that he or she was not driving. As
someone else pointed out, neither has claimed not to be the driver - they
have claimed that they don't know. They are lying, and the offence of
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is thus complete.

Maybe the CPS has used its budget on hounding innocent men who brush past
entitled feminazis in train stations, and has no more money left -
especially when the victim is 'just a cyclist'.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:51:58 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

You've clever never crossed the road in London, on a zebra crossing,
only to hear the plaintive cry of the approaching lesser-brained cycling
chav: "Get aht tha fackin' why"?

No - and it is something I do on an almost daily basis.

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:37:38 +0000, John Smith
wrote:

I love how you excuse what at the very least is an attempt to commit
grievous bodily harm under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861, and potentially the common law offence of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice.
[snip]
Both of the persons involved are lying. The driver knows that he or she
was driving, and the other person knows that he or she was not driving. As
someone else pointed out, neither has claimed not to be the driver - they
have claimed that they don't know. They are lying, and the offence of
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is thus complete.

The CPS obviously lack your legal expertise as it seems that at no
time did they or the police attempt to charge either of the two
possible offenders with anything other than leaving the scene of an
accident and failing to report the accident (both maximum sentence 6
months in jail but usually a fine). This seems odd given your legal
opinion that charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
and attempted causing GBH ( both carrying potential life sentences)
have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. You obviously have access
to the court report as well as there is no public evidence either was
lying - they could equally well have simply declined to say anything.

Tom Crispin
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:51:58 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

You've clever never crossed the road in London, on a zebra crossing,
only to hear the plaintive cry of the approaching lesser-brained cycling
chav: "Get aht tha fackin' why"?

No - and it is something I do on an almost daily basis.

Interestingly enough, on my last trip to London, I _did_ get to hear the
'plaintive cry' of 'get aht tha fackin' why!'.

Unfortunately for thicko, the sound came from the mouth of the driver of a
white, long wheelbase Transit van who was revving his engine to cause
pedestrians to jump out of the way on a zebra crossing.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:37:38 +0000, John Smith
wrote:

I love how you excuse what at the very least is an attempt to commit
grievous bodily harm under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861, and potentially the common law offence of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice.
[snip]
Both of the persons involved are lying. The driver knows that he or she
was driving, and the other person knows that he or she was not driving.
As someone else pointed out, neither has claimed not to be the driver -
they have claimed that they don't know. They are lying, and the offence
of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is thus complete.

The CPS obviously lack your legal expertise as it seems that at no time
did they or the police attempt to charge either of the two possible
offenders with anything other than leaving the scene of an accident and
failing to report the accident (both maximum sentence 6 months in jail
but usually a fine).

Just as you seem to lack the brainpower to comprehend that the CPS often
make 'political' decisions on whether or not to prosecute. Just as Mark
Pearson. Right now, in Britain in 2016, cyclists are perceived by a large
proportion of the population as 'subhuman'. It is thus not in any way
surprising that neither the police nor the CPS broke sweat in their
efforts to find the drivers and prosecute.

This seems odd given your legal opinion that charges of conspiracy to
pervert the course of justice and attempted causing GBH ( both carrying
potential life sentences) have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On 09/02/2016 13:12, John Smith wrote:

...Right now, in Britain in 2016, cyclists are perceived by a large
proportion of the population as 'subhuman'. ...

Interesting.

If true (and many will be far from convinced on that), whose fault would
you say this alleged perception is?

Here, I've modified the exchange for you...

JNugent wrote

On 09/02/2016 13:12, John Smith wrote:

...Right now, in Europe in 1933, Jews are perceived by a large
proportion of the population as 'subhuman'. ...

Interesting.

If true (and many will be far from convinced on that), whose fault would
you say this alleged perception is?

Would you care to have another go? I'm sure you could manage to sound a
bit more bigoted with some effort.

(or you could do what you always do when caught out, and try to wriggle
your way out by accusing your interlocutor of 'misrepresenting')

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))