Oxford St.Cyclist V. cabbie in court, the final result

On 7 Oct, 18:21, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:44:14 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:
*Phil W Lee wrote:

The CPS should be at least as enthusiastic about pursuing these
charges as they were about the trumped up original ones.

*why? *they looked at the facts and *decided who to prosecute and
for what,

They looked into the facts made available to them, which have been
shown to be an incomplete set due to a police officer concealing
the existence of a witness who had made contemporaneous notes of the
incident and tried to report that to the police.

That's a good reason for them to review the facts now available and
possibly reach a different decision about who to prosecute for what.

regards, * Ian SMith

if that actually happened, I have always found that police are very keen on
taking witness details, the reams of notes supposedly made may have been
made up long after the event, after all the cyclist is a writer of some
sort, so convincing prose may be right up his street.

Just read, you idiot:-

Tuesday, 5 October 2010
NOT GUILTY!

On Wednesday the 29th September 2010, at the end of what felt like one
of the longest days, and years, of my life, I was found not guilty of
the charge brought against me by the CPS.

When originally charged at the police station, I was informed there
wasn’t any CCTV footage of the incident and also that my witness was a
“figment of my imagination.” A grim few days followed and then this
unfolded:

I contacted www.londoncyclist.co.uk and asked if they would tweet a
witness appeal out to the masses. They subsequently fired my story out
to thousands of followers. Thanks to many wonderful souls the story
quickly went viral in only a few hours. One of those who read the
story was Ross Lydall, Chief News Correspondent at the Evening
Standard (@rosslydall).

Ross got in touch and an article was soon published in the Evening
Standard. To my amazement, the “figment of my imagination” read that
article and contacted me. Not just that, but another witness also read
the article and came forward. Both of them witnessed my argument with
the taxi driver and saw the taxi driver grab me by my scarf and
violently strangle me unconscious.

My witness testified that on three separate occasions he attempted to
explain and give his details to the arresting officer but was
dismissed each time. This same arresting officer assured me, in his
squad car and later at the police station, that he had taken the
details of that witness.

Two months later, when that same officer informed me I was being
charged for assault, I was horrified to discover the police had no
record at all of my witness. My arresting officer denied that he had
ever spoken to me about the witness and then suggested the witness was
a figment of my imagination.

Not only did that witness exist, but he was so moved by what he had
experienced that he wrote detailed notes of the whole incident and the
following day went to his local police station to report his grievance
and put himself forward as a witness.

For whatever reason, that police station did not forward those details
onto the investigation. Thankfully their inaction didn’t prove costly,
and his damning evidence and testimony were crucial in proving my
innocence. As was the other witness, an Oxford Street shop manager,
returning to work at the time, who saw the whole incident. I cannot
thank them both enough.

Although obviously a huge personal victory for me, it’s also a
wonderful illustration of the phenomenal power of social networking as
a tool to empower those of us who don’t have a voice against
authority. This simply could not have happened a few years ago. There
are now, more than ever, fewer places for the bad people to hide.

Thank you, The Twitter, and huge thanks to all of you who helped share
the love.

Jared


Posted by Desperate Cyclist at 06:57

Phil W Lee wrote:


Given that the court has found the cyclist guiltless, any attempt to
waste anyone's time defending a claim for damages by the cyclist is
likely to be viewed extremely unfavourably.

Of course, the damages available to the cyclist now extend
considerably beyond those due to the original dangerous diving, and I
would expect the total to include a considerable sum for the stress
and inconvenience caused by the false allegations and defamation by
the cab driving scrote.

What dangerous driving was that ****wit? The cad driver hasn't been charged
or convicted of DD.


And I really do hope that the taxi was BADLY damaged, since it's not
allowed to work in that state, and since the police failed in their
duty to take such a dangerous driver off the road, the damage is the
next best thing.

It is certain that the scrote no longer fulfils the necessary
requirements for holding a hackney licence (being of "good
character"), so it must necessarily be withdrawn.

He is entirely innocent. No charges have been made against him.

Since the character is unlikely to have changed since he got the
licence (it is only that there was no evidence for his lack of good
character before now), it brings into question the legality of his
having ever held the licence, and therefore the validity of any
insurance he had.

There should be enough offences in there to keep the scrote off the
road for good.

Only on a strange planet like yours.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

Phil W Lee wrote:


No, they didn't look at the facts - these were only revealed by the
witnesses that the police tried to hide.

They didn't try to hide anything ****wit. The cyclist strangely couldn't
find any witnesses for several months - despite being in the middle of
Londond busiest shopping street covered by comprehensive CCTV

I would expect them to be outraged by such a conspiracy, and to take
appropriate action against the perpetrators.

You would. You are an idiot.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

Squashme wrote:
On 7 Oct, 18:21, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:44:14 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:

The CPS should be at least as enthusiastic about pursuing these
charges as they were about the trumped up original ones.

why? they looked at the facts and decided who to prosecute and
for what,

They looked into the facts made available to them, which have been
shown to be an incomplete set due to a police officer concealing
the existence of a witness who had made contemporaneous notes of the
incident and tried to report that to the police.

That's a good reason for them to review the facts now available and
possibly reach a different decision about who to prosecute for what.

regards, Ian SMith

if that actually happened, I have always found that police are very
keen on taking witness details, the reams of notes supposedly made
may have been made up long after the event, after all the cyclist is
a writer of some sort, so convincing prose may be right up his
street.

Just read, you idiot:-

Tuesday, 5 October 2010
NOT GUILTY!

On Wednesday the 29th September 2010, at the end of what felt like one
of the longest days, and years, of my life, I was found not guilty of
the charge brought against me by the CPS.

When originally charged at the police station, I was informed there
wasn’t any CCTV footage of the incident and also that my witness was a
“figment of my imagination.” A grim few days followed and then this
unfolded:

I contacted www.londoncyclist.co.uk and asked if they would tweet a
witness appeal out to the masses. They subsequently fired my story out
to thousands of followers. Thanks to many wonderful souls the story
quickly went viral in only a few hours. One of those who read the
story was Ross Lydall, Chief News Correspondent at the Evening
Standard (@rosslydall).

Ross got in touch and an article was soon published in the Evening
Standard. To my amazement, the “figment of my imagination” read that
article and contacted me. Not just that, but another witness also read
the article and came forward. Both of them witnessed my argument with
the taxi driver and saw the taxi driver grab me by my scarf and
violently strangle me unconscious.

My witness testified that on three separate occasions he attempted to
explain and give his details to the arresting officer but was
dismissed each time. This same arresting officer assured me, in his
squad car and later at the police station, that he had taken the
details of that witness.

Two months later, when that same officer informed me I was being
charged for assault, I was horrified to discover the police had no
record at all of my witness. My arresting officer denied that he had
ever spoken to me about the witness and then suggested the witness was
a figment of my imagination.

Not only did that witness exist, but he was so moved by what he had
experienced that he wrote detailed notes of the whole incident and the
following day went to his local police station to report his grievance
and put himself forward as a witness.

For whatever reason, that police station did not forward those details
onto the investigation. Thankfully their inaction didn’t prove costly,
and his damning evidence and testimony were crucial in proving my
innocence. As was the other witness, an Oxford Street shop manager,
returning to work at the time, who saw the whole incident. I cannot
thank them both enough.

Although obviously a huge personal victory for me, it’s also a
wonderful illustration of the phenomenal power of social networking as
a tool to empower those of us who don’t have a voice against
authority. This simply could not have happened a few years ago. There
are now, more than ever, fewer places for the bad people to hide.

Thank you, The Twitter, and huge thanks to all of you who helped share
the love.

Jared


Posted by Desperate Cyclist at 06:57

well, because the defendant says it, it must all be true. Or not.

Squashme wrote:


Although obviously a huge personal victory for me, it’s also a
wonderful illustration of the phenomenal power of social networking as
a tool to empower those of us who don’t have a voice against
authority. This simply could not have happened a few years ago. There
are now, more than ever, fewer places for the bad people to hide.

Thank you, The Twitter, and huge thanks to all of you who helped share
the love.

So the ****wit used every possible way to drum up witneses and finally, due
to a massive wankcry, came up with a couple of ****s who probably commited
perjury.

"Share the love". What a ****ing ****.

The only critisism of the cab driver is that he didn't strangle the ****
properly (alledgedly).


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

On Oct 8, 11:15*pm, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Squashme wrote:

Although obviously a huge personal victory for me, it’s also a
wonderful illustration of the phenomenal power of social networking as
a tool to empower those of us who don’t have a voice against
authority. This simply could not have happened a few years ago. There
are now, more than ever, fewer places for the bad people to hide.

Thank you, The Twitter, and huge thanks to all of you who helped share
the love.

So the ****wit used every possible way to drum up witneses and finally, due
to a massive wankcry, *came up with a couple of ****s who probably commited
perjury.

Funny how you can say that but the police and CPS don't.

Unlike the the taxi-driver's witness (no name) who went away.

The cyclist's witness did not appear much later. He was there all the
time. He put in his statement at the time, not later.

"My arresting officer denied that he had
ever spoken to me about the witness and then suggested the witness was
a figment of my imagination.

Not only did that witness exist, but he was so moved by what he had
experienced that he wrote detailed notes of the whole incident and the
following day went to his local police station to report his grievance
and put himself forward as a witness.

For whatever reason, that police station did not forward those details
onto the investigation."

You are intentionally blind.


"Share the love". *What a ****ing ****.


Agree

On Oct 8, 9:29*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 7 Oct, 18:21, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:44:14 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:

The CPS should be at least as enthusiastic about pursuing these
charges as they were about the trumped up original ones.

why? they looked at the facts and decided who to prosecute and
for what,

They looked into the facts made available to them, which have been
shown to be an incomplete set due to a police officer concealing
the existence of a witness who had made contemporaneous notes of the
incident and tried to report that to the police.

That's a good reason for them to review the facts now available and
possibly reach a different decision about who to prosecute for what.

regards, Ian SMith

if that actually happened, I have always found that police are very
keen on taking witness details, the reams of notes supposedly made
may have been made up long after the event, after all the cyclist is
a writer of some sort, so convincing prose may be right up his
street.

Just read, you idiot:-

Tuesday, 5 October 2010
NOT GUILTY!

On Wednesday the 29th September 2010, at the end of what felt like one
of the longest days, and years, of my life, I was found not guilty of
the charge brought against me by the CPS.

When originally charged at the police station, I was informed there
wasn’t any CCTV footage of the incident and also that my witness was a
“figment of my imagination.” A grim few days followed and then this
unfolded:

I contactedwww.londoncyclist.co.ukand asked if they would tweet a
witness appeal out to the masses. They subsequently fired my story out
to thousands of followers. Thanks to many wonderful souls the story
quickly went viral in only a few hours. One of those who read the
story was Ross Lydall, Chief News Correspondent at the Evening
Standard (@rosslydall).

Ross got in touch and an article was soon published in the Evening
Standard. To my amazement, the “figment of my imagination” read that
article and contacted me. Not just that, but another witness also read
the article and came forward. Both of them witnessed my argument with
the taxi driver and saw the taxi driver grab me by my scarf and
violently strangle me unconscious.

My witness testified that on three separate occasions he attempted to
explain and give his details to the arresting officer but was
dismissed each time. This same arresting officer assured me, in his
squad car and later at the police station, that he had taken the
details of that witness.

Two months later, when that same officer informed me I was being
charged for assault, I was horrified to discover the police had no
record at all of my witness. My arresting officer denied that he had
ever spoken to me about the witness and then suggested the witness was
a figment of my imagination.

Not only did that witness exist, but he was so moved by what he had
experienced that he wrote detailed notes of the whole incident and the
following day went to his local police station to report his grievance
and put himself forward as a witness.

For whatever reason, that police station did not forward those details
onto the investigation. Thankfully their inaction didn’t prove costly,
and his damning evidence and testimony were crucial in proving my
innocence. As was the other witness, an Oxford Street shop manager,
returning to work at the time, who saw the whole incident. I cannot
thank them both enough.

Although obviously a huge personal victory for me, it’s also a
wonderful illustration of the phenomenal power of social networking as
a tool to empower those of us who don’t have a voice against
authority. This simply could not have happened a few years ago. There
are now, more than ever, fewer places for the bad people to hide.

Thank you, The Twitter, and huge thanks to all of you who helped share
the love.

Jared

Posted by Desperate Cyclist at 06:57

well, because the defendant says it, it must all be true. *Or not.

Weak.

On Oct 7, 7:51*pm, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:

No, they didn't look at the facts - these were only revealed by the
witnesses that the police tried to hide.

They didn't try to hide anything ****wit. *The cyclist strangely couldn't
find any witnesses for several months - despite being in the middle of
Londond busiest shopping street covered by comprehensive CCTV

Read. There was a witness. The police lost him.


I would expect them to be outraged by such a conspiracy, and to take
appropriate action against the perpetrators.

You would. *You are an idiot.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

On 07/10/2010 16:24, Phil W Lee wrote:

[ ... ]

Given that the court has found the cyclist guiltless, any attempt to
waste anyone's time defending a claim for damages by the cyclist is
likely to be viewed extremely unfavourably.
Of course, the damages available to the cyclist now extend
considerably beyond those due to the original dangerous diving, and I
would expect the total to include a considerable sum for the stress
and inconvenience caused by the false allegations and defamation by
the cab driving scrote.

And I really do hope that the taxi was BADLY damaged, since it's not
allowed to work in that state, and since the police failed in their
duty to take such a dangerous driver off the road, the damage is the
next best thing.

It is certain that the scrote no longer fulfils the necessary
requirements for holding a hackney licence (being of "good
character"), so it must necessarily be withdrawn.

Since the character is unlikely to have changed since he got the
licence (it is only that there was no evidence for his lack of good
character before now), it brings into question the legality of his
having ever held the licence, and therefore the validity of any
insurance he had.

There should be enough offences in there to keep the scrote off the
road for good.

What a rant. And so hilariously wrong on almost every "point".

On 07/10/2010 00:49, Clive George wrote:

On 06/10/2010 23:35, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:25, Clive George wrote:
On 06/10/2010 17:15, JNugent wrote:

Do you think it - in general - a "good" thing that appeals for
"witnesses" can be made on the internet, especially on sites and in
forums where persons sympathetic to a defendant can be found?

What a bizarre question.

You don't want to answer it.
Probably wise not to.

The answer is yes, it is a good thing, since to prevent it would be an
unwarranted restriction on personal freedoms.

Because of course, everybody should be free to "seek" (after the event)
"witnesses" who mysteriously could not be idenified at the scene of an
incident, shouldn't they?

Now, about the bit you snipped :

I do hope you're not implying through your use of scare quotes that
the witnesses in this case weren't actually there. Is anybody
claiming that the witnesses in that case were anything but
truthful?

You don't want to answer that one?

I find the whole process exceptionally suspicious.

Don't you?

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that the way that
"witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to sympathetic individuals
on the internet) should have to be declared to the court by the party calling
them, *and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court - as to
why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making a statement
to the police in the normal way).