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

Squashme wrote:
On 6 Oct, 08:30, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
the taxi drivers witness was out of the country, but the cyclist's
witnesses
turned up, the taxi driver (on his own) was not found to be credible.

http://road.cc/content/news/25146-lo...led-taxi-drive...

The report in the standard has a slightly different
slanthttp://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23884814-cyclist-is-cl...

the comments after it are telling: people are p@@@d off with
cyclists in
London.

75% of the comments support the cyclist.

Apparently the taxi-driver's witness was another taxi-driver and was
out of the country. What a coincidence.

Whats the betting the cyclists witness's were cyclists?


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

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:21:32 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

snip


The list of offences with which the perjurous cabbie can now be
charged should be sufficient to end his cab driving career for good,
and hopefully remove the risk he presents to the public entirely for a
reasonable time.

There's perjury of course, but as he attempted to collude with another
cabbie, that means conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as
well.
Then there's the original offences of dangerous driving, failure to
give insurance details to his victim, attempted murder (or at the very
least GBH), and I'm sure a few more.

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



I wonder if anyone will contact him with a copy of your libelous
statements above.



--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

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.

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.

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?

Tom Cwispin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 02:42:12 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On 6 Oct, 09:24, Squashme wrote:
On 6 Oct, 08:30, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

the taxi drivers witness was out of the country, but the cyclist's
witnesses
turned up, the taxi driver (on his own) was not found to be
credible.

http://road.cc/content/news/25146-lo...led-taxi-drive...

The report in the standard has a slightly different
slanthttp://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23884814-cyclist-is-cl...

the comments after it are telling: people are p@@@d off with
cyclists in
London.

And remember JNugent:-

"Something you are likely to hear at some time on any given morning
at your
local Mags' Court:

"I'm not guilty, guv, it was all the other bloke's fault, honest, on
my
granny's eyes".

"Someone out there must have seen something"?

Well, quite. That appears to be this chap's problem. Advertising on
the
internet for a "witness" is more likely to devalue his defence than
strengthen it. It's obvious.

Let's see who the court believes."

Well, well.

The scary thing is that they all can vote and sit on juries!

Do they let the mentally unsound sit on juries?

They let cyclists sit on juries, so obviously yes.


--
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:


Well, they should of course prosecute the taxi driver for attempted
murder and perjury.
I bet he didn't give his insurance details to the cyclist either, so
that's a hit & run he can be prosecuted for.
Unfortunately, the copper will probably only be subject to some
whitewash style of "disciplinary action", despite the fact that he
apparently deliberately tried to conceal evidence.

Tin foil hats on lads...


--
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:


I doubt it - I suspect that the missing "witness" was simply not
prepared to perjure himself on his colleagues behalf.

The list of offences with which the perjurous cabbie can now be
charged should be sufficient to end his cab driving career for good,
and hopefully remove the risk he presents to the public entirely for a
reasonable time.

There's perjury of course, but as he attempted to collude with another
cabbie, that means conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as
well.
Then there's the original offences of dangerous driving, failure to
give insurance details to his victim, attempted murder (or at the very
least GBH), and I'm sure a few more.

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

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

FFS you live in a world of your own.


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

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
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Wed, 6 Oct 2010
18:41:32 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:
Squashme considered Wed, 6 Oct 2010 03:03:41
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On 6 Oct, 10:56, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2010 09:24, Squashme wrote:



On 6 Oct, 08:30, wrote:
the taxi drivers witness was out of the country, but the
cyclist's witnesses
turned up, the taxi driver (on his own) was not found to be
credible.

http://road.cc/content/news/25146-lo...led-taxi-drive...

The report in the standard has a slightly different
slanthttp://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23884814-cyclist-is-cl...

the comments after it are telling: people are p@@@d off with
cyclists in
London.

And remember JNugent:-
"Something you are likely to hear at some time on any given
morning at your local Mags' Court:
"I'm not guilty, guv, it was all the other bloke's fault, honest,
on my granny's eyes".
"Someone out there must have seen something"?
Well, quite. That appears to be this chap's problem. Advertising
on the internet for a "witness" is more likely to devalue his
defence than strengthen it. It's obvious.
Let's see who the court believes."

Well, well.

Indeed. I am surprised - and not a little dismayed - by that
verdict.

Good.


Perhaps there's something the CPS can do about it. Let's hope so.

Well, they should of course prosecute the taxi driver for attempted
murder and perjury.
I bet he didn't give his insurance details to the cyclist either, so
that's a hit & run he can be prosecuted for.
Unfortunately, the copper will probably only be subject to some
whitewash style of "disciplinary action", despite the fact that he
apparently deliberately tried to conceal evidence.

Failing to adjourn a case when the only *known* witness is going
to be available (but not on that particular day*) and when the
"witnesses" for the other side have only been produced via a
public appeal seems like material for a setting-aside (igf that's
possible in a criminal case).

[*The quickest way to prevent witnesses coming forward in any case
would be to ban them from taking holidays until the case has been
heard.]

Perhaps this missing witness can be encouraged to stay in the
country if the taxi-driver is charged now.

Perhaps there's something the CPS can do about it. Let's hope so.

I hope the taxi was not damaged by being rammed by the cyclist, and
that the cyclist was insured against the bill for damages.

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.

The cab driver was not the one that was charged, and the result from this
case will not change that. Since it was not a private prosecution then any
damages (if any) due to the cyclist will come from the public purse, not the
taxi driver. Not being found to be a credible witness does not mean that he
has committed any offences, either now or in the past. The decision to
prosecute the cyclist was not taken by the taxi driver, but by the CPS. The
taxi driver will walk away from this scot free, and I doubt whether there
could have been any very serious damage from the collision, and he would
have been working either the same day or the next.

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.