On 18/01/18 23:49, JNugent wrote:
On 18/01/2018 23:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/01/18 15:19, JNugent wrote:
On 17/01/2018 09:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/01/18 17:29, MrCheerful wrote:
Abuse, physical assault, crminal damage and threatening to wound.
Why no charges??

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...rnemouth_Road/


"The driver of a black Honda CRV – a local woman aged in her 40s –
challenged a female cyclist who she believed was about to go through
a red traffic light."

A vigilante, huh? Was it a verbal challenge, illegal use of the horn
or a threat with a lethal weapon?

Reading it, it sounds much more like a criminal on a bike versus a
law-abiding victim, doesn't it?

It says of the driver "believed [the person on the bicycle] was about
to go through a red traffic light".

An attempt at telepathy. Was it you?

"It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the woman,
kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror from the
vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it shut."

A description of the bike coming from behind, legally using the space,
and the driver deciding it was a good idea to squeeze it against the
kerb.

Do you approve of the criminal cyclist's actions?

No charges have been brought so there is no chance of it going to
court to prove criminal action. I thought you held that principle in
high regard.

Don't dissemble (break that longstanding habit of yours).

Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions?

What criminal actions?

Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no
wrong?

I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong".

When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to argue
then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of the
bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made.