On 04/10/2018 12:45, TMS320 wrote:

On 28/09/18 21:02, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2018 20:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/09/18 13:07, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2018 00:30, TMS320 wrote:

He went on to claim Briggs had been on her mobile phone. He
complained: “Everyone is quick to judge and help the so-called
victim but not the other person in the situation.
ENDQUOTE

The mobile phone fabrication was shown to be an absolute lie.

It depends on whether he pursued this, knowing it was false or
whether it was just a best assessment made in 3.8 seconds until shown
the evidence.

He was reported to have said it in his sworn or affirmed testimony in
court.

You accused him of lying. I expect he would have been asked to describe
the situation as he saw it.

He did not see the victim use her phone. We know that because she wasn't
using it - and it is trivially easy to check whether a phone has been
used at a particular time.

He didn't see her using it (she wasn't using it) so when he (at first)
said that she was using it, he was lying.

Which bit of that is too difficult for you to either understand or accept?

[ ... ]

Which one are we talking about? The coach driver or the cyclist?

For goodness' sake, don't be so thick. You raised the idea that the law
likes to test a new law in court. To follow on I asked you whether the
defendant would know about their involvement.

Possible answers are yes, no, don't know. If the answer is no, further
expansion would be useful.

What?

"The law" does not "like" to test itself. That was a preposterous thing
to say, even for you.

Defendants are soimetimes to plead NG in order that the correct
interpretation of a (new) law may be investigated by the court.

That is all.

I am not interested in the personality of criminals. As long as they
stay on the right side of the law, they can pretend to be as damaged
mentally as they like.

Would you like to have some of your previous posts dredged up?

Do as you like. I have nothing in particular against mentally-ill
people as long as they don't ride their bikes into other people.

Some of us have something against those that only ever travel by car but
try to be the "pedestrian's friend", constantly pointing their finger at
anybody using a bicycle. I think Doug used to be fond of the word
"hypocrite".

I am a pedestrian most of the time.

It is interesting that you, by implication at least, do not regard
yourself as a pedestrian and are readily prepared to take the side of
errant cyclists against pedestrian victims in all circumstances.