On 28/09/2018 20:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/09/18 13:07, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2018 00:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/18 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2018 20:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/09/18 16:52, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2018 08:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 23:53, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 19:10, TMS320 wrote:


Alliston didn't express any remorse or sorrow. He even protested his
own "innocence" and thw victim's "guilt" on the internet.

I have no idea what he said on the internet (do you know his precise
words?)

You could easily have Googled it for yourself, but hey ho...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston-killed-pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told


QUOTE:
Charlie Alliston ... was said to be going nearly 20mph when he mowed
down Kim Briggs as she crossed Old Street, east London, on 12 February
last year. ... Alliston was riding a “fixie”, a fixed-gear track
bicycle with no front brake, which is not legal on the road ... He
allegedly shouted at Briggs to “get out of the way” twice before their
heads smashed together. Briggs suffered brain injuries including two
skull fractures and died a week later.

After seeing a newspaper report about the incident, Alliston posted a
comment online claiming he tried to warn her but she had “ignored” him
and “stopped dead” in his path.

He wrote: “I feel bad due to the seriousness of her injuries but I can
put my hand up and say this is not my fault.”

On an internet forum, he described how their heads collided and hers
“ricocheted” into his. He wrote: “It is a pretty serious incident so I
won’t bother saying she deserved it. It was her fault ...".

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.

Apart from that, the only problem is saying a victim "deserves" it. But
then, it is not an uncommon for motorists to say this.

I hope this helps you.

In other words your earlier post was the result of the usual Nugent
mangling.

Whatever you mean by that.

BTW: You started on about the Alliston case. I only mentioned it in passing.

but it is worth a reminder that the victim created the conditions
that demanded avoiding action. In normal circumstances, that wouldn't
require remorse.

I don't agree at all with that remark. But either way, Alliston showed
no remorse. He blamed the victim for his offences.

I very much doubt he blamed her for making him use a bike without a
front brake.

He didn't even accept that that was an offence.

Grovelling does not require prostration. It is an adequate word for
the purpose.

But not for the expression of remorse.

So you prefer the word legal people use. Whatever. A road traffic
collision is caused by behaviour before the collision, so it is hard
to see how behaviour afterwards should have any bearing on the case.

It speaks to the attitude of the cyclist towards other people, of course.

Yes, it helps to fuel your prejudice.

They're his words.

What do they tell you about him? Nothing at all?

Oh, and about your suggestion that they might have wanted to test the
law. If so, do you think they would have told the defendant what
their game was? Plead guilty and get it over with; plead not guilty
and sit through the whole trial go through cross-examination.

Testing the meaning and interpretation of new law (whether criminal or
administrative law) is par for the course. You know that.

I asked for your opinion on whether the defendant would have gone
through it voluntarily.

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

I thought the courts were supposed to punish actions not
opinions.

The judge ran perilously close to judging the driver's opinions i
the reported remarks. It was his carelessness (or otherwise)
within the meaning of the law which was at issue.

You're not agreeing with me. Let's hope the judge in Charlie
Alliston's case was more concerned about technical (as in science)
matters than you obsess about his personality.

The central focus in the Alliston trial was the innocent victim. That
and his deliberately dangerous behaviour (despite his assuarances to
the court that it wasn't dangerous at all to cycle without brakes).

Greasing up and slipping into reporting mode doesn't change your long
stated obsession about his personality.

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.