A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cycle box death judge gets it right for once



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 23rd 18, 07:10 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,377
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 23/09/18 17:23, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 16:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 11:23, wrote:
Road.cc highlights a very salient piece of CCTV evidence in its
piece.

https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman


"Northcott’s barrister, Harry Bentley, said the coach driver was
"desperately sorry" for Roman's death “and at times he has
considered ending his own life because of it.""

It's necessary to wonder how much his sentence was reduced by this
grovelling. (Compared to 18 months for Charlie Alliston for not
grovelling - and the court seeming to accept that it was the victim
that hadn't paid attention.)


Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity (that is, once the
charges and evidence have been made available and the strength of the
prosecution case thereby known) and saving the Crown the expense of
a trial is always taken into account as a mitigating factor.

When did Alliston plead guilty?


By any chance do you put posts you read through an English to Scouse
translator, compose your replies in Scouse and translate them back to
English before posting? If you came clean it would explain a great deal.

a) The question I raised was about grovelling, not about admission of
guilt.
b) The coach driver pleaded not guilty but was found guilty by a jury.
Accord'n ter de Daily Mail.

Ads
  #22  
Old September 23rd 18, 09:15 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 370
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 7:11:00 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

b) The coach driver pleaded not guilty but was found guilty by a jury.
Accord'n ter de Daily Mail.


Let's put that straight now, shall we?

QUOTE:

The coach driver who killed London cyclist Karla Roman when he turned left across her path has been jailed for 15 months for causing her death by careless driving, reports the London Evening Standard (link is external).

The court heard that Barry Northcott, who ***denied the charges*** (EMPHASIS MINE), only learnt that he had run her over when a passenger told him what had happened.

https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman
  #23  
Old September 23rd 18, 11:53 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 246
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 23/09/2018 19:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 17:23, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 16:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 11:23, wrote:
Road.cc highlights a very salient piece of CCTV evidence in its piece.

https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman



"Northcott’s barrister, Harry Bentley, said the coach driver was
"desperately sorry" for Roman's death “and at times he has
considered ending his own life because of it.""

It's necessary to wonder how much his sentence was reduced by this
*grovelling. (Compared to 18 months for Charlie Alliston for not
grovelling - and the court seeming to accept that it was the victim
*that hadn't paid attention.)


Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity (that is, once the
charges and evidence have been made available and the strength of the
*prosecution case thereby known) and saving the Crown the expense of
a trial is always taken into account as a mitigating factor.

When did Alliston plead guilty?


By any chance do you put posts you read through an English to Scouse
translator, compose your replies in Scouse and translate them back to
English before posting? If you came clean it would explain a great deal.

a) The question I raised was about grovelling, not about admission of
guilt.


The "grovelling" you referred to was as effective an admission of guilt
(in the form of a fairly extreme expression of remorse as well as an
admission that he broke the rules on stop lines at traffic lights) as
anyone could wish for, and certainly not designed as an effective line
of defence.

But did you think the driver literally prostrated himself in court, with
his arms outstretched begging for mercy?

b) The coach driver pleaded not guilty but was found guilty by a jury.
Accord'n ter de Daily Mail.


After he had effectively admitted the offence in his own evidence.

By way of contrast, the "young gentleman" on the brakeless bike blamed
the victim and completely exonerated himself, praising his own skills to
the skies and contrasting them sharply with the lack of skill on the
part of the woman he killed.

There's the difference, even if you don't want, and will refuse, to see
and acknowledge it (which I confidently predict).
  #24  
Old September 23rd 18, 11:56 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 246
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 23/09/2018 18:48, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 16:44, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 11:23:38 AM UTC+1,
wrote:
Road.cc highlights a very salient piece of CCTV evidence in its
piece. QUOTE:
"CCTV footage revealed that Northcott ***illegally*** (emphasis
mine+) entered an advanced stop line - also known as a 'bike box' -
at a junction. When interviewed by police, he admitted that he did
this regularly to avoid being "swarmed by cyclists." END QUOTE. +
"Illegally" entering the ASL would, of course, mean that he was
caught on CCTV driving into the box while the traffic light was at
STOP or red as practically any other situation would be legal. He even
ADMITTED regularly driving into the ASLs illegally, in
court under oath!
https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman

Motorists are not very bright.
There was a case where a Taxi driver admitted to swerving at a
cyclist. In his defence he said "I only meant to scare him".
Fortunately the jury recognised that deliberately driving a motor
vehicle at a primary road user was an admission of guilt and found
him guilty of Death by Dangerous Driving.


You failed all your attempts at the driving test, then?



Jester is a well known pillock and is not worthy of a reply.


He's obviously not bright enough to have become a "motorist", or to
realise that if he had, he would be describing himself as "not very bright".


  #25  
Old September 24th 18, 12:00 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,867
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 6:48:05 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 16:44, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 11:23:38 AM UTC+1,
wrote:
Road.cc highlights a very salient piece of CCTV evidence in its
piece. QUOTE:
"CCTV footage revealed that Northcott ***illegally*** (emphasis
mine+) entered an advanced stop line - also known as a 'bike box' -
at a junction. When interviewed by police, he admitted that he did
this regularly to avoid being "swarmed by cyclists." END QUOTE. +
"Illegally" entering the ASL would, of course, mean that he was
caught on CCTV driving into the box while the traffic light was at
STOP or red as practically any other situation would be legal. He even
ADMITTED regularly driving into the ASLs illegally, in
court under oath!
https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman

Motorists are not very bright.
There was a case where a Taxi driver admitted to swerving at a
cyclist. In his defence he said "I only meant to scare him".
Fortunately the jury recognised that deliberately driving a motor
vehicle at a primary road user was an admission of guilt and found
him guilty of Death by Dangerous Driving.


You failed all your attempts at the driving test, then?



Jester is a well known pillock and is not worthy of a reply.


At least I can find comfort in the fact that I am not you.
Is this you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1R13Kwy57U


  #26  
Old September 24th 18, 08:54 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,377
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 23/09/18 23:53, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 19:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 17:23, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 16:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 11:23, wrote:
Road.cc highlights a very salient piece of CCTV evidence in its piece.

https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman


"Northcott’s barrister, Harry Bentley, said the coach driver was
"desperately sorry" for Roman's death “and at times he has
considered ending his own life because of it.""

It's necessary to wonder how much his sentence was reduced by this
*grovelling. (Compared to 18 months for Charlie Alliston for not
grovelling - and the court seeming to accept that it was the victim
*that hadn't paid attention.)

Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity (that is, once the
charges and evidence have been made available and the strength of the
*prosecution case thereby known) and saving the Crown the expense of
a trial is always taken into account as a mitigating factor.

When did Alliston plead guilty?


By any chance do you put posts you read through an English to Scouse
translator, compose your replies in Scouse and translate them back to
English before posting? If you came clean it would explain a great deal.

a) The question I raised was about grovelling, not about admission of
guilt.


The "grovelling" you referred to was as effective an admission of guilt
(in the form of a fairly extreme expression of remorse as well as an
admission that he broke the rules on stop lines at traffic lights) as
anyone could wish for, and certainly not designed as an effective line
of defence.

But did you think the driver literally prostrated himself in court, with
his arms outstretched begging for mercy?


Why would I?

b) The coach driver pleaded not guilty but was found guilty by a jury.
Accord'n ter de Daily Mail.


After he had effectively admitted the offence in his own evidence.


I assume it was through cross-examination. If there is anything to
"admit", is not possible for a defendant to simply change plea during
the proceedings?

(And how come his legal team failed to anticipate the prosecution line
of questioning? Do they lose their fee?)

By way of contrast, the "young gentleman" on the brakeless bike blamed
the victim and completely exonerated himself, praising his own skills to
the skies and contrasting them sharply with the lack of skill on the
part of the woman he killed.


Some part says he was probably right. Although your precis is bound to
be as accurate as the way you always reply to a poster with a question
using an unrelated collection of words.

There's the difference, even if you don't want, and will refuse, to see
and acknowledge it (which I confidently predict).


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

  #27  
Old September 24th 18, 04:52 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 246
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 24/09/2018 08:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 23:53, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 19:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 17:23, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 16:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 11:23, wrote:
Road.cc highlights a very salient piece of CCTV evidence in its
piece.

https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman


"Northcott’s barrister, Harry Bentley, said the coach driver was
"desperately sorry" for Roman's death “and at times he has
considered ending his own life because of it.""

It's necessary to wonder how much his sentence was reduced by this
*grovelling. (Compared to 18 months for Charlie Alliston for not
grovelling - and the court seeming to accept that it was the victim
*that hadn't paid attention.)

Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity (that is, once the
charges and evidence have been made available and the strength of the
*prosecution case thereby known) and saving the Crown the expense of
a trial is always taken into account as a mitigating factor.

When did Alliston plead guilty?

By any chance do you put posts you read through an English to Scouse
translator, compose your replies in Scouse and translate them back to
English before posting? If you came clean it would explain a great deal.

a) The question I raised was about grovelling, not about admission of
guilt.


The "grovelling" you referred to was as effective an admission of
guilt (in the form of a fairly extreme expression of remorse as well
as an admission that he broke the rules on stop lines at traffic
lights) as anyone could wish for, and certainly not designed as an
effective line of defence.

But did you think the driver literally prostrated himself in court,
with his arms outstretched begging for mercy?


Why would I?


Because you used the word "grovelling" as opposed to "expressing
remorse" (which is not "grovelling").

Who knows... you might have had more evidence than was reported.

b) The coach driver pleaded not guilty but was found guilty by a jury.
Accord'n ter de Daily Mail.


After he had effectively admitted the offence in his own evidence.


I assume it was through cross-examination. If there is anything to
"admit", is not possible for a defendant to simply change plea during
the proceedings?


Some offences are obvious and the defendant knows whether he is guilty
(eg, burglary, assault, murder, cycling along a footway). Others (such
as "causing death by careless driving" are not so obvious or
well-defined and it in the interest of a defendant to at least allow the
prosecution to prove the facts and how the law applies to them.

This is particularly so with relatively new offences whose meaning is
not something with which all members of the public are familiar. The
inportant thing is to give truthful evidence and not to behave in court
like the accused rider of a defective bicycle.

(And how come his legal team failed to anticipate the prosecution line
of questioning? Do they lose their fee?)


I doubt they did fail to anticipate it. They may well have advised the
NG plea and letting the Crown establish a case under relatively new and
uncharted law.

By way of contrast, the "young gentleman" on the brakeless bike blamed
the victim and completely exonerated himself, praising his own skills
to the skies and contrasting them sharply with the lack of skill on
the part of the woman he killed.


Some part says he was probably right.


Are you such a part?

Although your precis is bound to
be as accurate as the way you always reply to a poster with a question
using an unrelated collection of words.

There's the difference, even if you don't want, and will refuse, to
see and acknowledge it (which I confidently predict).


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.
  #28  
Old September 24th 18, 08:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,377
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

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:
On 23/09/18 17:23, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 16:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 11:23, wrote:
Road.cc highlights a very salient piece of CCTV evidence in its
piece.

https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman


"Northcott’s barrister, Harry Bentley, said the coach driver was
"desperately sorry" for Roman's death “and at times he has
considered ending his own life because of it.""

It's necessary to wonder how much his sentence was reduced by this
*grovelling. (Compared to 18 months for Charlie Alliston for not
grovelling - and the court seeming to accept that it was the victim
*that hadn't paid attention.)

Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity (that is, once the
charges and evidence have been made available and the strength of the
*prosecution case thereby known) and saving the Crown the expense of
a trial is always taken into account as a mitigating factor.

When did Alliston plead guilty?

By any chance do you put posts you read through an English to Scouse
translator, compose your replies in Scouse and translate them back
to English before posting? If you came clean it would explain a
great deal.

a) The question I raised was about grovelling, not about admission of
guilt.

The "grovelling" you referred to was as effective an admission of
guilt (in the form of a fairly extreme expression of remorse as well
as an admission that he broke the rules on stop lines at traffic
lights) as anyone could wish for, and certainly not designed as an
effective line of defence.

But did you think the driver literally prostrated himself in court,
with his arms outstretched begging for mercy?


Why would I?


Because you used the word "grovelling" as opposed to "expressing
remorse" (which is not "grovelling").


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

Who knows... you might have had more evidence than was reported.

b) The coach driver pleaded not guilty but was found guilty by a jury.
Accord'n ter de Daily Mail.

After he had effectively admitted the offence in his own evidence.


I assume it was through cross-examination. If there is anything to
"admit", is not possible for a defendant to simply change plea during
the proceedings?


Some offences are obvious and the defendant knows whether he is guilty
(eg, burglary, assault, murder, cycling along a footway). Others (such
as "causing death by careless driving" are not so obvious or
well-defined and it in the interest of a defendant to at least allow the
prosecution to prove the facts and how the law applies to them.

This is particularly so with relatively new offences whose meaning is
not something with which all members of the public are familiar. The
inportant thing is to give truthful evidence and not to behave in court
like the accused rider of a defective bicycle.

(And how come his legal team failed to anticipate the prosecution line
of questioning? Do they lose their fee?)


I doubt they did fail to anticipate it. They may well have advised the
NG plea and letting the Crown establish a case under relatively new and
uncharted law.


If running someone over that was visible ahead for 16 seconds isn't a
clear case of dangerous driving then the law needs more than a bit of
testing.

By way of contrast, the "young gentleman" on the brakeless bike
blamed the victim and completely exonerated himself, praising his own
skills to the skies and contrasting them sharply with the lack of
skill on the part of the woman he killed.


Some part says he was probably right.


Are you such a part?


Yes.
Although your precis is bound to be as accurate as the way you always
reply to a poster with a question using an unrelated collection of words.

There's the difference, even if you don't want, and will refuse, to
see and acknowledge it (which I confidently predict).


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.

  #29  
Old September 26th 18, 04:12 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 246
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

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:
On 23/09/18 17:23, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 16:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 11:23, wrote:
Road.cc highlights a very salient piece of CCTV evidence in its
piece.

https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman

"Northcott’s barrister, Harry Bentley, said the coach driver was
"desperately sorry" for Roman's death “and at times he has
considered ending his own life because of it.""


Expressing sympathy and remorse. That's what TMS320 calls "grovelling"
(and treats it as an admission). If that view is widely shared, it can
be little wonder that insurance companies instruct their polcyholders
never to admit responsibility for collisions.

It's necessary to wonder how much his sentence was reduced by this
grovelling. (Compared to 18 months for Charlie Alliston for not
grovelling - and the court seeming to accept that it was the victim
*that hadn't paid attention.)


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

Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity (that is, once the
charges and evidence have been made available and the strength of the
*prosecution case thereby known) and saving the Crown the expense of
a trial is always taken into account as a mitigating factor.


When did Alliston plead guilty?


By any chance do you put posts you read through an English to
Scouse translator, compose your replies in Scouse and translate
them back to English before posting? If you came clean it would
explain a great deal.


a) The question I raised was about grovelling, not about admission of
guilt.


The "grovelling" you referred to was as effective an admission of
guilt (in the form of a fairly extreme expression of remorse as well
as an admission that he broke the rules on stop lines at traffic
lights) as anyone could wish for, and certainly not designed as an
effective line of defence.
But did you think the driver literally prostrated himself in court,
with his arms outstretched begging for mercy?


Why would I?


Because you used the word "grovelling" as opposed to "expressing
remorse" (which is not "grovelling").


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


But not for the expression of remorse.

Who knows... you might have had more evidence than was reported.

b) The coach driver pleaded not guilty but was found guilty by a jury.
Accord'n ter de Daily Mail.


After he had effectively admitted the offence in his own evidence.


I assume it was through cross-examination. If there is anything to
"admit", is not possible for a defendant to simply change plea during
the proceedings?


Some offences are obvious and the defendant knows whether he is guilty
(eg, burglary, assault, murder, cycling along a footway). Others (such
as "causing death by careless driving" are not so obvious or
well-defined and it in the interest of a defendant to at least allow
the prosecution to prove the facts and how the law applies to them.
This is particularly so with relatively new offences whose meaning is
not something with which all members of the public are familiar. The
inportant thing is to give truthful evidence and not to behave in
court like the accused rider of a defective bicycle.


(And how come his legal team failed to anticipate the prosecution
line of questioning? Do they lose their fee?)


I doubt they did fail to anticipate it. They may well have advised the
NG plea and letting the Crown establish a case under relatively new
and uncharted law.


If running someone over that was visible ahead for 16 seconds isn't a
clear case of dangerous driving then the law needs more than a bit of
testing.


You obviously know the case far better than do the police, the CPS, the
trial judge and the jury.

Why don't you run round and tell them that they got it all wrong?

I'll wait here for your report of how you get on.

By way of contrast, the "young gentleman" on the brakeless bike
blamed the victim and completely exonerated himself, praising his
own skills to the skies and contrasting them sharply with the lack
of skill on the part of the woman he killed.

Some part says he was probably right.


Are you such a part?


Yes.


Not quite the right word, I suspect, though getting there...

Although your precis is bound to be as accurate as the way you always
reply to a poster with a question using an unrelated collection of
words.


There's the difference, even if you don't want, and will refuse, to
see and acknowledge it (which I confidently predict).


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).
  #30  
Old September 28th 18, 12:30 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,377
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

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:
On 23/09/18 17:23, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 16:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 11:23, wrote:
Road.cc highlights a very salient piece of CCTV
evidence in its piece.

https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman


"Northcott’s barrister, Harry Bentley, said the coach
driver was "desperately sorry" for Roman's death “and
at times he has considered ending his own life because
of it.""


Expressing sympathy and remorse. That's what TMS320 calls
"grovelling" (and treats it as an admission). If that view is widely
shared, it can be little wonder that insurance companies instruct
their polcyholders never to admit responsibility for collisions.

It's necessary to wonder how much his sentence was
reduced by this grovelling. (Compared to 18 months for
Charlie Alliston for not grovelling - and the court
seeming to accept that it was the victim that hadn't
paid attention.)


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

Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity (that is,
once the charges and evidence have been made available
and the strength of the prosecution case thereby known)
and saving the Crown the expense of a trial is always
taken into account as a mitigating factor.


When did Alliston plead guilty?


By any chance do you put posts you read through an English
to Scouse translator, compose your replies in Scouse and
translate them back to English before posting? If you came
clean it would explain a great deal.


a) The question I raised was about grovelling, not about
admission of guilt.


The "grovelling" you referred to was as effective an
admission of guilt (in the form of a fairly extreme
expression of remorse as well as an admission that he broke
the rules on stop lines at traffic lights) as anyone could
wish for, and certainly not designed as an effective line of
defence. But did you think the driver literally prostrated
himself in court, with his arms outstretched begging for
mercy?


Why would I?


Because you used the word "grovelling" as opposed to "expressing
remorse" (which is not "grovelling").


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.

Who knows... you might have had more evidence than was reported.

b) The coach driver pleaded not guilty but was found guilty
by a jury. Accord'n ter de Daily Mail.


After he had effectively admitted the offence in his own
evidence.


I assume it was through cross-examination. If there is anything
to "admit", is not possible for a defendant to simply change
plea during the proceedings?


Some offences are obvious and the defendant knows whether he is
guilty (eg, burglary, assault, murder, cycling along a footway).
Others (such as "causing death by careless driving" are not so
obvious or well-defined and it in the interest of a defendant to
at least allow the prosecution to prove the facts and how the law
applies to them. This is particularly so with relatively new
offences whose meaning is not something with which all members of
the public are familiar. The inportant thing is to give truthful
evidence and not to behave in court like the accused rider of a
defective bicycle.


(And how come his legal team failed to anticipate the
prosecution line of questioning? Do they lose their fee?)


I doubt they did fail to anticipate it. They may well have
advised the NG plea and letting the Crown establish a case under
relatively new and uncharted law.


If running someone over that was visible ahead for 16 seconds isn't
a clear case of dangerous driving then the law needs more than a
bit of testing.


You obviously know the case far better than do the police, the CPS,
the trial judge and the jury.


What are you suggesting I know that nobody else knows? You can read the
press report containing the 16 second figure because it was linked on
this newsgroup.

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.

Why don't you run round and tell them that they got it all wrong?

I'll wait here for your report of how you get on.

By way of contrast, the "young gentleman" on the brakeless
bike blamed the victim and completely exonerated himself,
praising his own skills to the skies and contrasting them
sharply with the lack of skill on the part of the woman he
killed.

Some part says he was probably right.

Are you such a part?


Yes.


Not quite the right word, I suspect, though getting there...

Although your precis is bound to be as accurate as the way
you
always reply to a poster with a question using an unrelated
collection of words.


There's the difference, even if you don't want, and will
refuse, to see and acknowledge it (which I confidently
predict).


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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cycle death race 2000 coming soon to St Thomas's MrCheerful UK 0 May 20th 16 05:23 PM
Cycle death case handling 'may need to change' Bod[_5_] UK 40 October 29th 15 08:34 PM
Compassion plea after cycle death Judith M Smith UK 62 August 24th 09 11:10 AM
Kicking cyclists to death and watching them cycle off cliffs Mark Thompson UK 2 February 27th 07 11:46 PM
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death Snoopy Racing 78 September 10th 03 02:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.