Brutal driver walks

On 09/02/2016 14:01, John Smith wrote:

Here, I've modified the exchange for you...

[snip: Yitzhak's dishonest and deceitful rant]

There you are.

I've restored the truth of it: you have nothing useful to say,
particularly about cycling.

JNugent wrote:

[snip: Yitzhak's dishonest and deceitful rant]

Game to Yitzhak.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On 09/02/2016 14:07, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:

[snip: Yitzhak's dishonest and deceitful rant]

Game to Yitzhak.


Ah, Jewish, that explains everything.

MrCheerful

Ah, Jewish, that explains everything.

I'm sure that you'll want to expand on that.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On 09/02/2016 14:15, John Smith wrote:
MrCheerful

Ah, Jewish, that explains everything.

I'm sure that you'll want to expand on that.


I don't need to, you do it with every post you make.

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:12:59 +0000, John Smith
wrote:

Right now, in Britain in 2016, cyclists are perceived by a large
proportion of the population as 'subhuman'.

Ah, so it is all a conspiracy against cyclists. Thank you for that
explanation.

On 09/02/2016 15:22, Peter Parry wrote:

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:12:59 +0000, John Smith
wrote:

Right now, in Britain in 2016, cyclists are perceived by a large
proportion of the population as 'subhuman'.

Ah, so it is all a conspiracy against cyclists. Thank you for that
explanation.

Careful... he'll try to twist that into something improbable.

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:22:39 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:37:38 +0000, John Smith
wrote:

I love how you excuse what at the very least is an attempt to commit
grievous bodily harm under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861, and potentially the common law offence of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice.
[snip]
Both of the persons involved are lying. The driver knows that he or she
was driving, and the other person knows that he or she was not driving. As
someone else pointed out, neither has claimed not to be the driver - they
have claimed that they don't know. They are lying, and the offence of
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is thus complete.

The CPS obviously lack your legal expertise as it seems that at no
time did they or the police attempt to charge either of the two
possible offenders with anything other than leaving the scene of an
accident and failing to report the accident (both maximum sentence 6
months in jail but usually a fine). This seems odd given your legal
opinion that charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
and attempted causing GBH ( both carrying potential life sentences)
have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. You obviously have access
to the court report as well as there is no public evidence either was
lying - they could equally well have simply declined to say anything.

If the CPS have taken the correct legal decision not to further pursue the matter, then there is something wrong with the law.

On 09/02/2016 15:50, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:22:39 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:37:38 +0000, John Smith
wrote:

I love how you excuse what at the very least is an attempt to commit
grievous bodily harm under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861, and potentially the common law offence of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice.

[snip]

Both of the persons involved are lying. The driver knows that he or she
was driving, and the other person knows that he or she was not driving. As
someone else pointed out, neither has claimed not to be the driver - they
have claimed that they don't know. They are lying, and the offence of
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is thus complete.

The CPS obviously lack your legal expertise as it seems that at no
time did they or the police attempt to charge either of the two
possible offenders with anything other than leaving the scene of an
accident and failing to report the accident (both maximum sentence 6
months in jail but usually a fine). This seems odd given your legal
opinion that charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
and attempted causing GBH ( both carrying potential life sentences)
have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. You obviously have access
to the court report as well as there is no public evidence either was
lying - they could equally well have simply declined to say anything.

If the CPS have taken the correct legal decision not to further pursue the matter, then there is something wrong with the law.

Do you mean that there's something wrong with law which means that you
can't persec... er..,. sorry... prosecute... someone for the trivial
reason that you haven't got enough (or even perhaps any) evidence that
they've done something wrong?

You would change that, would you?

MrCheerful
On 09/02/2016 14:15, John Smith wrote:
MrCheerful

Ah, Jewish, that explains everything.

I'm sure that you'll want to expand on that.

I don't need to, you do it with every post you make.

... and he folds.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))