£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.

On 11/04/2017 22:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/04/17 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 11/04/2017 09:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/04/17 23:55, JNugent wrote:
On 10/04/2017 21:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/04/17 17:52, JNugent wrote:

When the police and/or the CPS decline to prosecute...

It is said that the police did not pass it to the CPS. CPS guidance is
that all fatal collision cases should be referred.

The police represent a necessary first-line filter of cases. That's
their job (among other things).

Err... "...fatal collision..."

Not all fatal collisions are the fault, or even imply fault of the part
of, random road-users who happen to be involved by reason of being in
the wrong place at just th wrong time.

Whisper it, but some fatal collisions are the fault of the deceased.

Your view provides no useful suggestion to why it did not reach the CPS
to make the decision. There was never a question about the cyclist's
conduct.

The elephant in the room in this case is pretty clear, and it has to do
with how the two vehicles came to be in the formation where a collision
could take place. It is fairly obvious that there can have been no
acceptably-independent witnesses for the CDF's proposition.

Where you an expert involved in the case? Tell us more.

Can you not read and comprehend?

I can.

It took the jury just seventeen minutes to return a verdict. Those
seventeen minutes will have been mainly composed of the technicalities
and formalities of getting into the jury room, electing a forman, taking
an initial vote to establish where the thinking lay, etc. There cannot
have been much discussion because they must have been all of one mind in
the immediate wake of hearing the evidence.

Yes, they obviously decided before they convened. It doesn't explain how
your elephant got into the room.

It is necessary to remember that a man died in the incident and that
his family ... But it's a pity they were persuaded to relive the
incident by the CDF.

Who says the CDF approached the family?

Nobody.

Good.

Was there a point to your question?

It was a response to a paragraph that you wrote. You have obviously
forgotten.

The CDF took the case to court. It is reasonable to assume that they
assured the family something along the lines: "Leave i' wiv us, guv.
We'll win it for ya. Stand on me".

You stated that the family "were persuaded". You haven't a clue about
the direction of approach.

As for the CDF doing the running... There was a preliminary hearing the
previous September when the decision was made to put the case in front
of a jury. Mind, it's always possible that the parties involved (which
can't have been one sided) in the decision saw the money on offer and
decided it was a nice little job creation scheme.

Everyone is entitled to have their part in an incident examined and
considered (with a view to the possibility of legal proceedings) by
an impartial and professional body whose objective is the public
interest rather than sectional interest.

“Given that the judge accepted that there was a case which the jury
had
to consider..."

You seem to be trying to suggest that the CDF blundered ahead without
taking professional advice.

No. Without considering the evidence from an unbiased standpoint is how
I would put it.

You haven't a clue how it was considered. It is just as likely that
juries are biased in driver vs. cyclist cases.

Just read the comments from the CDF post-trial. They say they accept the
jury's verdict. It was obvious that that was an untruth. They were
slavering at the chops of a conviction of that innocent, acquitted,
driver.

Nugent telepathy again.

I could - if I were silly enough, which I am not - run you off a
list of
well-known "professionals" whose independence and impartiality are
notoriously non-existent. You can probably think of two or three of
them
immediately.

So one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver has a
case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the case
and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have
caused.

If you think a case has legs, put your own money forward. What have
you
got to lose?

It is for the parties to consider their options. But I would consider
putting a tenner into a crowd-funding appeal for this wronged driver's
civil case against the CDF. And that's about 250% more then the average
of the donations to their case.

Your maths is faulty.

Mea culpa. I got the decimal point one position out, true. It doesn't
change the logic of my position.

Besides, I was expecting you to put your money
where your mouth is and fund the whole amount. The word 'chicken' comes
to mind.

I am certainly not affluent enough to fund legal cases for third
parties. I'm OK for money - I can't complain and don't complain - but I
have other responsibilities in the short, medium and long term.

Best not to. You would be bitter about losing.

But you seem to have difficulty in understanding the meaning of the
sentence: "...one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver
has a case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the
case and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have
caused".

What do you understand the meanings of "wonders" and "whether" to be?

You're doing all the spitting about turpitude from the CDF and the
unfairness done to some poor, hard done by motorist.


a jury of her peers has said that she bears no responsibility for the
cyclist's death, being dragged through the courts with the same result
that she already knew, means that she has suffered, therefore she
deserves recompense. Doubtless there are her legal fees to pay too,
could get very costly for the CDF. The only people that have really
made the money are lawyers and 'gofundme' (or whatever they are called)
Those have really hit the jackpot.

On 11/04/2017 22:08, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/04/17 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 11/04/2017 09:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/04/17 23:55, JNugent wrote:
On 10/04/2017 21:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/04/17 17:52, JNugent wrote:

When the police and/or the CPS decline to prosecute...

It is said that the police did not pass it to the CPS. CPS guidance is
that all fatal collision cases should be referred.

The police represent a necessary first-line filter of cases. That's
their job (among other things).

Err... "...fatal collision..."

Not all fatal collisions are the fault, or even imply fault of the part
of, random road-users who happen to be involved by reason of being in
the wrong place at just th wrong time.

Whisper it, but some fatal collisions are the fault of the deceased.

Your view provides no useful suggestion to why it did not reach the CPS
to make the decision. There was never a question about the cyclist's
conduct.

That may be true in a very pedantic way, but the incident happened, and
if it wasn't the driver's fayult (and it wasn't, as we now know), what
does it say about what the cause must have been?

It can only have happened for one of a very few reasons, none of which
reflect badly on the driver.

The elephant in the room in this case is pretty clear, and it has to do
with how the two vehicles came to be in the formation where a collision
could take place. It is fairly obvious that there can have been no
acceptably-independent witnesses for the CDF's proposition.

Where you an expert involved in the case? Tell us more.

Can you not read and comprehend?

I can.

So why aren't you doing it?

It took the jury just seventeen minutes to return a verdict. Those
seventeen minutes will have been mainly composed of the technicalities
and formalities of getting into the jury room, electing a forman, taking
an initial vote to establish where the thinking lay, etc. There cannot
have been much discussion because they must have been all of one mind in
the immediate wake of hearing the evidence.

Yes, they obviously decided before they convened. It doesn't explain how
your elephant got into the room.

In other words, they decided - independently of each other, let us
remember - as they heard the evidence.

It is necessary to remember that a man died in the incident and that
his family ... But it's a pity they were persuaded to relive the
incident by the CDF.

Who says the CDF approached the family?

Nobody.

Good.

Was there a point to your question?

It was a response to a paragraph that you wrote. You have obviously
forgotten.

The CDF took the case to court. It is reasonable to assume that they
assured the family something along the lines: "Leave i' wiv us, guv.
We'll win it for ya. Stand on me".

You stated that the family "were persuaded". You haven't a clue about
the direction of approach.

Something (or someone) persuaded them to instigate a private
prosecution. That is not an everyday occurrence.

As for the CDF doing the running... There was a preliminary hearing the
previous September when the decision was made to put the case in front
of a jury. Mind, it's always possible that the parties involved (which
can't have been one sided) in the decision saw the money on offer and
decided it was a nice little job creation scheme.

Every privately-brought case (usually a civil matter) has a decision
made at some point as to whether to allow the matter to be brought to court.

Would you say that every decision to sue for damages has to be
successful (because a member of the judiciary allowed it to come to court)?

The judge's decision is administrative.

Everyone is entitled to have their part in an incident examined and
considered (with a view to the possibility of legal proceedings) by
an impartial and professional body whose objective is the public
interest rather than sectional interest.

“Given that the judge accepted that there was a case which the jury
had to consider..."
You seem to be trying to suggest that the CDF blundered ahead without
taking professional advice.

No. Without considering the evidence from an unbiased standpoint is how
I would put it.

You haven't a clue how it was considered.

The CDF are not unbiased. You haven't a hope in hell of convincing
anyone otherwise.

It is just as likely that
juries are biased in driver vs. cyclist cases.

If that were the case here, the jury would have to have to have
exercised their bias independently while hearing the evidence. They
don't discuss the evidence until they have elected a foreman, so the
discussion of evience cannot have taken long and besides, even you admit
that the jurors must have made up their minds individually, befoire
getting to the jury room. That speaks of the evidence and its quality.

Just read the comments from the CDF post-trial. They say they accept the
jury's verdict. It was obvious that that was an untruth. They were
slavering at the chops of a conviction of that innocent, acquitted,
driver.

Nugent telepathy again.

They are NOT unbiased.

Re-read their statement.

I could - if I were silly enough, which I am not - run you off a
list of
well-known "professionals" whose independence and impartiality are
notoriously non-existent. You can probably think of two or three of
them immediately.

So one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver has a
case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the case
and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have
caused.

If you think a case has legs, put your own money forward. What have
you got to lose?

It is for the parties to consider their options. But I would consider
putting a tenner into a crowd-funding appeal for this wronged driver's
civil case against the CDF. And that's about 250% more then the average
of the donations to their case.

Your maths is faulty.

Mea culpa. I got the decimal point one position out, true. It doesn't
change the logic of my position.

Besides, I was expecting you to put your money
where your mouth is and fund the whole amount. The word 'chicken' comes
to mind.

I am certainly not affluent enough to fund legal cases for third
parties. I'm OK for money - I can't complain and don't complain - but I
have other responsibilities in the short, medium and long term.

Best not to. You would be bitter about losing.

Possibly. I cannot and would not claim perfection.

But that applies even more to organisations such as the CDF whose
actions were so questionable: they tried to get an innocent citizen
convicted of a serious crime she hadn't committed.

And if you think not, try to imagine yourself in the dock at the Old
Bailey (as an entirely innocent person, intimidated and oppressed by
that situation) and think about who (in analogous circumstances) you
would blame for that.

But you seem to have difficulty in understanding the meaning of the
sentence: "...one wonders also whether the acquitted, innocent, driver
has a case against the CDF for distress, worry and loss that the the
case and trial (at the Old Bailey, for God's sake!) will inevitably have
caused".

What do you understand the meanings of "wonders" and "whether" to be?

You're doing all the spitting about turpitude from the CDF and the
unfairness done to some poor, hard done by motorist.

Quite right too. The CDF are clearly an obnoxious bunch. The driver is
100% innocent and has a certificate to prove it.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 12/04/17 00:03, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/04/2017 22:08, TMS320 wrote:

You're doing all the spitting about turpitude from the CDF and the
unfairness done to some poor, hard done by motorist.

a jury of her peers has said that she bears no responsibility for the
cyclist's death,

The charge was one of careless driving. It is usually accepted that the
person running into the back of someone else *is* responsible.

being dragged through the courts with the same result
that she already knew, means that she has suffered, therefore she
deserves recompense. Doubtless there are her legal fees to pay too,
could get very costly for the CDF. The only people that have really
made the money are lawyers and 'gofundme' (or whatever they are called)
Those have really hit the jackpot.

She crashed into somebody; the charge was not homicide. She merely had
to stand up in court, which I don't believe involves confession by
torture these days. She'll get over it.

On 12/04/2017 18:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 12/04/17 00:03, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/04/2017 22:08, TMS320 wrote:

You're doing all the spitting about turpitude from the CDF and the
unfairness done to some poor, hard done by motorist.

a jury of her peers has said that she bears no responsibility for the
cyclist's death,

The charge was one of careless driving. It is usually accepted that the
person running into the back of someone else *is* responsible.

But not in every case.

And not in this case.

being dragged through the courts with the same result
that she already knew, means that she has suffered, therefore she
deserves recompense. Doubtless there are her legal fees to pay too,
could get very costly for the CDF. The only people that have really
made the money are lawyers and 'gofundme' (or whatever they are called)
Those have really hit the jackpot.

She crashed into somebody; the charge was not homicide. She merely had
to stand up in court, which I don't believe involves confession by
torture these days. She'll get over it.

Will she?

It's easy to say, but if it were you in her position, would you just
forget an Old Bailey ordeal and the slimeballs who had tried to get you
convicted of something you hadn't done?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 12/04/17 18:40, JNugent wrote:
On 12/04/2017 18:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/04/17 00:03, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/04/2017 22:08, TMS320 wrote:

You're doing all the spitting about turpitude from the CDF and the
unfairness done to some poor, hard done by motorist.

a jury of her peers has said that she bears no responsibility for the
cyclist's death,

The charge was one of careless driving. It is usually accepted that the
person running into the back of someone else *is* responsible.

But not in every case.

And not in this case.

Depends on her insurance company. Just paying for a new bicycle wheel
would be sufficient.

being dragged through the courts with the same result
that she already knew, means that she has suffered, therefore she
deserves recompense. Doubtless there are her legal fees to pay too,
could get very costly for the CDF. The only people that have really
made the money are lawyers and 'gofundme' (or whatever they are called)
Those have really hit the jackpot.

She crashed into somebody; the charge was not homicide. She merely had
to stand up in court, which I don't believe involves confession by
torture these days. She'll get over it.

Will she?

Well, some long term benefit would come out of it if she decided she was
not up to this driving lark.

It's easy to say, but if it were you in her position, would you just
forget an Old Bailey ordeal and the slimeballs who had tried to get you
convicted of something you hadn't done?

She did do it. You have obviously forgotten that the purpose of the
trial was to not to decide who did it but whether it was careless act.

On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote:

On 12/04/17 18:40, JNugent wrote:
On 12/04/2017 18:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/04/17 00:03, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/04/2017 22:08, TMS320 wrote:

You're doing all the spitting about turpitude from the CDF and the
unfairness done to some poor, hard done by motorist.

a jury of her peers has said that she bears no responsibility for the
cyclist's death,

The charge was one of careless driving. It is usually accepted that the
person running into the back of someone else *is* responsible.

But not in every case.
And not in this case.

Depends on her insurance company. Just paying for a new bicycle wheel
would be sufficient.

It does not depend on her insurance company. It depends purely on the
jury, who promptly and unanimously decided that she was *not* responsible.

There is a necessary and inescapable implication within that decision as
to who it was who *was* at fault (and it wasn't the driver). But it
would probably not be useful to anyone for that point to be laboured.

being dragged through the courts with the same result
that she already knew, means that she has suffered, therefore she
deserves recompense. Doubtless there are her legal fees to pay too,
could get very costly for the CDF. The only people that have really
made the money are lawyers and 'gofundme' (or whatever they are called)
Those have really hit the jackpot.

She crashed into somebody; the charge was not homicide. She merely had
to stand up in court, which I don't believe involves confession by
torture these days. She'll get over it.

Will she?

Well, some long term benefit would come out of it if she decided she was
not up to this driving lark.

It's easy to say, but if it were you in her position, would you just
forget an Old Bailey ordeal and the slimeballs who had tried to get you
convicted of something you hadn't done?

She did do it.

As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe.

The charge was either "causing death by careless driving" or "causing
death by dangerous driving", depending on news source. It appears that
the "careless" variant was the one actually on the charge documents.

She denied having done that and twelve of her peers decided that she was
quite right and that she had indeed *not* done it.

You have obviously forgotten that the purpose of the trial was
to not to decide who did it but whether it was careless act.

I hadn't forgotten that at all. Neither had I forgotten what the jury
decided with such obvious alacrity.

That was one straight in the eye for the slimeballs, wasn't it?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote:

She did do it.

As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe.

The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work
out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of
lying. It is impossible to claim that someone known to have ran into the
back of someone else didn't do it.

On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote:

She did do it.

As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe.

The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work
out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of
lying. It is impossible to claim that someone known to have ran into the
back of someone else didn't do it.

She was allegedly involved in a collision, it was decided that she was
not guilty of careless driving, the conclusion may be drawn that the
cyclist was careless (as they often are) and was the cause of his own
demise, perhaps by swerving in front of the car deliberately ? He may
have been hoping for a 'compo. jackpot' .

I wonder if she made a claim against the cyclist's estate for her damages?

On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:

On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote:

She did do it.

As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe.

The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work
out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of
lying.

The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean?

The *jury*, having heard all of the evidence brought by the CDF, very
quickly (and each independently, it seems) decided that it was
unconvincing. Whether any jury member would go so far as to decribe the
evidence as "lies" is something on which I cannot usefully comment. But
it clearly wasn't believed.

It is impossible to claim that someone known to have ran into the
back of someone else didn't do it.

Running into a vehicle the back of someone else's vehicle is not a
sufficient element to constitute an offence. If it were, the judge would
presumably have directed the jury on that point.

A vehicle in front but to one side may suddently veer into the path of
another vehicle coming up from behind. Or it might move from an unseen
position (eg, on a footway, masked by other objects and generally out of
the sight line) onto the carriageway carelessly and even recklessly.
There are all sorts of possibilities.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 13/04/2017 17:21, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:

On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote:

She did do it.

As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe.

The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work
out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of
lying.

The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean?

The *jury*, having heard all of the evidence brought by the CDF, very
quickly (and each independently, it seems) decided that it was
unconvincing. Whether any jury member would go so far as to decribe the
evidence as "lies" is something on which I cannot usefully comment. But
it clearly wasn't believed.

It is impossible to claim that someone known to have ran into the
back of someone else didn't do it.

Running into a vehicle the back of someone else's vehicle is not a
sufficient element to constitute an offence. If it were, the judge would
presumably have directed the jury on that point.

A vehicle in front but to one side may suddently veer into the path of
another vehicle coming up from behind. Or it might move from an unseen
position (eg, on a footway, masked by other objects and generally out of
the sight line) onto the carriageway carelessly and even recklessly.
There are all sorts of possibilities.


Like this cyclist from Hull:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/trage...ail/story.html