|
Post by Steve on Mar 10, 2023 13:22:51 GMT
Oh dear you really are upset at being shown to be wrong aren't you. As I said all you have to respond to facts is increasingly offensive posts except this time you tried to offend and just ended up being idiotic (again) No, I pointed out that you are obsessed with rules. Any breach of the rules really gets to you. So much so, you see nothing wrong with endangering a human life if a rule is breached.Fuck off with that libel.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 13:24:41 GMT
No, I pointed out that you are obsessed with rules. Any breach of the rules really gets to you. So much so, you see nothing wrong with endangering a human life if a rule is breached.Fuck off with that libel. 1) Can you libel someone who is anonymous? 2) Justification is a legal defence to an allegation of libel.
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 10, 2023 13:33:36 GMT
So let's say the cyclist hit a child and the child fell into the path of the car, who would we blame the child who was quite entitled to be on the footpath or the cyclist who wasn't?
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 13:36:25 GMT
So let's say the cyclist hit a child and the child fell into the path of the car, who would we blame the child who was quite entitled to be on the footpath or the cyclist who wasn't? We would blame the cyclist. But if you came on the scene and you decided to punish the cyclist for his negligence by throwing him into the traffic, we would also blame you. You would get a harsher sentence than the cyclist.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 10, 2023 15:04:25 GMT
Fuck off with that libel. 1) Can you libel someone who is anonymous? 2) Justification is a legal defence to an allegation of libel. Well (1) if anyone is identified in any way and maligned they are libelled. And (2) you haven't remotely justified your foul accusation that just proved you cannot back your position on this case and cannot debate
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 15:19:15 GMT
1) Can you libel someone who is anonymous? 2) Justification is a legal defence to an allegation of libel. Well (1) if anyone is identified in any way and maligned they are libelled. And (2) you haven't remotely justified your foul accusation that just proved you cannot back your position on this case and cannot debate Do you have a precedent for the first proposition above? And you do know that libel is essentially stealing somebody's good reputation, don't you? You're delusional if you think you have a good reputation to steal. As to your second, I have justified it several times over. You spend a lot of time on here remonstrating with other users about breaches of the rules. It seems fair to assume you carry this over into your private life. You are probably the original officious bystander, that pompous clown we’ve all come across who spends every waking moment telling everyone on the street and everywhere else how they should be behaving. You’re not defending Auriol Grey here, Steve; you’re defending Steve - Steve's right to live his life in a perpetual state of indignation is what is really at issue here.
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Mar 10, 2023 16:00:28 GMT
This is absolutely ridiculous! Our legal system is an utter disgrace........People have hit and killed people and not even gone to jail. What a mess......This is an absolutely ridiculous decision. Ridiculous. The courts should be ashamed.
Disabled woman, 49, who gestured for a cyclist to move off the pavement and onto road seconds before she was hit and killed by a car is jailed for three years for MANSLAUGHTER
Auriol Grey, 49, raised her hand at cyclist Celia Ward, 77, in Huntingdon, Cambs Retired grandmother Mrs Ward fell into the road and was killed in a car collision
Hi, obviously a bit late to the party here as it's many pages in already and thus has had wide attention.
For me it doesn't seem to be an issue. It seems that Auriol Grey struck Celia Ward whilst both were stationary on the pavement:-
Was the striking Celia Ward an accident...well no it doesn't look like it?
Did she believe, or may she have believed it was necessary to use force to defend herself? Well...there didn't seem to be any reason to believe she was being attacked or was in danger of imminent attack or in any danger as both ladies were on a pavement and Mrs Ward had come to a halt...it was an old lady on a bike who stopped on a pavement....therefore it seems reasonable to conclude there was no reason to use any force and Mrs. Grey was not in any immediate danger?
Would a sane and reasonable person realise that doing what she did, would inevitably expose Mrs Ward to some harm? If you strike out at someone (irrespective of location) then (to me) the desire is surely to cause harm or an intention to cause harm?
so, was the force that she used reasonable or may it have been reasonable? Why would one lash out in such a manner at an old lady? It appears that there can be no claim to self-defence since no attack occurred! To me any force in this scenario is unreasonable.
It's an interesting case this, as a matter of interest what has this to do with or why have you termed this as "woke"
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 10, 2023 16:11:54 GMT
For me it doesn't seem to be an issue. It seems that Auriol Grey struck Celia Ward whilst both were stationary on the pavement... Except that if you watch the video you can clearly see that that never happened and that William Walker is talking out of his arse.
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Mar 10, 2023 16:25:37 GMT
For me it doesn't seem to be an issue. It seems that Auriol Grey struck Celia Ward whilst both were stationary on the pavement... Except that if you watch the video you can clearly see that that never happened and that William Walker is talking out of his arse. ...makes you wonder why the prosecution didn't point that out to jury doesn't it...
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 10, 2023 16:27:11 GMT
Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 10, 2023 16:44:01 GMT
The extract provided by Equivocal is only partial. From what is provided, the judge made his remarks about Walker and the width of the path when sentencing Grey. Anything said by the judge during the sentencing phase will not have had an impact on the jury's decision. It will only be grounds for questioning the sentence, and Grey is appealing the sentence.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 10, 2023 18:08:40 GMT
For me it doesn't seem to be an issue. It seems that Auriol Grey struck Celia Ward whilst both were stationary on the pavement... Except that if you watch the video you can clearly see that that never happened and that William Walker is talking out of his arse. Which is why it was never a case in the first place, plus it hasn't been based on the law either. Shockingly blatant.
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 10, 2023 18:21:13 GMT
1) Can you libel someone who is anonymous? 2) Justification is a legal defence to an allegation of libel. Well (1) if anyone is identified in any way and maligned they are libelled. And (2) you haven't remotely justified your foul accusation that just proved you cannot back your position on this case and cannot debate You’re being silly here Steve you cannot be being libelled. M’lud Steve accuses Darling of libel Judge: Steve who? Someone called Steve on the internet Judge: Who is Darling? Someone on the internet m’lud Judge: if you ever find out who Steve is jail for seven days wasting my time and contempt of court. I disagree with Darling on this but it’s only a discussion on a forum.
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 10, 2023 18:51:06 GMT
Which is why it was never a case in the first place, plus it hasn't been based on the law either. Shockingly blatant. Quite. So, in précis: The judge accepts that pretty much the whole incident is captured on CCTV but then praises a witness whose evidence is contradicted by that same video. The judge also states that the footpath is a “Shared space” despite the total lack of any signage indicating such. And, as Whoiney correctly states, the test to be applied is the “But for” test. However, as I said on the very first page of this thread: ...1) The cyclist clearly had to swerve around the pedestrian in any case, so where's the evidence that she didn't simply misjudge it? And in the video, you can clearly see that Celia Ward cycled past Auriol Grey before falling into the road. The whole incident took three seconds and from the available evidence, it is impossible to say that the cyclist would not have crashed but for the pedestrians actions. And even if Walker were correct (ie they both came to a halt, had an altercation and then Celia Ward cycled off and fell into the road) then the chain of causation would be broken. So either way, it is an unsafe conviction.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 10, 2023 18:59:10 GMT
Well (1) if anyone is identified in any way and maligned they are libelled. And (2) you haven't remotely justified your foul accusation that just proved you cannot back your position on this case and cannot debate You’re being silly here Steve you cannot be being libelled. M’lud Steve accuses Darling of libel Judge: Steve who? Someone called Steve on the internet Judge: Who is Darling? Someone on the internet m’lud Judge: if you ever find out who Steve is jail for seven days wasting my time and contempt of court. I disagree with Darling on this but it’s only a discussion on a forum. I used the word 'libel' in its English language meaning ie defamatory. If that stupid fuckwit statement was read by anyone in any walk of life who knows me as the person who posts here as 'Steve' then it was defamatory. That it doesn't meet the threshold to be able to bring legal action for libel (not that I would) doesn't change what it was: a malicious false statement. Next time maybe I'll just call Darling out for being a stupid cunt
|
|