|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 11, 2023 14:01:19 GMT
What a vile little shit you are Darling with posts like that and your sad pretence that the law never gets it wrong. And it would seem that the path was a shared pathway for cyclists and pedestrians: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu-b3cIhmQI&t=311s (at 1.49) But that isn't the important point here, Vicar: the important point is that you hold the disgusting view that it is acceptable to endanger a life for breach of a minor rule. As is explained, Grey would still have been guilty even if it had not been a shared pathway. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 15:16:50 GMT
What a vile little shit you are Darling with posts like that and your sad pretence that the law never gets it wrong. And Grey clearly made contact with the cyclist: www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vnW7gCYrwOr to be more accurate the cyclist clearly travelling faster made contact with Grey whose hand is in self defense from potential harm Oh and that video clearly shows the (supposed by the judge to be key) evidence of William Walker to be false. But then he is a cyclist isn't he. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 15:22:58 GMT
What a vile little shit you are Darling with posts like that and your sad pretence that the law never gets it wrong. And it would seem that the path was a shared pathway for cyclists and pedestrians: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu-b3cIhmQI&t=311s (at 1.49) But that isn't the important point here, Vicar: the important point is that you hold the disgusting view that it is acceptable to endanger a life for breach of a minor rule. As is explained, Grey would still have been guilty even if it had not been a shared pathway. As I've said before fuck off with your false assertions of my views you sad loser And your tame barrister is lying, that shared path sign was put up in 2022 over a year AFTER the accident - this has been pointed out before in this thread |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 11, 2023 15:31:08 GMT
And it would seem that the path was a shared pathway for cyclists and pedestrians: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu-b3cIhmQI&t=311s (at 1.49) But that isn't the important point here, Vicar: the important point is that you hold the disgusting view that it is acceptable to endanger a life for breach of a minor rule. As is explained, Grey would still have been guilty even if it had not been a shared pathway. As I've said before fuck off with your false assertions of my views you sad loser And your tame barrister is lying, that shared path sign was put up in 2022 over a year AFTER the accident - this has been pointed out before in this thread Get over yourself, you angry gammon. Your obsession with rules does not justify endangering life. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 15:35:05 GMT
As I've said before fuck off with your false assertions of my views you sad loser And your tame barrister is lying, that shared path sign was put up in 2022 over a year AFTER the accident - this has been pointed out before in this thread Get over yourself, you angry gammon. Your obsession with rules does not justify endangering life.  ^ |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 11, 2023 15:36:36 GMT
Get over yourself, you angry gammon. Your obsession with rules does not justify endangering life. ^ Are you known to the local police, Vicar? Are you that angry busybody who is always wasting their time with trivial complaints (like you do on this site). I strongly suspect you are. What next? Public hangings for littering offenses? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 11, 2023 15:40:43 GMT
Or to be more accurate the cyclist clearly travelling faster made contact with Grey whose hand is in self defense from potential harm Oh and that video clearly shows the (supposed by the judge to be key) evidence of William Walker to be false. But then he is a cyclist isn't he. I also have come to the conclusion that isn't the first time someone has been stitched up by a legal system more worried by being politically correct and actually ignoring the law in the process. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 15:54:10 GMT
Or to be more accurate the cyclist clearly travelling faster made contact with Grey whose hand is in self defense from potential harm Oh and that video clearly shows the (supposed by the judge to be key) evidence of William Walker to be false. But then he is a cyclist isn't he. I also have come to the conclusion that isn't the first time someone has been stitched up by a legal system more worried by being politically correct and actually ignoring the law in the process. I believe it has always been thus. A common perception is that if you are interviewed by the police they will be seeking to find the truth, unfortunately they will far more be seeking to get a case closed so if ever cautioned say absolutely nothing without a solicitor present. Grey (who with her disabilities probably was not able to understand a caution) appears to have admitted under interview that she and the cyclist may have made contact. By the time the judge summed up for the jury that had been transmuted into Grey had used 'force' on the cyclist as fact and the Jury were only able to assess whether the force was in self defence. A stitch up. www.scribd.com/document/630156362/Auriol-Grey-Directions-of-Law |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 11, 2023 15:56:30 GMT
I also have come to the conclusion that isn't the first time someone has been stitched up by a legal system more worried by being politically correct and actually ignoring the law in the process. I believe it has always been thus. A common perception is that if you are interviewed by the police they will be seeking to find the truth, unfortunately they will far more be seeking to get a case closed so if ever cautioned say absolutely nothing without a solicitor present. Grey (who with her disabilities probably was not able to understand a caution) appears to have admitted under interview that she and the cyclist may have made contact. By the time the judge summed up for the jury that had been transmuted into Grey had used 'force' on the cyclist as fact and the Jury were only able to assess whether the force was in self defence. A stitch up. www.scribd.com/document/630156362/Auriol-Grey-Directions-of-Law Grey did not attend a school for children with special needs. She attended an ordinary school. The judge gave extended consideration to her circumstances and background. But I would agree that if you're going to lie in a police interview, it's probably best to take legal advice first. What's more, if you're going to callously lurch away from a death you have just caused to finish your weekly shop, it's probably best you play up any disability you have, however irrelevant. It gives the gammons something to latch onto when they try to justify petty vigilantism. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2023 16:15:34 GMT
 ^ |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 13, 2023 9:09:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 13, 2023 10:35:59 GMT
I believe it has always been thus. A common perception is that if you are interviewed by the police they will be seeking to find the truth, unfortunately they will far more be seeking to get a case closed so if ever cautioned say absolutely nothing without a solicitor present. Grey (who with her disabilities probably was not able to understand a caution) appears to have admitted under interview that she and the cyclist may have made contact. By the time the judge summed up for the jury that had been transmuted into Grey had used 'force' on the cyclist as fact and the Jury were only able to assess whether the force was in self defence. A stitch up. www.scribd.com/document/630156362/Auriol-Grey-Directions-of-Law Grey did not attend a school for children with special needs. She attended an ordinary school. The judge gave extended consideration to her circumstances and background. But I would agree that if you're going to lie in a police interview, it's probably best to take legal advice first. What's more, if you're going to callously lurch away from a death you have just caused to finish your weekly shop, it's probably best you play up any disability you have, however irrelevant. It gives the gammons something to latch onto when they try to justify petty vigilantism. Funny you should say that but when my grammar school was forced to downgrade to comprehensive, one of the pupils was a boy with Autism that had trouble socialising with others . I remember that he once stuck a compass in another boys face . He could say that he never attended a school for children with special needs too. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 11:16:06 GMT
Grey did not attend a school for children with special needs. She attended an ordinary school. The judge gave extended consideration to her circumstances and background. But I would agree that if you're going to lie in a police interview, it's probably best to take legal advice first. What's more, if you're going to callously lurch away from a death you have just caused to finish your weekly shop, it's probably best you play up any disability you have, however irrelevant. It gives the gammons something to latch onto when they try to justify petty vigilantism. Funny you should say that but when my grammar school was forced to downgrade to comprehensive, one of the pupils was a boy with Autism that had trouble socialising with others . I remember that he once stuck a compass in another boys face . He could say that he never attended a school for children with special needs too. Are you saying that Grey didn't understand the difference between right and wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 13, 2023 11:36:08 GMT
Funny you should say that but when my grammar school was forced to downgrade to comprehensive, one of the pupils was a boy with Autism that had trouble socialising with others . I remember that he once stuck a compass in another boys face . He could say that he never attended a school for children with special needs too. Are you saying that Grey didn't understand the difference between right and wrong? I’m saying exactly what is in the post that you relied to. You seemed to think that it is significant that Grey did not attend a school for special needs and I pointed out that children with special needs can attend a Comprehensive secondary school. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 11:39:16 GMT
Are you saying that Grey didn't understand the difference between right and wrong? I’m saying exactly what is in the post that you relied to. You seemed to think that it is significant that Grey did not attend a school for special needs and I pointed out that children with special needs can attend a Comprehensive secondary school. Okay, she attended an ordinary school and she knew what she was did was wrong. We know she knew what she was doing was wrong because she lied in her police interview. People don't try to hide things they believe are acceptable. |
|
