|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 13, 2023 19:20:23 GMT
I see Darling and the plot are still astronomically distant from each other. Yep, just me and all twelve of the jurors, Vicar. Keep digging, you'll need one of those hats with corks soon |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 19:24:47 GMT
Yep, just me and all twelve of the jurors, Vicar. Keep digging, you'll need one of those hats with corks soon Remind me of the score, Vicar. Is it still Society 1: Angry Gammons 0? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 13, 2023 19:25:29 GMT
Which only goes to show that riding on the path was illegal. The reason it wasn't a shared path was because it would be considered dangerous. It would seem the local council is still mulling over whether it was or was not a shared path even though a notice seemingly appeared at a later date declaring that it was. Nobody but a psychopath would care in this particular context. It's clear from the footage that Grey was aware of the presence of the cyclist. She was in the centre of the pathway. The considerate thing to do would have been to step closer to the railings and continue along this new trajectory. Instead, she veered slightly towards the road. You may see something else when you look at the footage. It doesn't matter. The jury saw what I have described. Of course she was aware buit you have to wonder why, from your description, Grey didn't go towards the railings rather than towards a lampost. Also why did the cyclist not stop, that would have been the right thing to do. The other interesting aspect is tha status of the footpath, was a notice put up at the request of another agency or even place there by another agency? Why is the local authority investigating the status when the path was not legally wide enough for dual purpose and if it had inadvertently been given dual purpose, there should be a record of the procedure that gave it dual purpose, including, I suspect, a public notice. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 13, 2023 19:26:17 GMT
I see Darling and the plot are still astronomically distant from each other. Yep, just me and all twelve of the jurors, Vicar. Not in the first trial, what happened there. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 19:27:25 GMT
Nobody but a psychopath would care in this particular context. It's clear from the footage that Grey was aware of the presence of the cyclist. She was in the centre of the pathway. The considerate thing to do would have been to step closer to the railings and continue along this new trajectory. Instead, she veered slightly towards the road. You may see something else when you look at the footage. It doesn't matter. The jury saw what I have described. Of course she was aware buit you have to wonder why, from your description, Grey didn't go towards the railings rather than towards a lampost. Also why did the cyclist not stop, that would have been the right thing to do. The other interesting aspect is tha status of the footpath, was a notice put up at the request of another agency or even place there by another agency? Why is the local authority investigating the status when the path was not legally wide enough for dual purpose and if it had inadvertently been given dual purpose, there should be a record of the procedure that gave it dual purpose, including, I suspect, a public notice. It's obvious why she didn't go towards the railings. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 19:28:16 GMT
Yep, just me and all twelve of the jurors, Vicar. Not in the first trial, what happened there. Dunno. It doesn't matter. Are you saying it's the best of three? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 13, 2023 19:53:45 GMT
....The fact that the victim may have been committing an illegal act is not a defence to manslaughter... Why is why I never said it was, Whoiney. ...Anyway, there is nothing to indicate it wasn't a shared path... Well by that token there's nothing to indicate that it wasn't a motorway, but that's not how the Road Traffic Act works, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of the law would know. ...(though, only a psychopath would see any significance in the issue). Nope, but only the truly ignorant would fail to see that it may have a significant effect on the perception of the pedestrian. Properly marked, shared cycle path = Pedestrian expects to share roadspace with cyclist. Ordinary footpath = Pedestrian alarmed to find a cyclist bearing down on them. Only a complete eejit would fail to appreciate the difference. And they found a complete jury of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 19:55:51 GMT
....The fact that the victim may have been committing an illegal act is not a defence to manslaughter... Why is why I never said it was, Whoiney. ...Anyway, there is nothing to indicate it wasn't a shared path... Well by that token there's nothing to indicate that it wasn't a motorway, but that's not how the Road Traffic Act works, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of the law would know. ...(though, only a psychopath would see any significance in the issue). Nope, but only the truly ignorant would fail to see that it may have a significant effect on the perception of the pedestrian. Properly marked, shared cycle path = Pedestrian expects to share roadspace with cyclist. Ordinary footpath = Pedestrian alarmed to find a cyclist bearing down on them. Only a complete eejit would fail to appreciate the difference. And they found a complete jury of them. Well, Squeaky? Do you have a law degree? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 19:57:24 GMT
....The fact that the victim may have been committing an illegal act is not a defence to manslaughter... Why is why I never said it was, Whoiney. Then why even raise the matter? What relevance does the status of the footpath have? If it's not a defence to manslaughter, it's completely irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 13, 2023 20:03:46 GMT
Why is why I never said it was, Whoiney. Then why even raise the matter? What relevance does the status of the footpath have? If it's not a defence to manslaughter, it's completely irrelevant. Again, I didn't. The court did. And you picked up on it. Repeatedly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 20:06:31 GMT
Then why even raise the matter? What relevance does the status of the footpath have? If it's not a defence to manslaughter, it's completely irrelevant. Again, I didn't. The court did. And you picked up on it. Repeatedly.
The court didn't attach any significance to it. The court concluded that the status of the road was immaterial. It's you and the others who have been stressing the significance of its status. If I have 'picked up on it', it was only to stress how absurd it was that others thought it a relevant factor in the case. Now, Squeaky, do you have a law degree? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 13, 2023 20:21:46 GMT
So you haven't even read the judge's remarks have you
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 13, 2023 20:26:27 GMT
Again, I didn't. The court did. And you picked up on it. Repeatedly.
The court didn't attach any significance to it. The court concluded that the status of the road was immaterial. It's you and the others who have been stressing the significance of its status. If I have 'picked up on it', it was only to stress how absurd it was that others thought it a relevant factor in the case. Now, Squeaky, do you have a law degree?
All discussed in that thread, Whoiney.  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 13, 2023 20:31:11 GMT
The court didn't attach any significance to it. The court concluded that the status of the road was immaterial. It's you and the others who have been stressing the significance of its status. If I have 'picked up on it', it was only to stress how absurd it was that others thought it a relevant factor in the case. Now, Squeaky, do you have a law degree?
All discussed in that thread, Whoiney. It's just that you gave us a brief autobiography on the old site. When you appeared to contradict yourself at a later date, you said you had just made it up. Where are we currently? Are you claiming to have a law degree now? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 13, 2023 20:35:21 GMT
All discussed in the thread, Whoiney. So why the obsession with me?
|
|
