UK woke legal system yet again...

Woke is anyone who is not an angry, red-faced gammon. The gammons are authoritarian. They think any amount of force is acceptable when the rules have been broken. You can sit on someone's neck until they suffocate if they break a driving law; you can shoot someone who is trespassing on your land; you can startle someone into falling  onto a busy highway if they are improperly cycling on a footpath.

When the gammons heard about this, their first reaction was to ask: 'was this a shared footpath?' Because if it was, anything was acceptable. Well, that's not how the law works. Everyone is required to react in a proportionate way, even if the law is being broken. You can't shoot a trespasser or suffocate someone to death for breaching the highway code. If you see someone using the footpath as a cycling lane when they shouldn't, you have to respond reasonably. You can't descend on them screaming profanities in a way that is likely to startle them into falling to their death. This is the case even if the cyclist shouldn't have been on the footpath. It is disproportionate. Auriol Grey acted like a red-faced gammon, and the gammons are now rushing to her defence.

You do realise that this woman acted disproportionately, don't you? You do realise the jury had access to all the facts, don't you? 

If Auriol Grey appeals the conviction, as opposed to the sentence, the question for the Court of Appeal will be: did she act proportionately? In the same way that they would have to ask if someone acted proportionately by shooting a tresspasser or even a thief on their property. The fact that the footpath was not intended for use by cyclists will not be at the front and centre of the case, because, even if it the cyclist shouldn't have been there, Auriol Grey was not entitled to endanger her life for the minor offense of riding on a footpath.

Oscar Pistorius had no legs. That also affects motion and balance. Free Oscar Pistorius!!

The jury found that her illnesses had no bearing on the case. They, unlike you and rest of us, had access to all the facts. You are second guessing people who had more insight into what actually happened than you have. Don't you see the flaw in that approach?

And the question of whether Grey acted proportionately is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. It is the standard of the ordinary reasonable person. The Court of Appeal is extremely reluctant to overrule a jury's finding in these circumstances. So, even if Grey appeals her conviction, as opposed to the sentence, her chances of success are not great.

And the question whether Grey was responsible for the old lady's panicking and falling into the road is one for the jury. They looked at the facts of the case and decided that they would not have acted as Grey did in the same circumstances because of the inherent dangers. You may have reached a different conclusion had you been on the jury. But that doesn't matter. You don't have access to all the facts, and, more importantly, your opinion does not overrule those of the jurors.

Nonsense. Grey's handicaps were completely irrelevant. Just as Pistorious' were. Her real handicap here was her short temper and her 'territorial' attitude.

What makes you think Grey felt threatened? The jury didn't feel that way. Maybe, because the footage shows her determinedly advancing on the cyclist, rather than retreating (as you would expect from a 'threatened person').

The jury came back with the right decision in this case. They recognised that members of the public do not have a charter to endanger lives for trivial breaches of the law.


The sentence is another matter entirely. Relative to other cases, a sentence of three years seems severe. The judge attached great weight to the fact that Grey appeared unrepentant. Her lawyers contest that. Her sentence will probably be reduced on appeal.

And the briefest study of the law will show that it is unlawful to act disproportionately in the face of trivial breaches of the law.