Cycling Silk threats from driver case.

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

...
A BARRISTER who filmed a car driver threatening to kill him as he cycled to work has complained after prosecutors refused to take-up his case.
...

Evidence issues aside, surely the main point here is the irony of a barrister complaining he has been let down by the legal system?

Why is that "irony"?

The barrister has to operate within the system just as much as everyone else.

Its no more ironic than a bus driver complaining about the traffic laws

The irony is that the barrister doesn't seem to realise this.

Agent57

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

After catching up with the car at traffic lights, he got the driver to confirm the threat to kill and was told by him: “You're a f***ing little ****, mate.” The car then sped off.

Sounded more like "c*cky little c*nt" to me.

waddlie

snailracer wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

snailracer wrote:

So there you have it, it's ok to threaten someone as long as there are no other witnesses in earshot.

What matters in law is not what happened, but what can be proved. There is no threat on the video.

The thing is, in this case the police didn't even bother looking for proof.

Or perhaps the "evidence" they were supplied with was not sufficient to support the complainant's assertion that a criminal offence had taken place and it was not considered appropriate to go on a fishing trip to see if there was anything of more substance.

The cyclist already seems to have reduced his legal complaint from threats to kill to S5 public order, which in itself is not really the most serious of offences. If you read the ES article and watch the cyclist's video, there seems to be far too many discrepancies.

Origamist

Waddlie wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

snailracer wrote:

So there you have it, it's ok to threaten someone as long as there are no other witnesses in earshot.

What matters in law is not what happened, but what can be proved. There is no threat on the video.

The thing is, in this case the police didn't even bother looking for proof.

Or perhaps the "evidence" they were supplied with was not sufficient to support the complainant's assertion that a criminal offence had taken place and it was not considered appropriate to go on a fishing trip to see if there was anything of more substance.

The cyclist already seems to have reduced his legal complaint from threats to kill to S5 public order, which in itself is not really the most serious of offences. If you read the ES article and watch the cyclist's video, there seems to be far too many discrepancies.

Thankfully, the CPS do not solely rely on sloppy journalism when coming to a decision whether to proceed with a prosecution.

spen666

Origamist, the CPS rely on evidence, which is seriously lacking her. Both on the video and in the shifting evidence of the alleged victim.

Origamist

spen666 wrote:

Origamist, the CPS rely on evidence, which is seriously lacking her. Both on the video and in the shifting evidence of the alleged victim.

I've said as much about the level of evidence upthread:

That said, I can see why the CPS would be reluctant to pursue this...

I'm not sure where the "shifting evidence of the alleged victim is" - can you clarify, please?

Edit - I see the sweary language is slighty different in the ES article, but the letter to the CPS, the helmet cam film and presumably his statement include "you are a cocky cunt’ or something similar.

Is that it?

Headhuunter

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

antfly wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

This sort of behaviour is not to be ignored but all it takes is middle finger up, a shout of "you f*cking tw@t" to espress your displeasure and the world goes on as before. I personally didn't think it was an arrestable offence....

IME giving the finger is only going to exacerbate any situation, it's best, and most satisfying, to completely ignore them. I have had people stop and wait for me after giving the finger.

Indeed, any escalation means you're letting knob ends live in your head rent-free.

Smile and wave boys, smile and wave.

Quite frankly I'll stick to the finger and a few choice swear words. If they want to stop and wait that's fine. It's likely that I'm bigger and fitter than them when they step out of the car anyway and if there's more than 1 of them or something, Ijust cycle off in the other direction...

antfly

Fair enough but what if they don`t get out of the car ?

Headhuunter

antfly wrote:

Fair enough but what if they don`t get out of the car ?

They rarely stop as usually things happen in London traffic, that's where I do most of my riding. They may slow and threaten to stop but on a busy road it's pretty difficult to stop entirely and block the road. Usually they pretend to slow and try to shout stuff back at which I stick my fingers back up at them and eventually they just have to drive off. If they stopped I would just wait about 20m or so behind the car, I'm not passing ahead where they can try to run me down....!

OK I know I shouldn't react but in the heat of the moment I don't usually see why I should go all meek and coy for some little tit in a car...

re-cycles

Slightly off topic, but is this aggression from cyclists & motorists really that bad in London? I've read a few comments about "near misses" and it always seems to be the Londoners that feel the need to shout about it. Wouldn't life be easier if you just let it go, who needs the stress?

Headhuunter

re-cycles wrote:

Slightly off topic, but is this aggression from cyclists & motorists really that bad in London? I've read a few comments about "near misses" and it always seems to be the Londoners that feel the need to shout about it. Wouldn't life be easier if you just let it go, who needs the stress?

Not at all. I very rarely have any problems in London. In fact I often find that London drivers are so used to cyclists that they (begrudgingly or otherwise) make room. I find cycling outside London can be worse, however if I have any conflict at all it's usually in London because that's where I do the majority of my riding. But it's literally only once every 5 or 6 months that anything happens and generally I just tut to myself and roll my eyes. I only ever erupt if someone does something that really p*sses me off like squeeze past in a pinch point with the horn blaring or acts in an openly aggressive way or whatever....

spen666

Origamist wrote:

....
I'm not sure where the "shifting evidence of the alleged victim is" - can you clarify, please?

shifting evidence, ie evidence of him moving along! shifting places and a piece of footage missing in middle!

langster

As much as I hate to admit it, in general I find london drivers not too bad at all. The feeling of vunrebility you have though when cycling can make an incident feel worse as we keep on believing we are "victims".

You have to keep in mind that people are fallible and make mistakes and if you expect them as part of your commute and just think of them as ways to test your bike handling skills you will find them a lot less stressfull.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Headhuunter wrote:

re-cycles wrote:

Slightly off topic, but is this aggression from cyclists & motorists really that bad in London? I've read a few comments about "near misses" and it always seems to be the Londoners that feel the need to shout about it. Wouldn't life be easier if you just let it go, who needs the stress?

Not at all. I very rarely have any problems in London. In fact I often find that London drivers are so used to cyclists that they (begrudgingly or otherwise) make room. I find cycling outside London can be worse, however if I have any conflict at all it's usually in London because that's where I do the majority of my riding. But it's literally only once every 5 or 6 months that anything happens and generally I just tut to myself and roll my eyes. I only ever erupt if someone does something that really p*sses me off like squeeze past in a pinch point with the horn blaring or acts in an openly aggressive way or whatever....

This. And this again.

Volume of traffic in London keeps speeds down, and so keeps the speed differential down. Outside London the traffic drives faster, and reacts less well to being held up.

tailwindhome

Waddlie wrote:

snailracer wrote:

So there you have it, it's ok to threaten someone as long as there are no other witnesses in earshot.

What matters in law is not what happened, but what can be proved. There is no threat on the video.

Spen666

Does the statement of the cyclist, that a threat was made, carry any weight as evidence?

I'm thinking (in my layman's way) of comparisons to child abuse cases where there is no physical evidence, only testimony.

Obviously the 'crimes' are on a much different scale.

snailracer

Waddlie wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

snailracer wrote:

So there you have it, it's ok to threaten someone as long as there are no other witnesses in earshot.

What matters in law is not what happened, but what can be proved. There is no threat on the video.

The thing is, in this case the police didn't even bother looking for proof.

Or perhaps the "evidence" they were supplied with was not sufficient to support the complainant's assertion that a criminal offence had taken place and it was not considered appropriate to go on a fishing trip to see if there was anything of more substance.

The cyclist already seems to have reduced his legal complaint from threats to kill to S5 public order, which in itself is not really the most serious of offences. If you read the ES article and watch the cyclist's video, there seems to be far too many discrepancies.

It is not the job of members of the public to go around collecting evidence for criminal proceedings, that is the police's job.

What happened here is that the police simply could not be bothered, and on a practical level I agree with them, in principle I can't.

If a scary-looking man shouted death threats at some random woman in the street, I bet the police would give him proper hassle.

greg66_tri_v2.0

snailracer wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

snailracer wrote:

So there you have it, it's ok to threaten someone as long as there are no other witnesses in earshot.

What matters in law is not what happened, but what can be proved. There is no threat on the video.

The thing is, in this case the police didn't even bother looking for proof.

Or perhaps the "evidence" they were supplied with was not sufficient to support the complainant's assertion that a criminal offence had taken place and it was not considered appropriate to go on a fishing trip to see if there was anything of more substance.

The cyclist already seems to have reduced his legal complaint from threats to kill to S5 public order, which in itself is not really the most serious of offences. If you read the ES article and watch the cyclist's video, there seems to be far too many discrepancies.

It is not the job of members of the public to go around collecting evidence for criminal proceedings, that is the police's job.

What happened here is that the police simply could not be bothered, and on a practical level I agree with them, in principle I can't.

If a scary-looking man shouted death threats at some random woman in the street, I bet the police would give him proper hassle.

The police can't collect evidence after the event.

Well, they're not supposed to.

Origamist

spen666 wrote:

Origamist wrote:

....
I'm not sure where the "shifting evidence of the alleged victim is" - can you clarify, please?

shifting evidence, ie evidence of him moving along! shifting places and a piece of footage missing in middle!

"Shifting evidence" - a wooly use of language, Spen, but thanks for clarification.

It's apparent to all that the intial threat is not captured on film (hence why Porter cannily asked the driver to confirm what he had said for the benefit of the camera) and this absence of footage is presumably a factor in why the CPS (in Hounslow) would not proceed. However, I would not be surprised if someone else in the CPS/Met examined the file and thought a FPN was in order, or at the very least, asked the driver to voluntarily attend an interview.

Let's see how things progress now the media have highlighted the case.

mtb-idle

Greg66 wrote:

The police can't collect evidence after the event.

Well, they're not supposed to.

so do they collect it before the event? :roll:

snailracer

MTB-Idle wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

The police can't collect evidence after the event.

Well, they're not supposed to.

so do they collect it before the event? :roll:

Inevitable Minority Report reference:

spen666

TailWindHome wrote:

...
Spen666

Does the statement of the cyclist, that a threat was made, carry any weight as evidence?

I'm thinking (in my layman's way) of comparisons to child abuse cases where there is no physical evidence, only testimony.

Obviously the 'crimes' are on a much different scale.

I think you are misleading yourself slightly.

Criminal cases have to be proved BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

If X says it did happen and Y says it did not - then in the absence of ANY other evidence it is almost impossible to reach this standard of proof. In the cases you refer to there is nearly always other supporting evidence - eg evidence that despite his denials, someone saw D with child that day. Or another victim saying D did things to him as well etc.

I cannot think of a single child abuse or sexual offences case where the only evidence was from V and no other evidence.

I think you may be overlooking ( understandably so as you are not a lawyer) what can and is evidence. Sometimes it is unusual what can be corroborative evidence. It is not an easy subject to explain or to understand without looking at specific examples

waddlie

MTB-Idle wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

The police can't collect evidence after the event.

Well, they're not supposed to.

so do they collect it before the event? :roll:

There is a difference between:

i) The police establishing that a criminal offence has taken place and then seeking evidence to prove who did it, and

ii) The police seeking to establish whether or not a criminal offence has taken place.

In this case, we are in the latter of the two. The police cannot be expected to go on a fishing trip for evidence when it has not even been established that an offence has been committed and the evidence presented by the complainant does very little to prove his own side of the story.

mtb-idle

Hmmm...no fishing trips. So when they raided the house of commons when Gollum was in charge that wasn't a fishing trip?

waddlie

MTB-Idle wrote:

Hmmm...no fishing trips. So when they raided the house of commons when Gollum was in charge that wasn't a fishing trip?

Unpicking the Damian Green affair is incredibly difficult due to the politics and spin involved. I've held off from forming an opinion on it as pretty much every party involved or reporting on it has an axe to grind, a point to prove or a side to take.

If you're asserting that the police had no reasonable grounds to suspect that a criminal offence had taken place, I'd be interested to read whatever it is you're basing that opinion on.

ElKanguro

I read with interest all the comments made.... I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to know much in that respect, but what I do know is that I have been on the receiving end of similar threats to Martin many times and fully support the effort Martin is making to get some form of justice. At the end of the day, we all want to be safe and respected as equal users on the roads!

Keep at them Martin!

OldSkoolKona

Another word of support for Martin here, while I accept the comments relating to conditions in central London, in the outer borough its a different story. The contrast I experience from cycling in central London on the commute versus on the way to Hillingdon is stark.

I'd also challenge the allegations of "shifting evidence". Having followed all that Martin has said closely, I don't find anything to substantiate it.

spen666

OldSkoolKona wrote:

...
I'd also challenge the allegations of "shifting evidence". Having followed all that Martin has said closely, I don't find anything to substantiate it.

You clearly have not read my post then. I was the person who used the term "shifting evidence" and it is totally substantiated. Try going back and reading the explanation and justification for the term. I stand by it. It is not about lawyer changing his story but about the evidence of his location shifting and him moving place

Origamist

Thanks for support and a response to my critics
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/

Origamist

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Another word of support for Martin here, while I accept the comments relating to conditions in central London, in the outer borough its a different story. The contrast I experience from cycling in central London on the commute versus on the way to Hillingdon is stark.
.

Indeed. Martin Porter (with his legal expertise) is helping all cyclists by pursuing this bullying moron through the proper legal channels. We should not meekly accept threats of violence and certainly not threats to kill from people in charge of heavy machinery. I applaud Porter for his stance on the issue.

tailwindhome

Quoting from the above link, with reference to the 'lack of evidence'

3. The CPS are right - there is no evidence

The same discussion on bikeradar is almost comical on this subject. Apparently those at the sharp end of the criminal justice system, who cycle, frequent this forum (along with I readily concede more sensible voices) and advise each other knowingly on what evidence is and is not admissible (the clear admission immediately after the event that the suspect threatened to kill me is no evidence of anything in one learned opinion) and how my story has shifted over time, casting doubt on whether I was called a "f***g c**t" or a "cocky c**t", which means the case would surely be thrown out (neglecting to notice that those words are actually quite clear on the video). My evidence as to what was said when the car drew alongside is also pronounced to be worthless (the fact I repeated the words into the camera giving it the same status as if I had written it down contemporaneously is alas overlooked). What innocent explanation is there, I wonder, which could turn out to be consistent with what is on the tape and would explain why I have fabricated all this against an innocent motorist? - we will never of course know until the motorist is asked, but it would have to be good for even the lawyers on bikeradar to secure an acquittal.

I'd be interested to hear what Spen and Greg say in response.