Emma Way

patrickf

The Rookie wrote:

patrickf wrote:

the dippy girl admitted publicly to causing an accident

Did she, I mean really.....no, she admitted being involved in the accident which is far from being the same thing!

Given the amount of youtube vids from in car camera's that show dreadful driving by the camera's owner, I have long since given up on trying to understand peoples stupidity when it comes to such things!

Fair point I suppose. I took this to mean she caused the accident:

Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way

Now, I'd still read that as her having caused the accident (and therefore it being an admission of guilt), but I can understand where you're coming from. In theory the cyclist could have jumped out in front of her and the statement would still be true, however, I would then have worded the sentence a little different of it was me.

That said, failure to report an accident is still an offence, is it not? Regardless of who's fault it is.

keyser__soze

Pleaded not guilty apparently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23730371 - going to trial in Nov

markhewitt1978

Not guilty probably a tactic, no doubt it'll get reduced to a lesser charge due to lack of evidence or some such and she'll just end up with £60 and 3 points.

slowbike

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Pleaded not guilty apparently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23730371 - going to trial in Nov

Well - pleaded via her Solicitor - she wasn't present ...

Hope she has a good excuse ... !


I would've thought she would've been better off pleading guilty and going for leniency following all the media hype over what is probably quite a common occurrence (the accident - not the infantile tweet).
Perhaps the defence is relying on not being able to get an impartial jury?

BillyMansell

Slowbike wrote:

Perhaps the defence is relying on not being able to get an impartial jury?

She is to be tried by magistrates rather than a jury.

keyser__soze

They'll probably pull some technical legal wrangle and state that Twitter is inadmissible in court, therefore there was no evidence she believed she'd hit anyone and as the cyclist didn't go to the police there's no case to answer...

BillyMansell

Keyser__Soze wrote:

They'll probably pull some technical legal wrangle and state that Twitter is inadmissible in court, therefore there was no evidence she believed she'd hit anyone and as the cyclist didn't go to the police there's no case to answer...

From the three charges given I don't think what she wrote on Twitter will have any bearing on the case one way or the other but it has just caused her to be hoist by her own petard for an incident that happens many times a day but never gets reported.

The more damning evidence is she admitted on TV to having been involved in a collision but did not stop to check the other party was okay, did not exchange details and did not report the incident to the police. I imagine the third charge of careless driving resulted from the evidence of the other cyclist or other witnesses.

mattsaw

Keyser__Soze wrote:

They'll probably pull some technical legal wrangle and state that Twitter is inadmissible in court, therefore there was no evidence she believed she'd hit anyone and as the cyclist didn't go to the police there's no case to answer...

Evidence from Twitter has already been used in several court cases, so I doubt they'll be able to use that as a defence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11736785

BillyMansell

Mattsaw wrote:

Keyser__Soze wrote:

They'll probably pull some technical legal wrangle and state that Twitter is inadmissible in court, therefore there was no evidence she believed she'd hit anyone and as the cyclist didn't go to the police there's no case to answer...

Evidence from Twitter has already been used in several court cases, so I doubt they'll be able to use that as a defence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11736785

Except he was ultimately cleared of what he wrote on Twitter.

The three charges she has been charged with are driving offences and not communication offences.

mattsaw

He wasn't cleared of writing it, he was cleared of it being 'menacing' and no evidence that his followers found it as such.

It was still admitted as evidence and has been in several other cases including high-profile libel and racism cases

BillyMansell

Mattsaw wrote:

He wasn't cleared of writing it, he was cleared of it being 'menacing' and no evidence that his followers found it as such.

It was still admitted as evidence and has been in several other cases including high-profile libel and racism cases

Okay, you can play the pedant game if you want but what she wrote on Twitter should not influence the offences to be charged in this case which are all motoring offences. I'm assuming you know the offences she is to be charged with?

mattsaw

Pedantic?

I was answering a question of Twitter messages being admissible in court.

They are, and have been several times.

BillyMansell

Mattsaw wrote:

Pedantic?

I was answering a question of Twitter messages being admissible in court.

They are, and have been several times.

And its relevance to this case is what? (disregarding pedantry)

Again, I ask you to look at the charges.

mattsaw

Relevance depends on the prosecutions case. I would imagine they would happily use the tweet to establish that she was was aware of hitting the cyclist at the time in relation to the charges of failing to stop and failing to report an accident no?

rolf_f

All this of course explains why she repeated apologised for the tweet but not actually for the accident.......

BillyMansell

Mattsaw wrote:

Relevance depends on the prosecutions case. I would imagine they would happily use the tweet to establish that she was was aware of hitting the cyclist at the time in relation to the charges of failing to stop and failing to report an accident no?

As I said earlier, her TV appearances are far more damning as she admitted to being in a collision and admitted to not speaking to the other party, exchanging details or reporting the icident. There is no suggestion in the charges that her Tweets relate to the charges presented, otherwise where are the charges for driving at excessive speed or driving whilst using a phone that were also contained in her Tweets?

Her Tweets were neither inciting hatred nor menacing but they have caused her to be hoist by her own petard for driving offences that had she not Tweeted she would have got away with.

mattsaw

BillyMansell wrote:

There is no suggestion in the charges that her Tweets relate to the charges presented, otherwise where are the charges for driving at excessive speed or driving whilst using a phone that were also contained in her Tweets?

I would guess that as those offences you could dismiss as a 'joke' or bravado (unless verified by another source) whereas it would be difficult to explain away admitting to a collision that you would have been otherwise unaware of.

The tweet obviously is an admission of awareness that otherwise couldn't be explained away. Any of the other claims would easily be denied unless caught in the act, which is certainly why she's not being prosecuted for them.

redvee

There is a chance the Magistrates Court could decide the case is beyond their sentencing remit and send it to Crown Court, unlikely TBH.

bendertherobot

She's pleaded not guilty because she has to. She has to risk a guilty verdict because her career depends on it. I think she's a stupid, silly girl. I believe on the facts as we know them she is guilty. But it's for a Court to decide. But from her point of view she has to plead not guilty.

The Rookie

Therein lies the rub, while she is a stupid silly girl, should the women of the future be dammed forever, if this hadn't attracted the publicity is has she could have been tried and plead guilty and sentanced and that be an end of it.

Punishment for the crime as appropriate and then rehabilitation (WHERE APPLICABLE) afterwards, I know that makes me sound like a bleading heart liberal - I am not, but it's true in this case.

bails87

bendertherobot wrote:

She's pleaded not guilty because she has to. She has to risk a guilty verdict because her career depends on it. I think she's a stupid, silly girl. I believe on the facts as we know them she is guilty. But it's for a Court to decide. But from her point of view she has to plead not guilty.

Is it really impossible to be an accountant if you've got a driving offence on your record?

bendertherobot

bails87 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

She's pleaded not guilty because she has to. She has to risk a guilty verdict because her career depends on it. I think she's a stupid, silly girl. I believe on the facts as we know them she is guilty. But it's for a Court to decide. But from her point of view she has to plead not guilty.

Is it really impossible to be an accountant if you've got a driving offence on your record?

Probably not. But an acquittal means its easier to stay with her employer and finish her training. A guilty verdict will mean it unlikely that she will be taken on by anyone.

mattsaw

bails87 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

She's pleaded not guilty because she has to. She has to risk a guilty verdict because her career depends on it. I think she's a stupid, silly girl. I believe on the facts as we know them she is guilty. But it's for a Court to decide. But from her point of view she has to plead not guilty.

Is it really impossible to be an accountant if you've got a driving offence on your record?

I doubt it. I know a lawyer who has done time in prison

mroli

Presumably not for an offence of dishonesty?

mattsaw

No, it was assault.

He did have to write very grovelling letters to The Law Society and his bar

moarspeed

The Rookie wrote:

Therein lies the rub, while she is a stupid silly girl, should the women of the future be dammed forever, if this hadn't attracted the publicity is has she could have been tried and plead guilty and sentanced and that be an end of it.

Punishment for the crime as appropriate and then rehabilitation (WHERE APPLICABLE) afterwards, I know that makes me sound like a bleading heart liberal - I am not, but it's true in this case.

My opinion is she's one of these girls who's always had everything she wants, a spoilt brat and she needing bringing down a peg or two. If she learns from this, then I think it's enough, but I suspect if nothing happens she'll end up worse than before, full of arrogance and self belief that she can never do wrong.

DonDaddyD

MOARspeed wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

Therein lies the rub, while she is a stupid silly girl, should the women of the future be dammed forever, if this hadn't attracted the publicity is has she could have been tried and plead guilty and sentanced and that be an end of it.

Punishment for the crime as appropriate and then rehabilitation (WHERE APPLICABLE) afterwards, I know that makes me sound like a bleading heart liberal - I am not, but it's true in this case.

My opinion is she's one of these girls who's always had everything she wants, a spoilt brat and she needing bringing down a peg or two.

What a stupid opinion, do you know her personally, do you know what her upbringing was like or her life experiences to date? Have you been to the family home, sat down and had a cup of tea? Then how do you know enough of her to form that very blindsided judgemental opinion. The truth of it is that you don't know anything about this girl beyond what we may know of her incident with a cyclist.

And this brings me on to this:

The Rookie wrote:

Therein lies the rub, while she is a stupid silly girl, should the women of the future be dammed forever.

So let's boil it down to immaturity?

It's no good saying she was just a stupid girl, or that she's only 15, 17, 19, 21 etc. When does age stop being an excuse? However old she is, she is considered of an age to be responsible behind the wheel of a vehicle, she was given a wonderful job opportunity where people her age simply cannot find a job. She took both for granted while completely dismissing the value of the cyclists life.

What if she had killed him or caused serious injury, she didn't, but she didn't stop so how would she know?

Law has to be upheld, people must be held accountable and if that means having your future life options limited going foward then so be it. She should have never committed the crime in the first place.

Let it be a lesson to her and others so arrogant.

rubertoe

DonDaddyD wrote:

MOARspeed wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

Therein lies the rub, while she is a stupid silly girl, should the women of the future be dammed forever, if this hadn't attracted the publicity is has she could have been tried and plead guilty and sentanced and that be an end of it.

Punishment for the crime as appropriate and then rehabilitation (WHERE APPLICABLE) afterwards, I know that makes me sound like a bleading heart liberal - I am not, but it's true in this case.

My opinion is she's one of these girls who's always had everything she wants, a spoilt brat and she needing bringing down a peg or two.

What a stupid opinion, do you know her personally, do you know what her upbringing was like or her life experiences to date? Have you been to the family home, sat down and had a cup of tea? Then how do you know enough of her to form that very blindsided judgemental opinion. The truth of it is that you don't know anything about this girl beyond what we may know of her incident with a cyclist.

And this brings me on to this:

The Rookie wrote:

Therein lies the rub, while she is a stupid silly girl, should the women of the future be dammed forever.

So let's boil it down to immaturity?

It's no good saying she was just a stupid girl, or that she's only 15, 17, 19, 21 etc. When does age stop being an excuse? However old she is, she is considered of an age to be responsible behind the wheel of a vehicle, she was given a wonderful job opportunity where people her age simply cannot find a job. She took both for granted while completely dismissing the value of the cyclists life.

What if she had killed him or caused serious injury, she didn't, but she didn't stop so how would she know?

Law has to be upheld, people must be held accountable and if that means having your future life options limited going foward then so be it. She should have never committed the crime in the first place. Let it be a lesson to her and others so arrogant.

Oh No, I agree with DDD,

As the old saying goes. Dont do the crime if you cant do the time, and dont cry if you get appropriatly punished and it affects what you do in the future.

Stupidity is not an excuse...

vermin

rubertoe wrote:

Oh No, I agree with DDD

I hate it when he talks sense! :P

gabriel959

vermin wrote:

rubertoe wrote:

Oh No, I agree with DDD

I hate it when he talks sense! :P

I agree too, world must be coming to an end :?