Interesting court case
Comments
-
Awaiting her immediate appeal of sentence or suspended sentence....
She will never admit to herself that she is a totally sh1t human being and unfit to parent. It will still be the vehicles fault......Maybe Audi should sue her too.0 -
UPDATE ON CASE:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-convicted-after-she-aimed-car-at-cyclist-and-crashed-into-salon-a3088011.html
(apologies if there has been an update already)I ride with God on my mind and power in my thighs....WOE betide you!
I know I'm not the fastest rider on earth BUT I KNOW I AM NOT the slowest!!!
If you Jump Red Lights in order to stay ahead you are a DISGRACE!!0 -
That is interesting. Previous for dangerous whilst drunk. Fair play.
And, either she is a prodigious reproducer or some of the kids were other people's. Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
That's no car, it's a tank. Why did she not just swing her turret towards him and fire?[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19718172#p19718172]Greg66 Tri v2.0[/url] wrote:"Natalie Pyne, 31, had at least four children in her Audi Q7..."
Seriously - she'll get less than she deserves but more then she believes she does.0 -
That's no car, it's a tank. Why did she not just swing her turret towards him and fire?[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19718172#p19718172]Greg66 Tri v2.0[/url] wrote:"Natalie Pyne, 31, had at least four children in her Audi Q7..."
Seriously - she'll get less than she deserves but more then she believes she does.
5 kids according to the standard piece.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
UPDATE ON CASE:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-convicted-after-she-aimed-car-at-cyclist-and-crashed-into-salon-a3088011.html
(apologies if there has been an update already)
Immediate disqualification at least......so far. Question; in motoring offences, or offences that are linked by a constant, Are previous convictions taken into account?0 -
That's no car, it's a tank. Why did she not just swing her turret towards him and fire?[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19718172#p19718172]Greg66 Tri v2.0[/url] wrote:"Natalie Pyne, 31, had at least four children in her Audi Q7..."
Seriously - she'll get less than she deserves but more then she believes she does.
5 kids according to the standard piece.
How many seats does a Q7 have?There is no secret ingredient...0 -
7 incl. driver.Trail fun - Transition Bandit
Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
Allround - Cotic Solaris0 -
8 incl bonnet for cyclist7 incl. driver.0 -
8 incl bonnet for cyclist7 incl. driver.
depends how far you got into the hairdressers0 -
3 years...
http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/13950300._Out_of_control__New_Malden_mum_of_six_jailed_for_three_years_after_driving_into_autistic_cyclist_and_crashing_into_Kingston_salon/
Had previous it'd seem.The court also heard Pyne had previous driving-related convictions.
In March 2009 she was convicted of dangerous driving for drunkenly driving at more than 70mph on the wrong side of the road in the January of that year. She was disqualified from driving for 12 months and given a suspended sentence at the time, the court heard.
Defence counsel Lisa Bald called for a “justifiable act of mercy” and described the case as a “flash of anger that happened in seconds”.
She added: “She is not a woman prone to aggressive outbursts, she is not that type of person and this wasn’t an act of violence.”
I wonder if the defence actually believe the last statement0 -
-
Some further details of her parenting skills now also in the Mail Online, in particular:MailOnline wrote:At her trial at Kingston Crown Court, her 14-year-old son who had sat in the front seat, described how he thought he was 'going to die.'
One witness .... heard Pyne shouting 'shut up' at her crying children once her car came to rest in the wreckage of Park Salon.0 -
That was just the defence though. They also claimed at one point the car was faulty.Good. but, "Wasn't an act of violence". Really?0 -
that will have given her a shock. Part of me wants her to appeal so that it stays in the news longer and serves as a deterrent to others0
-
Is there a previous precedent for a car deliberately being used as a weapon?[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19737407#p19737407]Surrey Commuter[/url] wrote:that will have given her a shock. Part of me wants her to appeal so that it stays in the news longer and serves as a deterrent to others
If not, then there is now. Good.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Good. but, "Wasn't an act of violence". Really?
absolutely spot on0 -
Yes, it was more that I was wondering what the defence would classify as an act of violence. I didn't think anyone could deny that driving a car at someone is a violent act.
That was just the defence though. They also claimed at one point the car was faulty.Good. but, "Wasn't an act of violence". Really?0 -
This was an innocent case of a faulty car, honest guv. If that were true then it wasn't violent
Yes, it was more that I was wondering what the defence would classify as an act of violence. I didn't think anyone could deny that driving a car at someone is a violent act.
That was just the defence though. They also claimed at one point the car was faulty.Good. but, "Wasn't an act of violence". Really?
Just the jury didn't agree0 -
Quite interesting reading through Road.cc's previous article and this comment below:
"And what FACTS regarding the actual event are you using to claim that this woman tried to kill anyone? Your making assumptions based on your prejudices. Seeing a buckled back wheel and a car your again assuming that the driver is wrong.
Spoke to the wife early this afternoon and her take on what possibly happened was that an argument took place. The man attacked her car by kicking it then made his way around to the front to get at the driver. The woman on her own felt that she and the young children in the car were under immanent threat from a man that had already been violent instinctively stamped on the accelerator in an attempt to get away. She clipped the rear wheel of the bike buckling it lost control and hit the car and into the hairdressers with her foot still on the accelerator of a big powerful car.
Is that what happened? No idea but its a plausible explanation. I think that until all the facts are known the horrendous demonisation of this woman is quite appalling.
Your quite possibly right regards autism and violence BUT that doesn't make it acceptable towards a woman and children or come to think of it anyone. If this individual has to resort to violence then maybe he should only have supervised outings. Would you feel differently if the violence had been directed towards your wife or daughter?"
He's right that we should, at the time, have waited until demonisation. But so should demonisation of the other party. What we know now is that a jury, and they tend to be fairly driver sympathetic, didn't believe a word. And they would have felt heartened, after they gave their verdict, to learn of her previous very serious conviction.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
I thought witness statements at the time said she clearly drove at him. I know people that know the woman involved through local schools. They were in no doubt that she is dangerous.0
-
I thought witness statements at the time said she clearly drove at him. I know people that know the woman involved through local schools. They were in no doubt that she is dangerous.
I wonder whether the poster was related or knew her.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Quite interesting reading through Road.cc's previous article and this comment below:
"And what FACTS regarding the actual event are you using to claim that this woman tried to kill anyone? Your making assumptions based on your prejudices. Seeing a buckled back wheel and a car your again assuming that the driver is wrong.
Spoke to the wife early this afternoon and her take on what possibly happened was that an argument took place. The man attacked her car by kicking it then made his way around to the front to get at the driver. The woman on her own felt that she and the young children in the car were under immanent threat from a man that had already been violent instinctively stamped on the accelerator in an attempt to get away. She clipped the rear wheel of the bike buckling it lost control and hit the car and into the hairdressers with her foot still on the accelerator of a big powerful car.
Is that what happened? No idea but its a plausible explanation. I think that until all the facts are known the horrendous demonisation of this woman is quite appalling.
Your quite possibly right regards autism and violence BUT that doesn't make it acceptable towards a woman and children or come to think of it anyone. If this individual has to resort to violence then maybe he should only have supervised outings. Would you feel differently if the violence had been directed towards your wife or daughter?"
He's right that we should, at the time, have waited until demonisation. But so should demonisation of the other party. What we know now is that a jury, and they tend to be fairly driver sympathetic, didn't believe a word. And they would have felt heartened, after they gave their verdict, to learn of her previous very serious conviction.
If only her Defence Lawyer had thought of that great little story.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
But they didn't, so now is the time to start the demonisation.Quite interesting reading through Road.cc's previous article and this comment below:
"And what FACTS regarding the actual event are you using to claim that this woman tried to kill anyone? Your making assumptions based on your prejudices. Seeing a buckled back wheel and a car your again assuming that the driver is wrong.
Spoke to the wife early this afternoon and her take on what possibly happened was that an argument took place. The man attacked her car by kicking it then made his way around to the front to get at the driver. The woman on her own felt that she and the young children in the car were under immanent threat from a man that had already been violent instinctively stamped on the accelerator in an attempt to get away. She clipped the rear wheel of the bike buckling it lost control and hit the car and into the hairdressers with her foot still on the accelerator of a big powerful car.
Is that what happened? No idea but its a plausible explanation. I think that until all the facts are known the horrendous demonisation of this woman is quite appalling.
Your quite possibly right regards autism and violence BUT that doesn't make it acceptable towards a woman and children or come to think of it anyone. If this individual has to resort to violence then maybe he should only have supervised outings. Would you feel differently if the violence had been directed towards your wife or daughter?"
He's right that we should, at the time, have waited until demonisation. But so should demonisation of the other party. What we know now is that a jury, and they tend to be fairly driver sympathetic, didn't believe a word. And they would have felt heartened, after they gave their verdict, to learn of her previous very serious conviction.
If only her Defence Lawyer had thought of that great little story.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
How does such a tool get to drive such an expensive vehicle?0
-
Do you really think that money and intellect are directly linked?How does such a tool get to drive such an expensive vehicle?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Do you really think that money and intellect are directly linked?How does such a tool get to drive such an expensive vehicle?
No - but society rewarding the sociopaths and being far from meritocratic is disturbing.0 -
But nothing new.
Do you really think that money and intellect are directly linked?How does such a tool get to drive such an expensive vehicle?
No - but society rewarding the sociopaths and being far from meritocratic is disturbing.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I'm rather hoping that, if some of the other things I heard are true, tax payers won't be subsidising her lifestyle in future.How does such a tool get to drive such an expensive vehicle?0 -
I've heard all the arguments about defence lawyers:3 years...
http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/13950300._Out_of_control__New_Malden_mum_of_six_jailed_for_three_years_after_driving_into_autistic_cyclist_and_crashing_into_Kingston_salon/
Had previous it'd seem.The court also heard Pyne had previous driving-related convictions.
In March 2009 she was convicted of dangerous driving for drunkenly driving at more than 70mph on the wrong side of the road in the January of that year. She was disqualified from driving for 12 months and given a suspended sentence at the time, the court heard.
Defence counsel Lisa Bald called for a “justifiable act of mercy” and described the case as a “flash of anger that happened in seconds”.
She added: “She is not a woman prone to aggressive outbursts, she is not that type of person and this wasn’t an act of violence.”
I wonder if the defence actually believe the last statement
"They're only helping people who may have been unfailry accused"
"Everyone has the right to a fair trial"
"It's just part of the judicial system"
Etc. etc.
Fair enough, but I'm never less than amazed that someone has the complete lack of moral fibre necessary to, basically, lie through their teeth for a living. I mean - I know everyone's moral compass doesn't point in the same direction, but how could you sleep at night knowing you'd just said that with a straight face? About a woman who had driven drunk on the wrong side of the road, who drove a car FULL OF HER OWN OFFSPRING directly at someone with such force that she ploughed into a shop and caused 25 grand's worth of damage?
Defence lawyers. Same rung of society's ladder as IT Recruitment Consultants and Estate AgentsFat chopper. Some racing. Some testing. Some crashing.
Specialising in Git Daaahns and Cafs. Norvern Munkey/Transplanted Laaandoner.0
