Jeremy Vine road rage

fenix

Hmmm - maybe shes not the brightest or has hired that Mr Loophole who will no doubt get her off ?

bendertherobot

Some people are just bloody minded.

A "mate" is giving evidence in a case next week. Defendant charged with 4 offences. There are around 10 witnesses and limited exceptions in law to the offences charged. But the defendant is going with it. As is their right of course.

UndercoverElephant

bendertherobot wrote:

Some people are just bloody minded.

A "mate" is giving evidence in a case next week. Defendant charged with 4 offences. There are around 10 witnesses and limited exceptions in law to the offences charged. But the defendant is going with it. As is their right of course.

Or, like in a case where I was balloted for the Jury, they arrive on the day, see that the witnesses actually turned-up and change their plea at the last minute.

benkxk

Had a similar incident yesterday. At Hyde Park where you turn right onto the Kensington High Street there were around 10 - 15 cyclists, which take a few seconds to get started as you have to wait in the road, but the woman behind couldn't wait and beeped... for what? Seriously, we're going. It got me a bit annoyed after seeing this the same day. People just need to wait, you can catch up those few seconds you know.

mosheehan

Surely beeping adds time, as the cyclists have to stop and turn around to look at the idiot who has beeped!

Bikequin

Beeping certainly adds time when - I can move away from a set of lights at glacial speed when necessary (and it saves my knees!)

benkxk

Exactly, every one turned around to see who it was and then had to start to go again. It's not going to make us go any faster especially when we're already starting to go

bendertherobot

UndercoverElephant wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Some people are just bloody minded.

A "mate" is giving evidence in a case next week. Defendant charged with 4 offences. There are around 10 witnesses and limited exceptions in law to the offences charged. But the defendant is going with it. As is their right of course.

Or, like in a case where I was balloted for the Jury, they arrive on the day, see that the witnesses actually turned-up and change their plea at the last minute.

Magistrates Court for this one, but, hopefully.

awavey

the Standard had some of the defence take on it... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bb ... 90526.html

benkxk

awavey wrote:

the Standard had some of the defence take on it... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bb ... 90526.html

Stupid woman wrote:

She also argued that the video footage from Mr Vine could have been "doctored or edited".

How exactly?

bompington

Pretty much the last resort when the video evidence is damning, isn't it?

Man Of Lard

BenKxK wrote:

Stupid woman wrote:

She also argued that the video footage from Mr Vine could have been "doctored or edited".

How exactly?

because Mr Vine works for the meeja and it's well known that they can edit video.... Next claim will probably be that he CGIed the defendant into the video and she was demonstrably actually on holiday in Fuengirola at the time of the alleged incident.

Tashman

If she was so worried that she'd knock him off then she should have given him more space. I can't believe a solicitor could keep a straight face when delivering that defence

UndercoverElephant

Man Of Lard wrote:

BenKxK wrote:

Stupid woman wrote:

She also argued that the video footage from Mr Vine could have been "doctored or edited".

How exactly?

because Mr Vine works for the meeja and it's well known that they can edit video.... Next claim will probably be that he CGIed the defendant into the video and she was demonstrably actually on holiday in Fuengirola at the time of the alleged incident.

Pretty standard defence if the video isn't fully timestamped. Even if it is, then it's worth a try.

bompington

Where the burden of proof lie with the "edited video" defence? I would say that there's a case that the defence should have to prove it is, but what does the law say?

iPete

Isn't this something of a catch 22, pleaded not guilty to driving without a licence but the defense goes on to say she was frightened she would knock him off, i.e. driving the car!!

Ben6899

awavey wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bbcs-jeremy-vine-to-give-evidence-in-road-rage-row-in-kensington-a3390526.html

God. She's the image of insolence.

The Rookie

In this case the primary evidence is Jeremy Vines account with the video to corroborate it, would he risk a conviction for attempting to pervert the course of Justice by lying and editing the video? that is what the court will consider and almost certainly say no. If they believe the rest, why not the 'gun'?

I wonder how the not guilty for driving without a licence (or at least 'otherwise than in accordance with') as that is a pretty black or white case!

She looks ideal for winding up a bench towards the maximum sentences under the guidelines!

veronese68

The Rookie wrote:

I wonder how the not guilty for driving without a licence (or at least 'otherwise than in accordance with') as that is a pretty black or white case!

She looks ideal for winding up a bench towards the maximum sentences under the guidelines!

Completely agree with you there. It's clear she was driving, she's even said as much, they know if she has a valid licence so putting your hands up to that seems like a no brainer, then it may lend a tiny bit of credibility to the rest of her claims. Hopefully she will just wind them up as you say and they'll get their black caps out.

mtb-idle

my take on this is that she will probably be found guilty but given a minimal/nominal rebuke as the judge and jury are bound to all be car drivers and cycle-haters and believe that she was in the right.

Don't agree? Then check any case that's gone through the courts recently. That bloke who killed two cyclists twenty years apart and used the same defence "the sun was in my eyes" etc. etc.

bendertherobot

There has to be a trial, of course. There has to be innocence until proven guilty, of course.

But it's kind of funny that someone who denies using a hand signal is using one in that photo, albeit a different one. And ironic that it starts, she says, because VIne didn't use a hand signal.

Ben6899

She's the sort of person who cares about herself and whether or not there's 4G or wifi. And not much else.

bendertherobot

Oh, I think that much will certainly come out, I hope she gives evidence. It'll be a, well, car crash

bendertherobot

So, convicted of the lot, including the gun signal. Previous for ABH (suspended sentence).

Off to prison later, it seems.

benws1

What a lovely human being.

I'm glad she will face some sort of sentence. Wonder how long it will be?

bendertherobot

The offences are all committed at same time so likely to run together.

I'll go 3 months.

fenix

Silly cow. And all because she was so impatient. She's a student ffs - why is she in a rush anywhere and why have a car in London ? She couldnt afford a licence or insurance could she ?

bendertherobot

Wow. Head over to Vine's twitter account. She's basically threatened another twitter user during the case.

Wow.

fenix

Car crash tweeting ;

https://twitter.com/ShaniquePearso2/sta ... 9560036352

Although do we know it's her for sure ? Could be a fake account. I hope it is.

benws1

bendertherobot wrote:

Wow. Head over to Vine's twitter account. She's basically threatened another twitter user during the case.

Wow.

She currently has a suspended sentence, has been found guilty of everything she has done to Jeremy Vine, and has even been threatening to run someone over whilst the case was being processed.

I doubt 3 months would be enough for someone like her. She clearly doesn't care, is a really nasty piece of work that thinks she is 'gangsta' and is utterly stupid.