# Do the Police not care?



## downfader (7 Nov 2010)

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010/11/metropolitan-police-do-they-take.html

Watching the video I'd say in the previous post I'd say it raises several issues. Like WTF has flouro got to do with someone threatening to kill a cyclist? I found this on another forum today and I will be posting it on the CTC site too. 

It appears to myself, as an outsider to London who is reading the various comments by experienced cyclists online, that Roadsafe isnt working either.

Discuss.


----------



## tdr1nka (8 Nov 2010)

I don't think it is because they don't care, as such.

This 'system' of reporting crime is simply endemic within Police Bureaucracy and not limited to 'Roadsafe'.

I fear that unless you have been plastered over the road with numerous and compliant witnessess and with the emergency services in attendance we are just expected to count our blessings and let the matter go.


Not having experience of any other Police Authority I can only cite my dealings with the Met who, through no fault of their own, are in no real position to act unless there is serious damage to an individual or their property.

With the cuts in all public services ahead, I sadly don't see any fast or realistic improvement in the situation as it stands.


----------



## gaz (8 Nov 2010)

Where is the video? i don't think i'm sub to this guy and i haven't seen anything that follows what he is saying.

Anyone that has read a part of my skinny blog or watched any of my videos will know that i've had dealings with Met in several forms, i've reported many videos to Road Safe and gone to several police stations trying to report incidences and been in a crash involved with a car. i'll give me opinions and views on each below.

*RoadSafe* - When they first launched i reported a video to them where a guy broke several laws whilst driving, nearly had a head on collision and then verbally abused me and threatened me. I reported that to RoadSafe and got nothing, i had to chase them for feedback and it was very hard to get anything out of them. And the end result is not what i was looking for, in hindsight i should have gone to the local police station and reported it there.
But they do state on their website that they only prosecute in the worst of cases.


> At Roadsafe London we make attempts to contact every driver in all cases reported to us. Please be assured we will research every submission in order to task police activity, but be aware we will not initiate a prosecution other than in exceptional cases. To make an allegation of a driving offence with a view to prosecution, you will have to attend a police station and complete a reporting form.


As one of the largest users of RoadSafe i was invited to meet the people that run it. Of course i took them up on this and met the officers that run it, they are all officers that have plenty of experience on the roads, most of them being on motorcycles but some with experiences in HGV's. Their knowledge and advice is something which shouldn't be sniffed at.
Their main aim is to attempt to make the roads safer for everyone, and they provide an easy way to report traffic offences. This is more than we had before and i think is based user to report 'minor' incidences where it's not worthwhile to report at the police station.

*Police Stations* - I, as Martin Porter, have experienced issues with reporting traffic offences at a police station, the desk staff are absolutely useless, they love to question every little detail about you, and as he, i have also been asked about what clothing i had on, my road position and why i use cameras. The thing is, they are just desk staff and know nothing about cycling on the road and road safety. Just get the damn form any way possible, and fill it out. It should then go to a department that will do something with it and hopefully contact you.

*Police responding to collisions* - This is where i think the police are at their best. When i was hit by a car, the police and emergency services where called. The police dealt with the driver there and then, doing all the right procedures and i was contacted at a later date by an officer dealing with the procedure, it was an open and shut case so they didn't need to do much. It was a much better procedure because you skip all that crap with filling out forms and talking to a plonker on the front desk.

If only we could print of one of those forms and send it to our local nick


----------



## benborp (8 Nov 2010)

Unfortunately, I've had a fairly wide range of experiences in reporting and being involved in incidents reported to the Met. Some relatively inconsequential matters have been dealt with with all the diligence I could possibly desire. However, several serious events, with witnesses, evidence and identified suspects have not been dealt with to anywhere near the standards that the police services are obliged to provide the public. The responsibility the police hold in the execution of an investigation and prosecution can be held in the hands of a series of individuals, and it seems any one of them can drop it, whether through incompetence, overwork, corruption or a personal disinclination. It's pot luck as to whether a road victim receives justice.


----------



## Davywalnuts (9 Nov 2010)

Oh my!! Thats on my commute, of which I rarely see anyone on there expect Airport workers, but you really do take you life in your hands there everytime. Its not for the faint hearted..

The local police stations around here too have come under alot of stick recently too and in previous dealings, its all quite warranted, so no wonder he's not getting anywhere too.

On a plus side, i've found a new local blog to follow.. completely selfish I am!


----------



## magnatom (10 Nov 2010)

I think this is the cyclists videos here.


----------



## gaz (10 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> I think this is the cyclists videos here.



He's kept that on the down low. Not seen many of his blog posts with youtube links in.


----------



## downfader (10 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> I think this is the cyclists videos here.




Those are indeed his vids. I think he might be adding to the "public record" I was discussing earlier this year.


----------



## gaz (10 Nov 2010)

downfader said:


> Those are indeed his vids. I think he might be adding to the "public record" I was discussing earlier this year.



You saaay whaat?


----------



## Origamist (11 Nov 2010)

The Metropolitan Police/CPS response; brace yourselves 


http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010/11/metropolitan-policecps-response-brace.html#comments


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Nov 2010)

Sadly predictable. Will be interesting to see how they respond to someone as clued up as him.


----------



## magnatom (12 Nov 2010)

I have mixed feelings about this one. I think the video where he was threatened is this one. 

In the grand scheme of things I've seen and had a lot worse. The threat was probably an empty, I'm a hard man, type threat. I might have posted the video, but I certainly wouldn't have went to the police with it.



However, in my opinion, there is far too much acceptance of poor behaviour on the roads and in general. Just this morning, turning a corner I had to shout a warning to a ped that was about to step out in front of me. 'Watch out' is what I shouted and I got a torrent of abuse back. Would it have been better for me to say nothing and knock him down?!!?

There is far too much aggression, impatience, and dangerous behaviour generally, however, it is a more significant, and more serious problem on the roads. Poor behaviour like this needs to be made an example of, made socially unacceptable. Is this the right case to do that, mmmmm, probably not.


----------



## gaz (12 Nov 2010)

I can't really fault what you are saying there magnatom. I've had far worse turned down by the CPS and let worse fly.


----------



## Origamist (12 Nov 2010)

@Mags, Gaz

The guy purportedly threatened to kill another person whilst being in control of a vehicle that could do just that! I'm surprised that both of you are only offering tepid support (the fact that you've both been on the receiving end of more serious abuse suggests that you have become inured to it because it is worryingly prevalent).

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 and I applaud Porter for his stance on the issue. I hope the CTC follow the story up. 

What's more, I shall be cutting and pasting part of his reply to the CPS in any future correspondence I have with the Met/CPS.


----------



## magnatom (12 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> @Mags, Gaz
> 
> The guy purportedly threatened to kill another person whilst being in control of a vehicle that could do just that! I'm surprised that both of you are only offering tepid support (the fact that you've both been on the receiving end of more serious abuse suggests that you have become inured to it because it is worryingly prevalent).
> 
> ...



The problem is that I can understand (though not support) the reaction of the police/CPS. Looking at the footage, in devils advocate mode, you can almost see a wry smile on the face of the driver when he agrees that he has threatened to kill him. Thus I can understand the reluctance to pursue the driver further.

Yes I entirely agree that any threat of being killed is unacceptable. Yes it should be stamped out. However, due to the fact it is fairly obvious from the footage that the driver has no real intention to follow up the threats (he accelerates away), I don't think it is the best footage to make a stand with.
I also did say above that I can understand why he is doing it, and that a stand has to be made. However, imagine this did go to court, and imagine that it got publicity. Now imagine how the general public would look at the footage. If I'm honest (putting on my joe public hat) I think most people would think that the cyclist was over-reacting, thus negating any positive impact. Yes, you and I know how unacceptable this behaviour is, but I doubt many non cyclists would.

Yes you are right, I probably have become inured to this type of abuse, but so has most of the public. We need a strong case to defend in the first instance and to work from there, IMO.

Having said all of the above, I admire Martin and what he is doing and wish him the best of luck with it.


----------



## BSRU (12 Nov 2010)

If someone was actually stupid enough to threaten to kill me and I caught on camera I would definitely report it the Police and expect them to do something about it.
As reported in the news recently some guy is in trouble with the Police for tweeting, (twating in my opinion), that a journalist should be stoned to death because he did not agree with her views.


----------



## magnatom (12 Nov 2010)

I should point out that I have pointed out this thread to Martin, as he may want to comment himself. It's an interesting and worthwhile debate in my opinion.


----------



## Origamist (12 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> The problem is that I can understand (though not support) the reaction of the police/CPS. Looking at the footage, in devils advocate mode, you can almost see a wry smile on the face of the driver when he agrees that he has threatened to kill him. Thus I can understand the reluctance to pursue the driver further.
> 
> Yes I entirely agree that any threat of being killed is unacceptable. Yes it should be stamped out. However, due to the fact it is fairly obvious from the footage that the driver has no real intention to follow up the threats (he accelerates away), I don't think it is the best footage to make a stand with.
> I also did say above that I can understand why he is doing it, and that a stand has to be made. However, imagine this did go to court, and imagine that it got publicity. Now imagine how the general public would look at the footage. If I'm honest (putting on my joe public hat) I think most people would think that the cyclist was over-reacting, thus negating any positive impact. Yes, you and I know how unacceptable this behaviour is, but I doubt many non cyclists would.
> ...



Mags, it's a serious offence in itself. As I understand it, threats to kill have a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment...

What worries me is that you are effectively saying that Porter should (ideally) wait until he can capture on camera a threat to kill, combined with a gangsta mime of a trigger pull to the head, a clear, menacing and preferably shouted: “I’ll kill you, you cycling Nazi”; and for good measure: an intimidatory swerve towards the cyclist as this would make for more compelling footage for a non-cycling audience. That’s as maybe, but this is for the legal system to decide: not Mondeo man, a Youtube viewer, or members of cycling fora.

I'm interested, as I want to see the criminal threshold for incidents like this.


----------



## magnatom (12 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> Mags, it's a serious offence in itself. As I understand it, threats to kill have a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment...
> 
> What worries me is that you are effectively saying that Porter should (ideally) wait until he can capture on camera a threat to kill, combined with a gangsta mime of a trigger pull to the head, a clear, menacing and preferably shouted: “I’ll kill you, you cycling Nazi”; and for good measure: an intimidatory swerve towards the cyclist as this would be more compelling footage for a non-cycling audience. That’s as maybe, but this is for the legal system to decide, not Mondeo man, or a Youtube viewer, or members of cycling fora.
> 
> I'm interested, as I want to see the threshold for indicents like this.




Oh come on Origamist, you know fine well I'm not suggesting that wait for a more serious incident. Hopefully such an incident will never happen. All I'm saying is that if you want to change attitudes and perceptions you have to have a good case to do that. As I said above, I just think that if this were to go public then it wouldn't necessarily have a positive reaction from Joe Public. I am sure many would see this and think....bl**dy cyclists. always complaining about nothing etc. 

What I think Martin should do, is help others who have footage that illustrates this issue more clearly (something that will happen inevitably). He obviously knows his law well, and could certainly help others.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Nov 2010)

CPS went ahead with the twitterjoketrial. CPS don't want to continue with this. Boy it would be easy to become disillusioned with the legal systems in this country.


----------



## magnatom (12 Nov 2010)

Here is a comment from Martin via youtube messaging



> I appreciate views may differ on this and if you look at my first blog post you will see I was initially very uncertain whether to report it. The bulk of commentators on my site thought I should.
> Do bear in mind that the threat was not delivered when he was grinning sheepishly into my camera (which I think he spotted halfway through saying 'cocky ****') but earlier, in a menacing manner when, as he had obviously been planning for many minutes, he pulled alongside me (close) and make his threat.
> I knew that the threat was not likely to be picked up on the camera so, lawyer as I am, thought it might be useful to get confirmation that I had heard right.
> What he did was unquestionably unlawful and, in my view there is the evidence to prove it quite conclusively. Yes, it is widespread, but so is speeding and if the evidence is there speeders get a fixed penalty; it hardly matters that in many other cases speeders get away with it, or that there are worse instances of speeding.
> Bear in mind also that all the Police Constable sought to do was to issue the driver with a fixed penalty notice for threatening/abusive behaviour, but the CPS lawyer apparently told him he shouldn't do that.


----------



## Origamist (12 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> Oh come on Origamist, you know fine well I'm not suggesting that wait for a more serious incident. Hopefully such an incident will never happen. All I'm saying is that if you want to change attitudes and perceptions you have to have a good case to do that. As I said above, I just think that if this were to go public then it wouldn't necessarily have a positive reaction from Joe Public. I am sure many would see this and think....bl**dy cyclists. always complaining about nothing etc.
> 
> What I think Martin should do, is help others who have footage that illustrates this issue more clearly (something that will happen inevitably). He obviously knows his law well, and could certainly help others.



You seem keen to want to widen this out to the court of public opinion - I'm not quite sure why, but I'll go down that path too. 

I'm keen to see this particular muppet (at the very least) get a visit from Inspector Knacker and a FPN as it will highlight that the incident is worthy of police time and hopefully punishment; not because it is the most heinous crime perpetrated on our roads - but *precisely because *it is all to commonplace and often accepted as part of the cut and thrust of negotiating a bike through traffic. 

If some kind of justice can be seen to be done in this case, it will hopefully send a message to bullying drivers that this behavior has no place in a civilized society, i.e. they can't get away with threats to kill whilst in charge of heavy machinery. 

I suspect as this correspondence continues between Porter and the CPS, cycling mags, blogs and hopefully campaigning organizations will take an interest (although I suspect they are already...).


----------



## magnatom (12 Nov 2010)

When it comes to what happens on the road, the reality of road interaction, the only court that really applies is, as you put it the 'court of public opinion'. With regards to the changes in drink driving,as far as I am aware, it wasn't really the threat of police action that reduced the rate of drink driving, but the social taboo that was eventually associated with it. Legislation and the application of legislation is all good, but there needs to be a groundswell of opinion that attitudes and actions like that are unacceptable towards vulnerable road users. As it stands there is, at best, apathy. 

However, perhaps you are right. Perhaps if the police are seen to take a strong hand in 'minor' incidents like these that will have an effect. I'm just concerned, through some personal experience, that publicity can often backfire unless the 'case' is watertight. 

We will see how it progresses, and I will certainly be backing Martin as he continues to pursue this.


----------



## gaz (12 Nov 2010)

The problem from my view (having been in the same position before and trying to report it) you can't easily hear the driver saying the threat the first time or see the look on his face.
So whilst yes, the driver does admit that he threatened to kill him, it is only on video when martin asked him if he said that. This could easily be thrown out of court, the driver could easily claim that he miss heard what he said. And lets be honest, we've all been tooted at whilst taking a primary position and the driving displayed here could be improved on, it's not the most dangerous that any of us have experienced.

Even here where you can quite clearly see the driver passing me far too close, turning across my path and threatening to punch me in a clearly malicious tone, i doubt anything will happen.

I'm not saying that martin shouldn't try, or that what he is doing is bad, i just think this one isn't going to go far but good luck to him.


----------



## downfader (12 Nov 2010)

My years of messing with audio and recording gear I reckon it would be very possible to forensically enhance the audio to get a clearer sound from the driver. This has been done with CCTV for years and audio is much easier to enhance.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (12 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> @Mags, Gaz
> 
> The guy purportedly threatened to kill another person whilst being in control of a vehicle that could do just that! I'm surprised that both of you are only offering tepid support (the fact that you've both been on the receiving end of more serious abuse suggests that you have become inured to it because it is worryingly prevalent).
> 
> 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 and I applaud Porter for his stance on the issue. I hope the CTC follow the story up.



+1. The guy deserves our support.


----------



## Origamist (25 Nov 2010)

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010/11/threat-to-kill-letter-to-cps-district.html#comments


----------



## gaz (25 Nov 2010)

This is getting interesting. I'm still not sure he will get anywhere with it.


----------



## magnatom (26 Nov 2010)

It is interesting. I need to chase up my own incident (with the tanker) which was never passed to the procurator fiscal.

I've been mulling over taking further action over this. This is where we could put the freedom of information act to good use. 

I haven't thought through the exact questions yet, but it would be interesting to get from the procurator fiscal and CPS statistics on numbers of road traffic crimes reported by drivers, pedestrians and cyclists and the rates of those crimes being getting to court or other proceedings. 

We could make this interesting for the press by getting cyclists in each force area to all send in the same requests at the same time. I think it would provide us with some very interesting data from which we would either find that cyclists perceive a problem that doesn't exist, or that there is in fact a problem.

We would have to get the stats split down into severity of incident etc to be meaningful. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## downfader (26 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> It is interesting. I need to chase up my own incident (with the tanker) which was never passed to the procurator fiscal.
> 
> I've been mulling over taking further action over this. This is where we could put the freedom of information act to good use.
> 
> ...




A good idea. Ask the CTC Campaigns dept to put the FOI Request as they have a bit of clout, same too with the AA.


----------



## magnatom (26 Nov 2010)

downfader said:


> A good idea. Ask the CTC Campaigns dept to put the FOI Request as they have a bit of clout, same too with the AA.



I don't think clout matters much with FOI, does it? I thought they have to provide the info with some provisos. I wonder if the ground routes approach would have more of an impact if it went to press?


----------



## gaz (26 Nov 2010)

http://www.thisislon...st-barrister.do
He's got some press over this.


----------



## downfader (27 Nov 2010)

gaz said:


> http://www.thisislon...st-barrister.do
> He's got some press over this.




On the one hand I'm glad it got in the press. On the other hand every other comment is some w***er there going "man up, son" or "no right to complain". These morons need to understand that dealing with said driver will benefit not just cyclists - but everybody.


----------



## Origamist (28 Nov 2010)

Upadated blog entry:

"Thanks for support and a response to my critics" 

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010/11/thanks-for-support-and-response-to-my.html


----------



## MartinC (28 Nov 2010)

Origamist, I think what you're doing is important and extremely valuable. The dismissive response from the CPS and the Police to crimes committed against members of the public simply because they happen to be riding a bike is there to be challenged. If you have the knowedge and motivation to take it through the system to the point where a response is legally required the it's doing us all a favour. I've often thought that if I had the time and resources a campaign to systematically collect all the evidence (a large sample of well documented examples and statistics) then taking the UK Government to the European Court for denial of the right to life to a large proportion of it's population would be worthwhile.

The comments you get from non-cyclists are predictable but still disappointing. The negative comments from others who cycle are very sad but, unfortunately, still predictable. We could spend for ever analysing why they think like that. I think that there are 2 big factors (amongst many others) at work. Firstly a desire to seek safety by appeasing the powerful and dangerous motorist - doomed to failure in my opinion. Secondly the shortsighted belief that cycling is a difficult and dangerous activity that reflects great credit on the hardy and intrepid souls that do it and that challenging this will damage some cyclists perception of themselves.

Thank you for sticking with this.


----------



## Bollo (28 Nov 2010)

Unfortunately I think nearly every regular cyclist who's had dealing with plod will have experienced this attitude to a greater or lesser extent. I'm certainly more cynical and less confident in the police than I was say, 5 years ago. My threshold for reporting to plod has risen a few notches over the years as well.

Here's my theory. The police are just members of the public like anyone else. Generalising wildly, those attracted to the job will subscribe to the more conservative (small c) views of society and that view certainly doesn't hold cycling dear to it's heart. I believe that many police regard us as a pain in the @rse that should just f*** off and leave the roads to the cars. In their view, by riding on the road we've signed a metaphorical waiver to any rights of protection.


MartinC, Origamist isn't the blogging cycle-barrister. For a start, the barrister in question has far too much hair


----------



## gaz (28 Nov 2010)

Lets not get confused between the Police and the CPS. From memory, the Police have done everything they can in this case. Gather the evidence, take statements and pass it onto the CPS. It is the CPS which is the issue and not the Police Force.


----------



## thomas (29 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> I have mixed feelings about this one. I think the video where he was threatened is this one.
> 
> In the grand scheme of things I've seen and had a lot worse. The threat was probably an empty, I'm a hard man, type threat. I might have posted the video, but I certainly wouldn't have went to the police with it.





I have to agree. The driver made a flippant remark and this cyclist is taking things too far.

Out of all the 'incidents' that I've seen posted on YouTube and experienced myself, I can think of many which are much better to cause a fuss about than that one.


----------



## BSRU (29 Nov 2010)

From my limited experience I have found recently the Police have started to take things more seriously.

I emailed the local neighbourhood Police team yesterday about drivers abusing a "No Entry", within a couple of hours the guy in charge replied thanking me for my concern and stating they were going to do something about it. This morning a Police van with a camera on top was positioned to catch offending motorists.


----------



## Origamist (29 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> I have to agree. The driver made a flippant remark and this cyclist is taking things too far.
> 
> Out of all the 'incidents' that I've seen posted on YouTube and experienced myself, I can think of many which are much better to cause a fuss about than that one.



"Flippant remark" how do you know the threat was flippant (the initial threat was not caught on camera, Thomas) The driver was not jokily commenting on the unseasonably balmy weather or the unusual wading bird he'd just spotted; he was allegedly threatening a cyclist in a measured and menacing manner. .


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> Out of all the 'incidents' that I've seen posted on YouTube and experienced myself, I can think of many which are much better to cause a fuss about than that one.



So what? All that matters here is whether the driver should be prosecuted/charged or not. The history of other incidents on the internet is entirely irrelevant. 

In fact, you seem to be suggesting that Martin Porter should only be concerned about pursuing a prosecution when he is the subject of "an incident" that is worse than anything else on youtube.

I, on the other hand, fail to see why this incident should not be judged in isolation. 

Let's make a fuss about this.


----------



## Bollo (29 Nov 2010)

gaz said:


> Lets not get confused between the Police and the CPS. From memory, the Police have done everything they can in this case. Gather the evidence, take statements and pass it onto the CPS. It is the CPS which is the issue and not the Police Force.



Understood completely. Mine was more a comment on my own experiences and Magger's current issues than the barrister's woes.

I believe that the police can make the decision to start a prosecution in 'minor' cases, but I don't have a clear idea of the threshold where the CPS take over. Utterly my own opinion but I sometimes wonder whether each organisation uses the other as the foil for 'plausible denial'...

Police - "We won't pursue a case because the CPS would throw it out"
CPS - "We don't have the evidence from the police investigation to pursue a prosecution"


----------



## thomas (29 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> "Flippant remark" how do you know the threat was flippant (the initial threat was not caught on camera, Thomas) The driver was not jokily commenting on the unseasonably balmy weather or the unusual wading bird he'd just spotted; he was allegedly threatening a cyclist in a measured and menacing manner. .




The cyclist is trying to make a point. I very much doubt he actually felt his life was in danger. If someone threatened to kill me and I actually believed it I would stop, pull off the road and phone 999 instantly. I most certainly wouldn't be trying to catch them up to ask if they had just threatened to kill me.

And actually, from watching the clip I can see why CPS (or whatever) wouldn't want to prosecute. What is caught on camera can easily be interpreted as a flippant remark which has been egged on by the cyclist. Without the actual "I am going to kill you" line it's worthless. Assuming he actually, even said that.




WheelyGoodFun said:


> So what? All that matters here is whether the driver should be prosecuted/charged or not. The history of other incidents on the internet is entirely irrelevant.
> *
> In fact, you seem to be suggesting that Martin Porter should only be concerned about pursuing a prosecution when he is the subject of "an incident" that is worse than anything else on youtube.*
> 
> ...




I'm sorry. Read my post again as I said nothing like that. I've seen a lot worst footage on YouTube which either hasn't been taken seriously by Police or wouldn't be. Out of everything on YouTube which is worth causing a fuss over, this clip really, really isn't.

Even if you judge it in isolation it's a driver failed to see the pinch point. Cyclist and driver argue for 10 seconds, driver drives off. Cyclist catches up and carries on arguing. Cyclist makes silly remark when car is in filter lane.

I'm sorry. I just don't have much sympathy for this clip. Having been in a situation where I actually thought I was going to die under the rear of a HGV trailer, I'm not that bothered about some petty comment.

I don't feel that trying to get this clip prosecuted is a good use of time and I don't feel it does anything to make cyclist safer.


----------



## Dan B (29 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> I'm sorry. Read my post again as I said nothing like that. I've seen a lot worst footage on YouTube which either hasn't been taken seriously by Police or wouldn't be.


And is that a good thing or a bad thing? Me, I'd say it was a bad thing. So how do we change it? Because I don't think that just telling the victims to MTFU is a good way forward.


----------



## Origamist (29 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> The cyclist is trying to make a point. * I very much doubt he actually felt his life was in danger.* If someone threatened to kill me and I actually believed it I would stop, pull off the road and phone 999 instantly. I most certainly wouldn't be trying to catch them up to ask if they had just threatened to kill me.



How do you know how someone else is feeling? Did you teleport yourself back in time and listen to the threat and then mind-meld with Porter? Stop the idle speculation. 



thomas said:


> I'm sorry. Read my post again as I said nothing like that. I've seen a lot worst footage on YouTube which either hasn't been taken seriously by Police or wouldn't be. Out of everything on YouTube which is worth causing a fuss over, this clip really, really isn't.
> 
> I don't feel that trying to get this clip prosecuted is a good use of time and I don't feel it does anything to make cyclist safer.



So what if more serious incidents go unpunished, that's hardly a compelling reason not to pursue less serious criminal behaviour.


----------



## thomas (29 Nov 2010)

I think it is important to say that I obviously don't condone making threats to kill, whether they are flippant or not. It's not a particularly nice or sensible thing to do. And I obviously don't condone bad driving.



Origamist said:


> How do you know how someone else is feeling? Did you teleport yourself back in time and listen to the threat and then mind-meld with Porter? Stop the idle speculation.



I think it is far from idle speculation. His actions at the time do not show that of someone whos life was in danger. You certainly wouldn't mouth off at the end like he did with the indicators remark if your life was in danger.

Perhaps my reaction to a serious death threat is different to this guys and yours? He obviously (thinks he has at least - I don't know) has a good understanding of the law and he wants to use that. We all have our side projects and this is a nice bit of professionally PR for him.



> So what if more serious incidents go unpunished, that's hardly a compelling reason not to pursue less serious criminal behaviour.



Well obviously not, but I feel that he is putting a disproportionation amount of effort into this.



What would you say a good outcome for this would be if it went to court?


----------



## gaz (29 Nov 2010)

At the end of the day, weather we agree with this clip being used or not. This cyclist knows what he is doing, and fighting for all of us. If we get more recognition from the CPS then it's about time!


----------



## thomas (29 Nov 2010)

gaz said:


> At the end of the day, weather we agree with this clip being used or not. This cyclist knows what he is doing, and fighting for all of us. If we get more recognition from the CPS then it's about time!



I guess I just feel that there are more important clips to try and get more recognition from.

I can understand why they don't want to prosecute with this clip. Obviously I disagree with this, but if I was in any jury about this and the driver claimed to have not said it and that he misheard the question, or was being sarcastic in response (eg. never threatened him) about the death threat I would probably side with him. Just because I think there is a reasonable doubt to what happened.

While I do believe some comment about killing the cyclist was probably made (whether flippant or not), I don't feel that the footage in the video is evidence enough. Obviously, not in any jury but if I was the fact that I don't feel this is the best case to spend a lot of time on wouldn't make any difference.

But hey, whatever, I've said my piece.

I saw mentioned about a FPN of £80...why wasn't this issued? It sounded like the Police were going to, but then told not to or something? Just interested...


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> I'm sorry. Read my post again as I said nothing like that.


Thomas, if you are not saying anything like that, then why are you continually raising the matter of this incident not being as bad as other incidents on youtube?

What is the point of bringing this up? I wouldn't suggest that someone not pursue the theft of some money, because other people have been burgled. So what is it that you are driving at? I was just guessing at your motivation, but the only reasonable basis I can think of is that you believe he should *only bother* to pursue an incident when it is as serious (or you perceive it to be as serious) as what you have experienced. Correct, or not? Should he bother in this case, or shouldn't he? 



thomas said:


> Even if you judge it in isolation it's a driver failed to see the pinch point. Cyclist and driver argue for 10 seconds, driver drives off. Cyclist catches up and carries on arguing. Cyclist makes silly remark when car is in filter lane.



I'm sorry, but that is a woefully partial account of what happened. 

A) The driver did not fail to see the pinchpoint. He saw it very clearly. That is why he uses his horn - because Martin Porter's positioning is preventing him from squeezing a dangerous overtake at that particular point. That is blatantly aggressive, hostile and intimidatory driving. It is not an innocent mistake, or a failure of observation.

B) The cyclist does not 'carry on arguing'. He is filtering past the car, probably minutes later, when - unprovoked, with no words uttered - the driver threatens to kill him. Again - are you even watching the same video?

C) The cyclist does not make a 'silly remark" - he simply asks the driver if he threatened to kill him. Quite reasonably, I suspect (with his lawyer mind) he wanted some confirmation of the previous threat. Why you find this passage 'silly' is beyond me. 




thomas said:


> I'm sorry. I just don't have much sympathy for this clip. Having been in a situation where I actually thought I was going to die under the rear of a HGV trailer, I'm not that bothered about some petty comment.




Nope. Not buying this. The overtake on you was terrible. I've seen it. But even if the incident under discussion matches exactly your partial rendering of it (and I don't believe it does, because you cannot hear the crucial remark, or see the manner of the driver as he utters it - you are completely in the dark as to its seriousness), you should still have some sympathy. This is a fellow cyclist being threatened by a dangerous bully, and you "don't have much sympathy"? Come on. 




thomas said:


> I don't feel that trying to get this clip prosecuted is a good use of time and I don't feel it does anything to make cyclist safer.





I'm sorry, but this is also nonsense. Who are you to say whether it is a good use of Martin Porter's time? I think that's up to him to judge, not you. He's not costing you anything - let him decide what he wants to pursue.


And justify your second point, please.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> I think it is far from idle speculation. His actions at the time do not show that of someone whos life was in danger. You certainly wouldn't mouth off at the end like he did with the indicators remark if your life was in danger.




Can't let this go either. The "mouthing off" happened after the driver was challenged as to what he had said. Porter himself - if you had read what he has written - is quite clear that he no longer felt in danger at this point. But that surely does not - cannot - alter the seriousness of the original threat.

I quote from Martin Porter here -



> He became more sheepish afterwards when, because his car was stationary and I was alongside him, he could no longer use it to harm me... Of course he did not actually kill me or in the event try to; if he had he would, or should, be on a murder or attempted murder charge._ It is quite obviously not a defence to a charge of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that the offender stopped short of a more serious offence._


 (my emphasis)

This is quite a simple point to grasp. 



thomas said:


> He obviously (thinks he has at least - I don't know) has a good understanding of the law and he wants to use that. We all have our side projects and this is a nice bit of professionally PR for him.



PR!?!?

Ouch! Cynicism! In one so young! 

Sadly, I don't think your rather tendentious interpretation of Porter's motivations here stand up to any kind of scrutiny. 



> What would you say a good outcome for this would be if it went to court?



Why don't you try reading Martin Porter's blog? You might find out.


----------



## thomas (29 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Thomas, if you are not saying anything like that, then why are you continually raising the matter of this incident not being as bad as other incidents on youtube?
> 
> What is the point of bringing this up? I wouldn't suggest that someone not pursue the theft of some money, because other people have been burgled. So what is it that you are driving at? I was just guessing at your motivation, but the only reasonable basis I can think of is that you believe he should *only bother* to pursue an incident when it is as serious (or you perceive it to be as serious) as what you have experienced. Correct, or not? Should he bother in this case, or shouldn't he?




Well, maybe I am. I don't know. I guess from a personal point of view, from some of the things I have experienced and from watching other people's videos I don't feel this is the most pressing thing to try and make a point over.

If he wants to do it then whatever, up to him. I wouldn't.



> I'm sorry, but that is a woefully partial account of what happened.
> 
> A) The driver did not fail to see the pinchpoint. He saw it very clearly. That is why he uses his horn - because Martin Porter's positioning is preventing him from squeezing a dangerous overtake at that particular point. That is blatantly aggressive, hostile and intimidatory driving. It is not an innocent mistake, or a failure of observation.
> 
> ...



Having re-watched the video I did miss the 10 minutes later thing, so happy to admit my mistake there. I watched the video first time ages ago and only flicked through it when posting that so my mistake.

However, to point C I meant the not indicating thing, not asking about the threat. It wouldn't be the type of remark I'd make to someone who had just threatened to kill me as it could egg them on.

 


> Nope. Not buying this. The overtake on you was terrible. I've seen it. But even if the incident under discussion matches exactly your partial rendering of it (and I don't believe it does, because you cannot hear the crucial remark, or see the manner of the driver as he utters it - you are completely in the dark as to its seriousness), you should still have some sympathy. This is a fellow cyclist being threatened by a dangerous bully, and you "don't have much sympathy"? Come on.


 

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood - who knows.


I guess I feel that, out of my videos most are petty and don't actually bother me, but there have been a couple times where I have felt that my life was in serious danger and have been seriously scared (maybe only for a couple moments - but that's all it takes). Where as I don't feel this cyclist is pursuing this because he actually felt his life was at risk, but much more to make a point.

So, I guess that just offends me a bit and that is why I lack sympathy.




> I'm sorry, but this is also nonsense. Who are you to say whether it is a good use of Martin Porter's time? I think that's up to him to judge, not you. He's not costing you anything - let him decide what he wants to pursue.


 


Well, it's my opinion...so in a good position to judge it









> And justify your second point, please.


 
Sure thing - which is that though?


----------



## magnatom (29 Nov 2010)

Thomas' point is similar to one I made earlier, and I think this is an important issue. Remember Thomas and I are cyclists who both have a keen interest in improving the safety of ourselves and other cyclists (and other road users). Despite this, we have some reservations about this clip. Not that he is wrong, but that it just isn't the best clip to highlight if you want to win over the publics hearts. And yes, I think it is hearts, not heads that we have to win over. Road rage, the right to road space, etc are all very emotive subjects and very rarely does the brain rule the heart in 'road incidents' (in general). Therefore, if we are bringing the publics attention to a cyclists plight, it needs to be a no-brainer, one where the heart instantly 'feels' for the cyclist and not the other road user. 

In this incident the threat is not obvious (to Joe Public), the intent is not obvious, and the cyclists reaction is not perfect (chasing down someone, which I have done, does not win hearts). If it went to court I fear that the public 'heart' would be with the driver.

Now anyone who engages brain can see that the driver is a muppet at best, but that isn't good enough to make the intended impact.

Of course as Origamist pointed out, we shouldn't wait for the 'right incident' to come along, but there are ways to use someone like Martin's talent, i.e. helping others fight their cases etc.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> I don't feel this cyclist is pursuing this because he actually felt his life was at risk, but much more to make a point. So, I guess that just offends me a bit and that is why I lack sympathy.



This is the nub of it - _why _don't you think he felt endangered at the moment the driver was moving at speed beside him, and threatening to kill him? 



thomas said:


> Sure thing - which is that though?





thomas said:


>



That you don't think this will do anything to make cyclists safer.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> Despite this, we have some reservations about this clip. Not that he is wrong, but that it just isn't the best clip to highlight if you want to win over the publics hearts. And yes, I think it is hearts, not heads that we have to win over. Road rage, the right to road space, etc are all very emotive subjects and very rarely does the brain rule the heart in 'road incidents' (in general). Therefore, if we are bringing the publics attention to a cyclists plight, it needs to be a no-brainer, one where the heart instantly 'feels' for the cyclist and not the other road user.



What is Martin Porter supposed to do? Wait until someone actually seriously injures him, and then pursue that case? 

Of course, you point out yourself that this is ridiculous. But I think you've defeated your own argument. Why should he be prevented from dealing with this in the manner of his choosing, because it doesn't meet some arbitrarily chosen threshold of seriousness? 



magnatom said:


> but there are ways to use someone like Martin's talent, i.e. helping others fight their cases etc.



That is precisely what he does do. He represented the family of Marie Vesco, for instance.

Why his campaigning and work in other areas should stop him from pursuing this case is beyond me.

Frankly I'm astonished that such a seasoned cycling campaigner who has done - and is doing - so much for the safety of cyclists is coming in for this kind of criticism. 


Edit - fonts awry.


----------



## thomas (29 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> Thomas' point is similar to one I made earlier, and I think this is an important issue. Remember Thomas and I are cyclists who both have a keen interest in improving the safety of ourselves and other cyclists (and other road users). Despite this, we have some reservations about this clip. Not that he is wrong, but that it just isn't the best clip to highlight if you want to win over the publics hearts. And yes, I think it is hearts, not heads that we have to win over. Road rage, the right to road space, etc are all very emotive subjects and very rarely does the brain rule the heart in 'road incidents' (in general). Therefore, if we are bringing the publics attention to a cyclists plight, it needs to be a no-brainer, one where the heart instantly 'feels' for the cyclist and not the other road user.
> 
> In this incident the threat is not obvious (to Joe Public), the intent is not obvious, and the cyclists reaction is not perfect (chasing down someone, which I have done, does not win hearts). If it went to court I fear that the public 'heart' would be with the driver.
> 
> ...



Thanks mags. I'd completely agree with that.




WheelyGoodFun said:


> This is the nub of it - _why _don't you think he felt endangered at the moment the driver was moving at speed beside him, and threatening to kill him?
> 
> *That you don't think this will do anything to make cyclists safer.*



Pretty much what Mags has said.

Most drivers will have limited, or no sympathy for what happened in the clip above. Most people probably would think that it would be a waste of the courts time. This in turn could give a negative view of cycling, which doesn't help.

More recently I saw an article about the death of a cyclist and the driver getting 7 years. Having known nothing of the case I thought that was quite good and while obviously the death is tragic wasn't a bad sentence.

I then however read an article on what had happened, etc, and read about the driver's convictions...being drunk, on the phone, etc...and then read about the lady's death. Being comforted by a passer by while mangled underneath the lorry. This really, really sent a shock through my spine....and to be honest, only a tiny minority wouldn't be sympathetic there or agree that 7 years really isn't that long. Therefore that type of article is much more likely to move hearts and minds.

I remember probably a year or so ago now, on the radio someone lost their job because they cut up a cyclist. Cyclist complained, the company had in-car footage and fired the driver. I also remember the cyclist sounding quite hostel. Now, as a cyclist I could imagine what happened and be sympathetic, even if the guy didn't have a radio personality. However, my Dad, due to the guy's attitude wasn't so.

I feel that this cycling lawyer isn't going to get the sympathy of motorists and therefore won't make the roads safer.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Nov 2010)

Thomas, you haven't answered my question - 


WheelyGoodFun said:


> This is the nub of it - _why _don't you think he felt endangered at the moment the driver was moving at speed beside him, and threatening to kill him?


----------



## magnatom (29 Nov 2010)

Oh come on WGF, why are you surprised that he gets criticised? I'm sure he isn't. In fact I think it is absolutely vital that he is. I know I am glad of the critcism that I receive (constructive of course!). It keeps check on what we do, it represents all points of view, it encourages us to think of how others perceive us. 

It is very easy for us all to become so focussed on what we want to achieve that we forget the bigger picture. Now I am not saying that Martin has here, but I think for those who have reservations, and I am not alone, to raise them. This is no way critical of his other work, or of his general approach.

As for why he should not be allowed to pursue this particular case....no one is saying he can't. All I am saying is that I can see the flaws with this particular video and how it could be misinterperated by those that it is aimed at.

If there is one thing I am acutely aware of, it is the effect that videos can have on 'the public' if there is any perception of the victim being at fault....


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> More recently I saw an article about the death of a cyclist and the driver getting 7 years. Having known nothing of the case I thought that was quite good and while obviously the death is tragic wasn't a bad sentence.
> 
> I then however read an article on what had happened, etc, and read about the driver's convictions...being drunk, on the phone, etc...and then read about the lady's death. Being comforted by a passer by while mangled underneath the lorry. This really, really sent a shock through my spine....and to be honest, only a tiny minority wouldn't be sympathetic there or agree that 7 years really isn't that long. Therefore that type of article is much more likely to move hearts and minds.





So presumably we should encourage more young lady cyclists to hang around HGV drivers who are drunk?

/sarcasm

In all seriousness, I don't think Martin Porter is in a position to control how other cyclists get killed or injured, and how their deaths are reported.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> Oh come on WGF, why are you surprised that he gets criticised?



Oh, I'm not surprised that he is being criticized - it is the extent, and nature of it, that is surprising me. Head over to bikeradar if you doubt me.




magnatom said:


> As for why he should not be allowed to pursue this particular case....no one is saying he can't.



No, but you are implying - strongly implying - that he shouldn't, and that he has better things to be doing. How else am I to read this kind of comment?



magnatom said:


> If there is one thing I am acutely aware of, it is the effect that videos can have on 'the public' if there is any perception of the victim being at fault....



That is - Martin Porter should think about the effect he is having on the public perception of "uppity" cyclists.


----------



## thomas (29 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Thomas, you haven't answered my question -




Sorry.

I don't feel he felt endangered, because if he did he would have stopped and let the guy pass. All he does is tell the guy to go past because he can't hear him 'over the sound of his engine'.

As I said before, if he felt it was a serious threat he should have phoned the Police. If someone threatened to kill me and I believed it I would also cycle a different way home, or at least try to avoid the car as best I could. This doesn't seem to be the case in the video.

His reaction to the poor driving seems to be much more "Ah, he threatened to kill me...and that's an offence! Let's make sure I have it on film so I can cause a fuss".



> So presumably we should encourage more young lady cyclists to hang around HGV drivers who are drunk?
> /sarcasm
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, I don't think Martin Porter is in a position to control how other cyclists get killed or injured, and how their deaths are reported.




That's in very poor taste to be honest.




> If there is one thing I am acutely aware of, it is the effect that videos can have on 'the public' if there is any perception of the victim being at fault....




I think most helmet camera videos are really, by cyclists for cyclists. Or at least people with a similar type mindset. Helmet camera footage, on the whole, isn't going to change 'hearts and minds'.


If I look at my own videos, there are some where my reaction may seem OTT (some where it probably was!). Now to a non-cyclist, or non-helmet-camera-mindset-person (lol) I'd get no sympathy and the video wouldn't help any cycling case.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Nov 2010)

The point is, the man received a threat, from man who was - at that moment - in a position to endanger him.

This man - a criminal barrister - is firmly convinced that there is enough evidence to prosecute the driver. His reasons are clearly set out on his blog, and in the letter he sent to the CPS. 

This, alone, has nothing to do with "the bigger picture". It's about pursuing justice.

Frankly I think the CPS - rather than weighing up the evidence submitted - just couldn't be bothered. Witness the fact that they still - to this date - have not even responded to his letter. Not even an email to acknowledge receipt.

Hopefully this will cause them some embarrassment, and the next time a driver threatens a cyclist, they will be far more ready to prosecute. 

Am I going mad, or is that not a good thing?


----------



## thomas (29 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Am I going mad, or is that not a good thing?



Of course you're bloody mad!!!!



















You're a cyclist, being a bit mad is a requirement


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> I don't feel he felt endangered, because if he did he would have stopped and let the guy pass. All he does is tell the guy to go past because he can't hear him 'over the sound of his engine'.



Nope. That's the wrong part of the clip. Come on. 



thomas said:


> That's in very poor taste to be honest.



I think that's some pretty selective outrage, coming from someone who suggested that that kind of incident would be more useful for gaining cyclists some sympathy. To quote - "Therefore that type of article is much more likely to move hearts and minds."

[And yes, I was outraged and disgusted by that case, as someone who cycles in London on a near-daily basis.]


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> Helmet camera footage, on the whole, isn't going to change 'hearts and minds'.




I'm still not sure I see the relevance. For a start, this case is only really appearing in front of the public because of Porter's frustration with the CPS. 


And secondly, not every single thing a cyclist or cycle campaigner does has to advance the cause of "hearts and minds" of the general public.

In fact quite often I'm sure action will necessitate pissing them off, and I don't think individual cyclists should be the sacrificial lambs on the altar of the greater cycling good. 



Edit - superfluous sentence


----------



## Origamist (30 Nov 2010)

Thomas, I have neither the time nor inclination to address most of your points (which are often irrelevant and poorly argued) but it seems that you are insinuating that inaction is the best stategy to deal with bullying and threatening behaviour on the roads (unless of course it reaches your life-or-death litmus test). I think this is a piss-poor position to adopt. What's more, even if you disagree with Porter pursuing this matter with the CPS (as there "are more important clips to try and get more recognition from"), surely you can see the benefit of shining a light on the CPS's and Met's decision making processes. As a barrister, Porter is able to challenge the incompetence and indifference that many of us have faced when dealing with the criminal justice system.


----------



## magnatom (30 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Oh, I'm not surprised that he is being criticized - it is the extent, and nature of it, that is surprising me. Head over to bikeradar if you doubt me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You were doing well until the cheap shot at the end. Why don't you ask Martin if he thinks I am uppity?

As for implying that he shouldn't, I think you will find (if you care to read the previous discussions above), that _I_ wouldn't, and I stated my reasons for why I didn't think this video was the best video to be publicising in this way. I even pointed Martin directly to this thread so that, if he chose, he could take part in the discussion. He chose not to, but was happy for me to pass on his comments. 

What you appear to be suggesting is that I should not air my opinions about this incident? Why? Do you think all cyclists should support other cyclists? Regardless of what they say or do? I'm sure you don't, and I'm sure you agree that progress is made through discussion and listening to different points of view. On this occasion I felt the need to say something and did. For that I will never apologise.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (30 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> You were doing well until the cheap shot at the end. Why don't you ask Martin if he thinks I am uppity?



Fair enough - I'll withdraw the "uppity" allegation. But I'm still a little bit troubled by that sentence of yours that I quoted. You are apparently worried about the effect on public opinion (of cyclists in general?) that videos - where the victim is perceived to be at fault - can have. 

Well, I don't think there is any question about whether Martin Porter is at fault here. He is not. Now if some people *do *think he is at fault, or that he has done something wrong, then frankly I think they are already deeply prejudiced and no amount of "more serious" or "completely driver at fault" kind of videos are going to change their minds. At the margins, they are the kinds of driver like the one in the original video. The only thing that is going to change their minds is fear of punishment. 

What you seem to be suggesting is that Martin Porter should be thinking about how the prejudiced might perceive this kind of video. I don't think that's a good way to proceed. 



magnatom said:


> As for implying that he shouldn't, I think you will find (if you care to read the previous discussions above), that _I_ wouldn't, and I stated my reasons for why I didn't think this video was the best video to be publicising in this way.



As I said to Thomas, so what? Maybe it isn't "the best". But that doesn't matter at all. Deal with this case on its merits. I certainly don't think Martin Porter should put up and shut up because his incident is not, apparently, serious enough.

Furthermore, I think you have misunderstood why this video has ended up being publicised. It is certainly not because Martin Porter thinks that is the absolute worst thing that can ever happen to a cyclist, or that it is an especially bad incident that needs to be publicised, in and of itself. 

It is, rather, a direct consequence of his frustration with the CPS. If they had responded directly to his concerns, and/or given the driver the appropriate punishment (or even gone to question him, FFS) this video would never have seen the light of day (beyond the few views his normally unpublicised videos ordinarily get on youtube).



magnatom said:


> What you appear to be suggesting is that I should not air my opinions about this incident?



I think you will struggle to find evidence that I have done any such thing.


----------



## thomas (30 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Furthermore, I think you have misunderstood why this video has ended up being publicised. It is certainly not because Martin Porter thinks that is the absolute worst thing that can ever happen to a cyclist, or that it is an especially bad incident that needs to be publicised, in and of itself.
> 
> It is, rather, a direct consequence of his frustration with the CPS. If they had responded directly to his concerns, and/or given the driver the appropriate punishment (or even gone to question him, FFS) this video would never have seen the light of day (beyond the few views his normally unpublicised videos ordinarily get on youtube).



That's a reason not to carry on right there....if the reason it carry on is just because CPS won't take it seriously.

I think Lee has probably made the best points for your argument so far. No problem with him going to the Police about it, I just think he is making too big a point out of it, for the reasons you say above.


----------



## MartinC (30 Nov 2010)

There are 2 issues here:

1. Is there evidence that an offence was committed?

2. Have the Police and the CPS fulfilled their obligations to the public?

The answer to 1 is yes. The answer to 2 is not yet. The blog contains the legal context for all of this.

It's disappointing to see all the usual dismissive attitudes get paradedn here. E.g "we (cyclists) shouldn't expect the motorist to be accountable because it will make us unpopular", "worse things happen so it doesn't count", "we're ever so humble and we shoudn't get in the important peoples way", etc., etc.

Good luck to Martin - he's doing everyone a public service, especially cyclists.


----------



## thomas (30 Nov 2010)

MartinC said:


> There are 2 issues here:
> 
> 1. Is there evidence that an offence was committed?
> 
> ...



There isn't evidence though, or at least the evidence can be interpreted in different ways and any court would have to favour not guilty over guilty. I don't think it is unreasonable that the motorist could have been saying yes back sarcastically as he thought it was a propitiousness thing to think he said.

(I don't actually believe that was the case)


----------



## magnatom (30 Nov 2010)

MartinC said:


> There are 2 issues here:
> 
> 1. Is there evidence that an offence was committed?
> 
> ...



I really can't understand why people are disappointed. Just because I have different views? and as for dismissive attitudes towards cyclists and the accountability of motorists....have you ever read anything that I've posted!


----------



## magnatom (30 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> What you seem to be suggesting is that Martin Porter should be thinking about how the prejudiced might perceive this kind of video. I don't think that's a good way to proceed.



Ah now we are getting somewhere. I have absolutely no reservations, whatsoever about Martin posting his video or commenting on it, blogging about it etc. However, martin has taken the next step of reporting it. I've no problems there either. What I do have some reservations about is that he is publicising the issue and trying to get the press to bite. Again, I don't have a problem with that in general, however, (and again I'll be 'uppity') and suggest I have some experience in this, if you want to make an impact on public perception then you need to be careful as to how the public will perceive the incident. Putting my Joe Public hat on, it all looks a lot of fuss over nothing. Unfortunately that is exactly how the majority will view this. (I have shown this to a few non-cyclists and that was their reaction). So, in that sense, do I think that Martin was right to 'publicise' this, in my opinion no. But then, that is just my opinion, and he can do and does do exactly what he likes. 

I'd expect, and do get, the same scrutiny over nearl everything I post and do related to my videos. 



> As I said to Thomas, so what? Maybe it isn't "the best". But that doesn't matter at all. Deal with this case on its merits. I certainly don't think Martin Porter should put up and shut up because his incident is not, apparently, serious enough.
> 
> Furthermore, I think you have misunderstood why this video has ended up being publicised. It is certainly not because Martin Porter thinks that is the absolute worst thing that can ever happen to a cyclist, or that it is an especially bad incident that needs to be publicised, in and of itself.
> 
> It is, rather, a direct consequence of his frustration with the CPS. If they had responded directly to his concerns, and/or given the driver the appropriate punishment (or even gone to question him, FFS) this video would never have seen the light of day (beyond the few views his normally unpublicised videos ordinarily get on youtube).



Again the problem is the public perception, which I covered above.



> I think you will struggle to find evidence that I have done any such thing.



That is my _perception_ of your posts. It's a funny thing perception.....


----------



## Origamist (30 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> There isn't evidence though, or at least the evidence can be interpreted in different ways and any court would have to favour not guilty over guilty. I don't think it is unreasonable that the motorist could have been saying yes back sarcastically as he thought it was a propitiousness thing to think he said.
> 
> (I don't actually believe that was the case)



Not only are you able to read people's thoughts and understand how others felt at the time, you are now offering your learned opinion on legal matters! It seems to have escaped your attention that Porter is a QC who has acted on behalf of cyclists and probably knows a a little bit more than you, when it comes to the evidential test.




magnatom said:


> I really can't understand why people are disappointed. Just because I have different views? and as for dismissive attitudes towards cyclists and the accountability of motorists....have you ever read anything that I've posted!



You have every right to express your opinion and I have no issue with people whose views diverge from my own, however, I am surprised you cannot see why I and others are disappointed in your qualified, conditional, and luke warm support for someone attempting to do something constructive for cyclists, simply because you believe it doesn't play well to the gallery and is not an "open and shut" case...


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (30 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> What I do have some reservations about is that he is publicising the issue and trying to get the press to bite. Again, I don't have a problem with that in general, however, (and again I'll be 'uppity') and suggest I have some experience in this, if you want to make an impact on public perception then you need to be careful as to how the public will perceive the incident.



Again, you seem to be implying that Martin Porter is doing this with the aim of altering public perception. 

He is not. 

He is doing it to - hopefully - give the CPS a kick up the arse.

You are coming at this from the wrong angle. 



magnatom said:


> That is my _perception_ of your posts. It's a funny thing perception.....



Is this a tacit admission that what you perceive is based on no evidence whatsoever?


----------



## magnatom (30 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> You have every right to express your opinion and I have no issue with people whose views diverge from my own, however, I am surprised you cannot see why I and others are disappointed in your qualified, conditional, and luke warm support for someone attempting to do something constructive for cyclists, simply because you believe it doesn't play well to the gallery and is not an "open and shut" case...



My qualification only extends to this particular video and the 'apparent' ambiguities surrounding it. However, in every other way I applaud what Martin is doing.


----------



## MartinC (30 Nov 2010)

Magnatom, I'm not having a go at you or anybody else in particular. There are echoes of the common attitudes we struggle against throughout this thread.

Whether the guy get's convicted or not is up to a court. On the face of it there's evidence of an assault - the video and the victims testimony. There's been no proper investigation - there's an obvoius lack of due process which should be challenged. The CPS haven't come back and said we're not able to take this any further because........................whatever. Martin is much better placed than you or I to understand what the legal criteria around all of this are and how to challenge it. His challenge is for the Police and/or the CPS to justify their lack of interest, any press involvement is to get their engagement in this process. Where I think his challenge is useful is because it's a legal challenge - not trying to win the hearts and minds of the Daily Mail readership. It's not possible for the CPS just to come back and glibly say we're not doing anything about it 'cos we don't give a rat's a**e about cyclists.

You, yourself have taken video evidence of a more frightening incident to the Police and this appears to have just disappeared without due process too. I know you've achieved a lot with your videos in a different arena. I think you should view what Martin is doing as complementary to what you do.


----------



## magnatom (30 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Again, you seem to be implying that Martin Porter is doing this with the aim of altering public perception.
> 
> He is not.
> 
> ...



...and what is the best way of changing the CPS's attitude? Public opinion. In fact is that not part of the CPS's role to act in the publics best interest (and by interest I also mean what the public is interested in being punished)? Unfortunately the truth in this instance, rightly or wrongly is that the public is unlikely to feel the need for change.



> Is this a tacit admission that what you perceive is based on no evidence whatsoever?




Perhaps....in a similar way that Martin perceived a threat......


----------



## thomas (30 Nov 2010)

The best outcome really would just be to stick the driver and cyclist in a room together and let them talk. let them both explain their sides to each other and both just to apologise to each other and carry on with life.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (30 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> *
> *
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, and here we go again. 

You cannot see the driver, or hear what he said. 

And yet you are suggesting that Martin Porter's perception is wrong. 

Give it a rest.


----------



## magnatom (30 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Ah, and here we go again.
> 
> You cannot see the driver, or hear what he said.
> 
> ...



Now that was _your_ perception of my post.....


----------



## Origamist (30 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> The best outcome really would just be to stick the driver and cyclist in a room together and let them talk. let them both explain their sides to each other and both just to apologise to each other and carry on with life.



Why on earth would Martin Porter need to apologise! Let's recap:

The first sequence at the start of the YouTube clip is what started the chain of events. Porter, the cyclist, takes primary through a pinch-point and gets beeped at. The Golf driver pulls alongside and has a few words (unlikely to be about the clement weather). Porter cannot make out what is said by the driver, but warns him of the dangers of overtaking through pinch-points - this dialogue takes place at around the 20sec mark. Further up the road, the cyclist passes the same Golf driver as he's queuing (not seen on the vid), a little later, the Golf catches up with Porter and pulls alongside him and it's at this juncture that Porter hears the threat to his life (crucially, this threat cannot be heard at around 0:37 to 0:43 on the vid when the Golf slows and pulls alongside). According to Porter the threat is delivered in a measured and menacing manner. Porter, repeats the threat out loud immediately afterwards and quickly catches up with the driver (at the traffic lights in the video) and asks him to confirm that he had just threatened to kill him - the driver duly obliges and has an asinine look on his face. The driver then turns left – without indicating.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (30 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> The best outcome really would just be to stick the driver and cyclist in a room together and let them talk. let them both explain their sides to each other and both just to apologise to each other and carry on with life.




What does Martin Porter have to apologize for?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (30 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> Now that was _your_ perception of my post.....




I take it - from this nonsense - that you are backtracking from your direct and absurd implication that Martin Porter perceived a threat on the basis of zero evidence. 

I would like to think so anyway.


----------



## magnatom (30 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> I take it - from this nonsense - that you are backtracking from your direct and absurd implication that Martin Porter perceived a threat on the basis of zero evidence.
> 
> I would like to think so anyway.



Can you please provide a quote where I have said this? I can assure you I have never at any point in this or any other thread suggested that there was no evidence. In fact almost the opposite.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (30 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> Can you please provide a quote where I have said this? I can assure you I have never at any point in this or any other thread suggested that there was no evidence. In fact almost the opposite.




I asked you whether you were admitting that "what you perceive is based on no evidence whatsoever?"


And you replied - "Perhaps....in a similar way that Martin perceived a threat." 


What was your intention there, if it was not to suggest a parallel between my "perception based on no evidence" comment and Martin's perception of a threat?


----------



## magnatom (30 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> I asked you whether you were admitting that "what you perceive is based on no evidence whatsoever?"
> 
> And you replied - "Perhaps....in a similar way that Martin perceived a threat."
> 
> What was your intention there, if it was not to suggest a parallel between my "perception based on no evidence" comment and Martin's perception of a threat?



Umm, err, perhaps you didn't see the wink at the end of that line...

Seriously though, if you can't provide back up to this statement



> your direct and absurd implication that Martin Porter perceived a threat on the basis of zero evidence.



then please retract it.


----------



## thomas (30 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> What does Martin Porter have to apologize for?



Well that's a good attitude. They need to kiss and make up, apologising isn't the same as admitting you're in the wrong.


----------



## Dan B (30 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> In fact is that not part of the CPS's role to act in the publics best interest (and by interest I also mean w_hat the public is interested in being punished_)?



I do hope not. Really.


----------



## Origamist (30 Nov 2010)

coruskate said:


> I do hope not. Really.



Paediatricians would certainly agree with you!


----------



## magnatom (30 Nov 2010)

coruskate said:


> I do hope not. Really.



Aye, I know what you mean!


----------



## magnatom (30 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> Paediatricians would certainly agree with you!





COPFS up here. Shame they have to have the word fiscal in there! 

Which reminds me, I am waiting on the police getting back to me about the lack of movement on the tanker incident. I'm not holding my breath though....


----------



## MartinC (30 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> Well that's a good attitude. They need to kiss and make up, apologising isn't the same as admitting you're in the wrong.




On that basis are you happy to apologise for your posts?


----------



## thomas (30 Nov 2010)

MartinC said:


> On that basis are you happy to apologise for your posts?




Sorry that you don't agree with my posts. I guess we just have different view points. Ultimately, I just want to make my posts without the fear of being run over. When I post on the forum I'm not trying to annoy you, just remain safe. Anyway, this has all gotten a bit out of hand, so sorry for that. Safer posting next time yeah? Nice one! Pint?









From my videos, the one or two times where I have actually feared for my safety (rather than just being annoyed) I would of been happy just having a chat with the driver on a more personal level (so, not yelling through car windows). Just to explain my case and show that, I am actually an all right person who's worth giving a little bit more time and space on the roads.

Obviously, if that doesn't work then.... but most people will have the common sense to be civil and listen if it was done in a slightly official manner.


----------



## MartinC (30 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> Sorry that you don't agree with my posts. I guess we just have different view points. Ultimately, I just want to make my posts without the fear of being run over. When I post on the forum I'm not trying to annoy you, just remain safe. Anyway, this has all gotten a bit out of hand, so sorry for that. Safer posting next time yeah? Nice one! Pint?




 Ah, but there's a difference. Our exchange began with me asking a civil question with a smile - not by threatening to kill you. Which would be assault if you reasonably felt that I meant it. Are you really saying that assault is just a different view point and acceptable? The law doesn't.


----------



## thomas (30 Nov 2010)

MartinC said:


> Ah, but there's a difference. Our exchange began with me asking a civil question with a smile - not by threatening to kill you. Which would be assault if you reasonably felt that I meant it. Are you really saying that assault is just a different view point and acceptable? The law doesn't.



Well, perhaps let's stick him in a room with my Mum first. She'll buck his ideas up.


----------



## MartinC (30 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> Well, perhaps let's stick him in a room with my Mum first. She'll buck his ideas up.




Well, we agree then. That sort of thing should be sanctioned by the authorities. For you it's your Mum, for Martin it's the law.


----------



## thomas (30 Nov 2010)

MartinC said:


> Well, we agree then. That sort of thing should be sanctioned by the authorities. For you it's your Mum, for Martin it's the law.




My point still stands though, that *I think *he this case probably isn't worth the effort.


----------



## MartinC (30 Nov 2010)

thomas said:


> My point still stands though, that *I think *he this case probably isn't worth the effort.




Yes, I think this is where our views differ. I'd agree that on the Richter scale the incident itself isn't earth shattering, especially compared with things like the Vesco case. But.....................

1. It's illegal.

2. This yobbish, anti social and threatening behaviour directly affects the quality of life of all of us and it's acceptance facilitates more serious offences.

3. From a legal point of view it's fairly clear cut. The victim's a credible witness and the alleged offender has confirmed on video the substance of the allegation. The case that the victim was put in fear *at the time* the threat was made is fairly easy to make. The argument that there's no public interest (in the legal sense) in pursuing the prosecution is very difficult to make. So there's a very clear question as to why the Police and the CPS haven't followed it up. The inference is that they (Police and/or CPS) have decided to interpret the laws Parliament pass in accordance with their own prejudice - which they've no right to do. If this is challenged successfully then we (the law abiding) all benefit. E.g. Magnatom's case - no-ones bothered to do anything even though it was handed to them on a plate.


----------



## Dan B (30 Nov 2010)

MartinC said:


> 3. From a legal point of view it's fairly clear cut. T*he victim's a credible witness and the alleged offender has confirmed on video the substance of the allegation*. The case that the victim was put in fear *at the time* the threat was made is fairly easy to make. The argument that there's no public interest (in the legal sense) in pursuing the prosecution is very difficult to make. So there's a very clear question as to why the Police and the CPS haven't followed it up. The inference is that they (Police and/or CPS) have decided to interpret the laws Parliament pass in accordance with their own prejudice - which they've no right to do. If this is challenged successfully then we (the law abiding) all benefit. E.g. Magnatom's case - no-ones bothered to do anything even though it was handed to them on a plate.



+1 - this is key to it, for me. If someone who knows how it all works is willing to put in the legwork and see this through, all power to them - we all benefit. It doesn't matter how many scarier overtakes you can find or post on youtube, if all they ever do is sit on youtube as bait for the trolls.


----------



## Origamist (1 Dec 2010)

MartinC said:


> Yes, I think this is where our views differ. I'd agree that on the Richter scale the incident itself isn't earth shattering, especially compared with things like the Vesco case. But.....................
> 
> 1. It's illegal.
> 
> ...






coruskate said:


> +1 - this is key to it, for me. If someone who knows how it all works is willing to put in the legwork and see this through, all power to them - we all benefit. It doesn't matter how many scarier overtakes you can find or post on youtube, if all they ever do is sit on youtube as bait for the trolls.



Well said, Coruskate and MartinC.


----------



## Bollo (1 Dec 2010)

Origamist said:


> Well said, Coruskate and MartinC.


+Yep


----------



## gaz (1 Dec 2010)

coruskate said:


> +1 - this is key to it, for me. If someone who knows how it all works is willing to put in the legwork and see this through, all power to them - we all benefit. It doesn't matter how many scarier overtakes you can find or post on youtube, if all they ever do is sit on youtube as bait for the trolls.


Well said. It is very hard to fight the system, even with credible evidence.


----------



## downfader (1 Dec 2010)

'kin hell, you lot still arguing over it?


----------



## Origamist (6 Dec 2010)

Bollo said:


> Understood completely. Mine was more a comment on my own experiences and Magger's current issues than the barrister's woes.
> 
> I believe that the police can make the decision to start a prosecution in 'minor' cases, but I don't have a clear idea of the threshold where the CPS take over. Utterly my own opinion but I sometimes wonder whether each organisation uses the other as the foil for 'plausible denial'...
> 
> ...



So it seems, Bollo:

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010/12/reporter-from-ascot-news-gets-some.html


----------



## gaz (6 Dec 2010)

If the CPS think that Video evidence is insufficient, then we are ****ed


----------



## magnatom (6 Dec 2010)

gaz said:


> If the CPS think that Video evidence is insufficient, then we are ****ed



Well the procurator fiscal (equivalent in Scotland) have already decided that that is the case.


----------



## Simba (7 Dec 2010)

downfader said:


> http://thecyclingsil...-they-take.html
> 
> Watching the video I'd say in the previous post I'd say it raises several issues. Like WTF has flouro got to do with someone threatening to kill a cyclist? I found this on another forum today and I will be posting it on the CTC site too.
> 
> ...



Where is the video?


----------



## Peter10 (7 Dec 2010)

I don't see where the blame lands on the police. They took advice from the CPS who decided that nothing should be done about it. There is nothing the police can do after that. It really winds me up when people use the police as a blanket excuse for lack of prosecution. The police have nothing to do with prosecution nor the decision to prosecute someone. They simply collate evidence and act upon it, a lot of the time on the advice of the CPS as they are the ones who then have to stand up in court and deal with it. A lot of people need to realise the CPS are totally separate from the police. 

The whole thing about the police not caring is utter rubbish, besides the amount of police officers and staff who cycle to work every day especially in London is probably in the thousands so again people can assume they are not doing anything as they all hate cyclists. Don't get me wrong, people have bad experiences with the police and that is another issue, but the amount of times I see people bitch about the police and how ineffective and then cry out for their help soon after is quite frustrating. 

The fact of the matter is for everything to be dealt with as it should there needs to be more police officers and less bureaucracy, both of which now will never happen with cut backs. To put it another way, the normal cop have to deal with on a daily basis; burglary, robbery, theft, assaults, racial violence, domestic violence, people collapsed in their homes and a lot more. Then there are the extremes like GBH, murder, suicides, sexual assaults, bomb threats and fatal road accidents. It doesn't matter if there are specific squads to deal with specific crimes, the regular cop on the street has to be the one to initially deal with it. I think a lot of people either forget or don't realise the extent of the polices duties. 

This isn't to dismiss the previous statements made by other members but more to shed light on the fact that the blame doesn't and shouldn't land solely on the police. There are so many contributing factors that if I or anyone went into every one this thread would be 50 pages long.


----------



## MartinC (8 Dec 2010)

Peter10, I think you may have missed the point.

Instead of collecting and collating the evidence the Police asked the CPS if it the case was worth it.

The CPS said they weren't taking it on 'cos there wasn't enough evidence - not surprising as it hadn't been collected.

So there's reasonable grounds for complaining that the Police haven't done their job.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (14 Dec 2010)

The Metropolitan Police have reopened the investigation.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010/12/update-on-incident-on-4th-november.html


----------



## downfader (15 Dec 2010)

Mate at work saw this, havent got time to watch it but heres the link:

http://www.itv.com/meridian-west/road-rage-on-cyclecam86302/


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2010)

downfader said:


> Mate at work saw this, havent got time to watch it but heres the link:
> 
> http://www.itv.com/m...-cyclecam86302/


a nice little report.


----------



## magnatom (16 Dec 2010)

Aye that is pretty good, and excellent news about the re-opening of the case!


----------



## turnout (22 Dec 2010)

_His letter:


Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Home Secretary_
_2 Marsham Street_
_London_
_SW1P 4DF_

_Dear Mrs May,_

*Treatment of offences affecting cyclists*

_I am a keen cyclist and secretary of a cycling club, Thames Velo, which is based in your constituency. In the last couple of months I have had two interactions with the police after I reported circumstances in which I had been, in the first case, threatened and, in the second case, actually assaulted by a motorist._

_I write, not to detail my individual cases (though I would be very happy to furnish details if you wish) but because my experiences chime with those of a large number of cyclists who find that the commission of criminal offences which endanger or intimidate them are not taken sufficiently seriously by the prosecuting authorities, the first stage of which obviously is the police._

_Relevant Home Office guidance has been issued to Chief Constables in the past. Specifically, in relation to cautions, Home Office Circular 30/2005 addressed to Chief Constables and copied to Crown Prosecutors refers to a gravity factors matrix and also requires that the victim’s views about the offence and the nature and extent of harm are taken into account._

_My understanding is that the gravity factors matrix does include the vulnerability of the victim as a specific aggravating feature._

_My experience in the case of the assault on me was that existing Home Office Guidance was not complied with before a simple caution was administered. In the case of the threat I have had to battle against a total lack of enthusiasm on the part of the police and the CPS to take my complaint seriously._

_When cases get to Court there are sentencing guidelines which indicate that harm to a vulnerable road user is an aggravating feature but there is a problem in that too few cases where cyclists are harmed or threatened are taken to Court._

_On a practical level could I ask your department please to consider issuing clear guidance to Chief Constables and to Crown Prosecutors that the endangering of vulnerable road users is a specific aggravating feature in the commission of a criminal offence?_

_At the moment the Government correctly encourages more active lifestyles. An increase in the level of cycling is obviously of direct interest to both the Department of Health and Department of Transport and relieves public expenditure from both those departments. Unfortunately there are a small minority of motorists who resist with aggression what they see as an invasion into ‘their’ road space and justify their malevolence towards cyclists with misunderstandings about ‘road tax’, safe cycling techniques, use of cycle paths, condemnation of all cyclists as ‘lawless’, and other misconceptions. Mass cycling will never become a reality while so many people are afraid of cycling on the roads because of inconsiderate, and even hostile, motor traffic._

_May I suggest to you that it is a completely false economy, and wholly unjustified, to ‘go soft’ on motorists whose conduct tips over into criminality that endangers or threatens those using a form of transport that the Government is seeking to encourage? _

_I am not suggesting that a ‘soft’ policy has been directed from the top; rather it has emerged from the bottom and now needs to be tackled from the top._

_I would be very happy to meet with you or your officials in your constituency or in Westminster (perhaps with representatives of relevant cycling organisations) to explain further the concerns which I know are now shared by a very large section of the cycling community._

_Yours sincerely,_

_Martin Porter"_


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (15 May 2011)

Court date set now - 



> Scott Lomas has been summonsed to attend a Magistrates' Court on 25th May to answer a charge that he used threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress on 04th November 2010



http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2011/05/lomas-court-date.html

Great news.


----------

