Do the Police not care?

[MartinC]

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]

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.

...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]

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]

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......

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]

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.

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

 

[Origamist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)?

I do hope not. Really.

 

[Origamist]

I do hope not. Really.

Paediatricians would certainly agree with you!

 

[magnatom]

I do hope not. Really.

Aye, I know what you mean!