Do the Police not care?

[magnatom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

+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]

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.

+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]

Well said, Coruskate and MartinC.

+Yep

 

[gaz]

+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]

'kin hell, you lot still arguing over it?

 

[Origamist]

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"

So it seems, Bollo:

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

 

[gaz]

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