Five points for Kingston driver who knocked down cyclist after argument in Richmond Park

Guilty: Jon Weale

Guilty: Jon Weale

First published in News Surrey Comet: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

A motorist who knocked a cyclist off his bike in Richmond Park has been fined more than £600 and hit with penalty points.

Jon Weale, 29, of Barnfield Avenue, Kingston, appeared at Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court on Monday, May 12, for trial, having pleaded not guilty.

On July 27 last year, while driving his Jaguar X-type in Sawyer’s Hill, he pulled up alongside a cyclist and Weale’s passenger shouted abuse about who had right of way.

Weale beeped his horn and the cyclist retaliated by swearing, the court heard.

He then drove his car towards the cyclist, knocking him off his bike and driving off.

Weale received a £100 fine for driving without due care and attention but did not receive penalty points.

He was fined a further £250 as well as having to pay costs of £250 and a victim surcharge of £25, bringing his total costs to £625.

He also received five penalty points on his licence for failing to stop.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:52am Wed 14 May 14

alphabeti says...

Seems like quite a paltry sentence for a deliberate act of aggression. Proves the old adage if you want to kill someone do it in a car...
Seems like quite a paltry sentence for a deliberate act of aggression. Proves the old adage if you want to kill someone do it in a car... alphabeti
  • Score: 51

6:32am Wed 14 May 14

DB says...

alphabeti wrote:
Seems like quite a paltry sentence for a deliberate act of aggression. Proves the old adage if you want to kill someone do it in a car...
Absolutely. I don't want to sound like a member of the pro-cycling lobby because I am really not, but this is an insult.

There is no excuse for this. He deliberately knocked a cyclist off his bike using a car! I'm what world is that not worthy of a custodial sentence and a complete ban from driving?

I use Richmond Park a lot as pedestrian, cyclist and driver and I have seen quite a few flashpoints like this, but I have NEVER seen an act of aggression like this result from one of them.
[quote][p][bold]alphabeti[/bold] wrote: Seems like quite a paltry sentence for a deliberate act of aggression. Proves the old adage if you want to kill someone do it in a car...[/p][/quote]Absolutely. I don't want to sound like a member of the pro-cycling lobby because I am really not, but this is an insult. There is no excuse for this. He deliberately knocked a cyclist off his bike using a car! I'm what world is that not worthy of a custodial sentence and a complete ban from driving? I use Richmond Park a lot as pedestrian, cyclist and driver and I have seen quite a few flashpoints like this, but I have NEVER seen an act of aggression like this result from one of them. DB
  • Score: 58

8:15am Wed 14 May 14

alphabeti says...

A man who punched a bus driver in the hand was given a custodial sentence. But if your weapon of choice happens to have an engine you get of with a slap on the wrist. Where is the consistency?

http://www.yourlocal
guardian.co.uk/news/
11178450.Impatient_p
assenger_jailed_for_
punching_bus_driver_
s_hand
A man who punched a bus driver in the hand was given a custodial sentence. But if your weapon of choice happens to have an engine you get of with a slap on the wrist. Where is the consistency? http://www.yourlocal guardian.co.uk/news/ 11178450.Impatient_p assenger_jailed_for_ punching_bus_driver_ s_hand alphabeti
  • Score: 40

9:10am Wed 14 May 14

DB says...

alphabeti wrote:
A man who punched a bus driver in the hand was given a custodial sentence. But if your weapon of choice happens to have an engine you get of with a slap on the wrist. Where is the consistency? http://www.yourlocal guardian.co.uk/news/ 11178450.Impatient_p assenger_jailed_for_ punching_bus_driver_ s_hand
Indeed, but there are also frightening inconsistencies in the motoring laws. If this idiot had killed the cyclist (and he easily could have), he would have gone to prison for a while regardless of whether found guilty of death by careless driving or death by dangerous driving.

If you intentionally hit someone with a car, you have very little control over whether you actually kill them or not, so just the action itself could be compared to attempted murder, but instead the perpetrator here has not even lost his driving licence! You would get banned for travelling 100mph on an empty motorway at 4am causing no risk to anyone but yourself, but deliberately crash into a cyclist and you get to carry on driving??

Once again, this is something that the justice system calls a crime, but by letting people off when they commit it they are providing no deterrent at all to discourage other people from doing it in the future.
[quote][p][bold]alphabeti[/bold] wrote: A man who punched a bus driver in the hand was given a custodial sentence. But if your weapon of choice happens to have an engine you get of with a slap on the wrist. Where is the consistency? http://www.yourlocal guardian.co.uk/news/ 11178450.Impatient_p assenger_jailed_for_ punching_bus_driver_ s_hand[/p][/quote]Indeed, but there are also frightening inconsistencies in the motoring laws. If this idiot had killed the cyclist (and he easily could have), he would have gone to prison for a while regardless of whether found guilty of death by careless driving or death by dangerous driving. If you intentionally hit someone with a car, you have very little control over whether you actually kill them or not, so just the action itself could be compared to attempted murder, but instead the perpetrator here has not even lost his driving licence! You would get banned for travelling 100mph on an empty motorway at 4am causing no risk to anyone but yourself, but deliberately crash into a cyclist and you get to carry on driving?? Once again, this is something that the justice system calls a crime, but by letting people off when they commit it they are providing no deterrent at all to discourage other people from doing it in the future. DB
  • Score: 42

9:10am Wed 14 May 14

DB says...

alphabeti wrote:
A man who punched a bus driver in the hand was given a custodial sentence. But if your weapon of choice happens to have an engine you get of with a slap on the wrist. Where is the consistency? http://www.yourlocal guardian.co.uk/news/ 11178450.Impatient_p assenger_jailed_for_ punching_bus_driver_ s_hand
Indeed, but there are also frightening inconsistencies in the motoring laws. If this idiot had killed the cyclist (and he easily could have), he would have gone to prison for a while regardless of whether found guilty of death by careless driving or death by dangerous driving.

If you intentionally hit someone with a car, you have very little control over whether you actually kill them or not, so just the action itself could be compared to attempted murder, but instead the perpetrator here has not even lost his driving licence! You would get banned for travelling 100mph on an empty motorway at 4am causing no risk to anyone but yourself, but deliberately crash into a cyclist and you get to carry on driving??

Once again, this is something that the justice system calls a crime, but by letting people off when they commit it they are providing no deterrent at all to discourage other people from doing it in the future.
[quote][p][bold]alphabeti[/bold] wrote: A man who punched a bus driver in the hand was given a custodial sentence. But if your weapon of choice happens to have an engine you get of with a slap on the wrist. Where is the consistency? http://www.yourlocal guardian.co.uk/news/ 11178450.Impatient_p assenger_jailed_for_ punching_bus_driver_ s_hand[/p][/quote]Indeed, but there are also frightening inconsistencies in the motoring laws. If this idiot had killed the cyclist (and he easily could have), he would have gone to prison for a while regardless of whether found guilty of death by careless driving or death by dangerous driving. If you intentionally hit someone with a car, you have very little control over whether you actually kill them or not, so just the action itself could be compared to attempted murder, but instead the perpetrator here has not even lost his driving licence! You would get banned for travelling 100mph on an empty motorway at 4am causing no risk to anyone but yourself, but deliberately crash into a cyclist and you get to carry on driving?? Once again, this is something that the justice system calls a crime, but by letting people off when they commit it they are providing no deterrent at all to discourage other people from doing it in the future. DB
  • Score: 8

10:26am Wed 14 May 14

SteveC1964 says...

Nice guy that Jon Weale. His online profile says: "Iam a self motivated individual, i pride myself on good social skills, being able to adapt to any situation and professionalism." We should take that with a pinch of salt now.
Nice guy that Jon Weale. His online profile says: "Iam a self motivated individual, i pride myself on good social skills, being able to adapt to any situation and professionalism." We should take that with a pinch of salt now. SteveC1964
  • Score: 35

12:21pm Wed 14 May 14

jubileeboy says...

He should by all rights be prosecuted for assault but I imagine there is insufficient evidence that his actions were deliberate and were intended to cause harm so sadly we are left with what little can be proved.
He should by all rights be prosecuted for assault but I imagine there is insufficient evidence that his actions were deliberate and were intended to cause harm so sadly we are left with what little can be proved. jubileeboy
  • Score: 3

2:05pm Wed 14 May 14

chessingtonman says...

As a Pro cyclist I have to say this is a pooey sentence and was an act of deliberate harm if this was a pub fight it would be affray as a car was used as a weapon and would carry a prison sentence, I have been knocked off my bike twice and had countless near misses with cars that pay no attention, however some cyclist I must say are rude to drivers and sometimes a cyclist can be far worse then a driver, cyclist will weave in and out of traffic as well as jump lights that could cause a accident or knock a person over. I think this should be a lesson not just to motorists but also cyclist alike, was their any need for the cyclist to swear at the driver?? could this of been avoided?? more than likely!
As a Pro cyclist I have to say this is a pooey sentence and was an act of deliberate harm if this was a pub fight it would be affray as a car was used as a weapon and would carry a prison sentence, I have been knocked off my bike twice and had countless near misses with cars that pay no attention, however some cyclist I must say are rude to drivers and sometimes a cyclist can be far worse then a driver, cyclist will weave in and out of traffic as well as jump lights that could cause a accident or knock a person over. I think this should be a lesson not just to motorists but also cyclist alike, was their any need for the cyclist to swear at the driver?? could this of been avoided?? more than likely! chessingtonman
  • Score: -6

4:37pm Wed 14 May 14

alphabeti says...

chessingtonman wrote:
As a Pro cyclist I have to say this is a pooey sentence and was an act of deliberate harm if this was a pub fight it would be affray as a car was used as a weapon and would carry a prison sentence, I have been knocked off my bike twice and had countless near misses with cars that pay no attention, however some cyclist I must say are rude to drivers and sometimes a cyclist can be far worse then a driver, cyclist will weave in and out of traffic as well as jump lights that could cause a accident or knock a person over. I think this should be a lesson not just to motorists but also cyclist alike, was their any need for the cyclist to swear at the driver?? could this of been avoided?? more than likely!
I've learned over the years there's no point getting in an argument with an aggressive idiot in a metal box. The best possible outcome is you win an argument/fight with an idiot. The worst well...

People like this Jon Weale fellow just try to steal your calm to make their sad little lives a bit better. It gives them something to tell their wife/girlfriend/mum about. Best not to let them.
[quote][p][bold]chessingtonman[/bold] wrote: As a Pro cyclist I have to say this is a pooey sentence and was an act of deliberate harm if this was a pub fight it would be affray as a car was used as a weapon and would carry a prison sentence, I have been knocked off my bike twice and had countless near misses with cars that pay no attention, however some cyclist I must say are rude to drivers and sometimes a cyclist can be far worse then a driver, cyclist will weave in and out of traffic as well as jump lights that could cause a accident or knock a person over. I think this should be a lesson not just to motorists but also cyclist alike, was their any need for the cyclist to swear at the driver?? could this of been avoided?? more than likely![/p][/quote]I've learned over the years there's no point getting in an argument with an aggressive idiot in a metal box. The best possible outcome is you win an argument/fight with an idiot. The worst well... People like this Jon Weale fellow just try to steal your calm to make their sad little lives a bit better. It gives them something to tell their wife/girlfriend/mum about. Best not to let them. alphabeti
  • Score: 17

7:40pm Wed 14 May 14

Mike73nz says...

Richmond Park has a problem in that locals see it as part of the roading infrastructure. Without it roads are more congested. Having car parks far inside the gates do not help as they get full quickly on nice weekends and the the park resembles a car park. The council will never ban cars from the park, although maybe they should before 12 on weekends. However, maybe the answer is to make it a one way circuit running anti clockwise. Cars and bikes can then have their own lanes and confrontations would be massively decreased. The council can sort this mess out and remove the conflict.
Richmond Park has a problem in that locals see it as part of the roading infrastructure. Without it roads are more congested. Having car parks far inside the gates do not help as they get full quickly on nice weekends and the the park resembles a car park. The council will never ban cars from the park, although maybe they should before 12 on weekends. However, maybe the answer is to make it a one way circuit running anti clockwise. Cars and bikes can then have their own lanes and confrontations would be massively decreased. The council can sort this mess out and remove the conflict. Mike73nz
  • Score: 18

10:59pm Wed 14 May 14

jeremyhm says...

Mike - Richmond is a Royal Park; not sure how much the Council can do about it? I suspect it is up to a government dept
Mike - Richmond is a Royal Park; not sure how much the Council can do about it? I suspect it is up to a government dept jeremyhm
  • Score: 6

1:25pm Thu 15 May 14

Mind the gap says...

I have come across characters like Weale in the past. Small brains, sad lives and cowards. To be perfectly honest the world would be a much better place with out pond life like this.
I have come across characters like Weale in the past. Small brains, sad lives and cowards. To be perfectly honest the world would be a much better place with out pond life like this. Mind the gap
  • Score: 9

1:32pm Thu 15 May 14

Mind the gap says...

chessingtonman wrote:
As a Pro cyclist I have to say this is a pooey sentence and was an act of deliberate harm if this was a pub fight it would be affray as a car was used as a weapon and would carry a prison sentence, I have been knocked off my bike twice and had countless near misses with cars that pay no attention, however some cyclist I must say are rude to drivers and sometimes a cyclist can be far worse then a driver, cyclist will weave in and out of traffic as well as jump lights that could cause a accident or knock a person over. I think this should be a lesson not just to motorists but also cyclist alike, was their any need for the cyclist to swear at the driver?? could this of been avoided?? more than likely!
A pro cyclist, so what team do you ride for?
[quote][p][bold]chessingtonman[/bold] wrote: As a Pro cyclist I have to say this is a pooey sentence and was an act of deliberate harm if this was a pub fight it would be affray as a car was used as a weapon and would carry a prison sentence, I have been knocked off my bike twice and had countless near misses with cars that pay no attention, however some cyclist I must say are rude to drivers and sometimes a cyclist can be far worse then a driver, cyclist will weave in and out of traffic as well as jump lights that could cause a accident or knock a person over. I think this should be a lesson not just to motorists but also cyclist alike, was their any need for the cyclist to swear at the driver?? could this of been avoided?? more than likely![/p][/quote]A pro cyclist, so what team do you ride for? Mind the gap
  • Score: 5

4:02pm Thu 15 May 14

buggsie says...

Really time cyclists paid to use our roads - seeing as they are making more and more demands for their use. How about they had to be insured to use our roads - had visible registration numbers (like the Boris bikes) - had bikes tested for being road worthy - and MOT for bikes.
Really time cyclists paid to use our roads - seeing as they are making more and more demands for their use. How about they had to be insured to use our roads - had visible registration numbers (like the Boris bikes) - had bikes tested for being road worthy - and MOT for bikes. buggsie
  • Score: -76

5:56pm Thu 15 May 14

bandit63 says...

People like Wheale exist in every road user group, including cyclists . We need to live and let live and each road users must remember that the roads are for everyone, not just one type of user. Lah lah land I know, but trying to be positive
People like Wheale exist in every road user group, including cyclists . We need to live and let live and each road users must remember that the roads are for everyone, not just one type of user. Lah lah land I know, but trying to be positive bandit63
  • Score: 6

9:38pm Thu 15 May 14

Mushymat says...

buggsie wrote:
Really time cyclists paid to use our roads - seeing as they are making more and more demands for their use. How about they had to be insured to use our roads - had visible registration numbers (like the Boris bikes) - had bikes tested for being road worthy - and MOT for bikes.
You have fallen into the usual error of applying car thinking to bicycles

"Insurance": Cars need insurance because of the costly, often life threatening damage they do. If those things didn't costs £100-1000+ you wouldn't need insurance because the average person could afford the cost out of their own pocket. If cars where as relatively harmless as bicycles they wouldn't need insurance. Its not there to punish you, its there to protect you. And if it bothers you that much don't drive.
One small point...Lack of insurance does not mean lack of responsibility.

"Number Plates": Been discuses, Always dismissed. The cost would out way the benefits. It would kill cycling and by proxy would mean more cars on the roads (more potholes, more congestion, more gasses). It would result in a less healthy nation (knock on NHS costs), and kids who enjoy cycling would be screwed. There's a few other reasons, but do a goggle search.

"MOT": Like insurance cars need to be maintained at a level that bikes simply don't. To maintain a bike you need to check the cables, pump your tires, change you're break pads. That's it. You do not need to force people to take their bikes to a mechanic to do this. And consider that some cyclists cycle 500+ miles a month. They need their bikes maintained weekly. Better todo this simple process yourself. Its not like changing a gasket in a car. Its simple, easy stuff.

"cyclists paid to use our roads": My favorite...and this is why you're getting downvotted.

first point...cyclists are people who drive cars and pay taxes. Surprising isn't it, who knew? I pay nearly £500 for my two cars in VED (more on that later). And I choose to leave those cars in my driveway most of the year.
2nd point.... "VED" which many describe as a road tax, is infarct a duty on your cars pollution levels. Low CO2 cars, electric cars, hybrid cars pay exactly £0. Why would you charge cyclists to ride bikes when (I think about) 2 million motorists pay £0 too? But in addition to this on a local level roads are paid for by counsel tax and rates. Cyclists (as I said like all people) pay those things. Now the one area that central government might contribute to would be "A" roads and motorways, which for the most part cyclists don't or cannot use.

And finally, you don't pay to use the road. The roads like pavements are a public space. What you pay for is to use your car. This is a totally voluntary cost, which you (and I) have agreed to. Don't like it, then sell your car and find other means to get about. There are lots of options.
[quote][p][bold]buggsie[/bold] wrote: Really time cyclists paid to use our roads - seeing as they are making more and more demands for their use. How about they had to be insured to use our roads - had visible registration numbers (like the Boris bikes) - had bikes tested for being road worthy - and MOT for bikes.[/p][/quote]You have fallen into the usual error of applying car thinking to bicycles "Insurance": Cars need insurance because of the costly, often life threatening damage they do. If those things didn't costs £100-1000+ you wouldn't need insurance because the average person could afford the cost out of their own pocket. If cars where as relatively harmless as bicycles they wouldn't need insurance. Its not there to punish you, its there to protect you. And if it bothers you that much don't drive. One small point...Lack of insurance does not mean lack of responsibility. "Number Plates": Been discuses, Always dismissed. The cost would out way the benefits. It would kill cycling and by proxy would mean more cars on the roads (more potholes, more congestion, more gasses). It would result in a less healthy nation (knock on NHS costs), and kids who enjoy cycling would be screwed. There's a few other reasons, but do a goggle search. "MOT": Like insurance cars need to be maintained at a level that bikes simply don't. To maintain a bike you need to check the cables, pump your tires, change you're break pads. That's it. You do not need to force people to take their bikes to a mechanic to do this. And consider that some cyclists cycle 500+ miles a month. They need their bikes maintained weekly. Better todo this simple process yourself. Its not like changing a gasket in a car. Its simple, easy stuff. "cyclists paid to use our roads": My favorite...and this is why you're getting downvotted. first point...cyclists are people who drive cars and pay taxes. Surprising isn't it, who knew? I pay nearly £500 for my two cars in VED (more on that later). And I choose to leave those cars in my driveway most of the year. 2nd point.... "VED" which many describe as a road tax, is infarct a duty on your cars pollution levels. Low CO2 cars, electric cars, hybrid cars pay exactly £0. Why would you charge cyclists to ride bikes when (I think about) 2 million motorists pay £0 too? But in addition to this on a local level roads are paid for by counsel tax and rates. Cyclists (as I said like all people) pay those things. Now the one area that central government might contribute to would be "A" roads and motorways, which for the most part cyclists don't or cannot use. And finally, you don't pay to use the road. The roads like pavements are a public space. What you pay for is to use your car. This is a totally voluntary cost, which you (and I) have agreed to. Don't like it, then sell your car and find other means to get about. There are lots of options. Mushymat
  • Score: 66

10:28am Fri 16 May 14

metis says...

Mushymat @ 9:38pm Thu 15 May 14

And the power supply for those electric vehicles comes from where exactly? And I dont suppose that the rare earth metals for those batteries are largely shipped all the way from China where they are mined in filthy, dangerous and very polluting conditions are they?
Mushymat @ 9:38pm Thu 15 May 14 And the power supply for those electric vehicles comes from where exactly? And I dont suppose that the rare earth metals for those batteries are largely shipped all the way from China where they are mined in filthy, dangerous and very polluting conditions are they? metis
  • Score: -19

7:25pm Fri 16 May 14

Mushymat says...

metis wrote:
Mushymat @ 9:38pm Thu 15 May 14

And the power supply for those electric vehicles comes from where exactly? And I dont suppose that the rare earth metals for those batteries are largely shipped all the way from China where they are mined in filthy, dangerous and very polluting conditions are they?
How they get here is not the point I was making. And in this particular topic the cost/environmental effects of batteries for cars is totally irrelevant as it has no effect at all on environmental effects of cycling.

Your point is totally valid if you wish to change the way VED is calculated, but again that's a totally different discussion.
[quote][p][bold]metis[/bold] wrote: Mushymat @ 9:38pm Thu 15 May 14 And the power supply for those electric vehicles comes from where exactly? And I dont suppose that the rare earth metals for those batteries are largely shipped all the way from China where they are mined in filthy, dangerous and very polluting conditions are they?[/p][/quote]How they get here is not the point I was making. And in this particular topic the cost/environmental effects of batteries for cars is totally irrelevant as it has no effect at all on environmental effects of cycling. Your point is totally valid if you wish to change the way VED is calculated, but again that's a totally different discussion. Mushymat
  • Score: 13

3:12pm Wed 21 May 14

nickhadji says...

The Royal Parks police do very little to police cyclists in Richmond Park. This Jaguar driving oaf deserves a prison sentence for doing what he did, but the army of often aggressive and ultra determined cyclists who have colonised the park also need policing.
The Royal Parks police do very little to police cyclists in Richmond Park. This Jaguar driving oaf deserves a prison sentence for doing what he did, but the army of often aggressive and ultra determined cyclists who have colonised the park also need policing. nickhadji
  • Score: -15

9:32am Mon 26 May 14

jenny_m says...

Mike73nz wrote:
Richmond Park has a problem in that locals see it as part of the roading infrastructure. Without it roads are more congested. Having car parks far inside the gates do not help as they get full quickly on nice weekends and the the park resembles a car park. The council will never ban cars from the park, although maybe they should before 12 on weekends. However, maybe the answer is to make it a one way circuit running anti clockwise. Cars and bikes can then have their own lanes and confrontations would be massively decreased. The council can sort this mess out and remove the conflict.
It amazes me that such a beautiful park is allowed to be used as a rat-run by motorists. I'm not suggesting motor traffic should be banned, but surely it should be closed to through traffic. One-way systems could ensure that those entering (to use the car parks) are directed back out the same way they came in.

By the way, I've seen examples of that in NL too for towns, villages and housing estates: motor traffic is allowed (for deliveries, etc) , but through traffic is not. Richmond itself could benefit from having traffic redirected back out the way it came in, so through traffic is instead encouraged to use A316 instead.
[quote][p][bold]Mike73nz[/bold] wrote: Richmond Park has a problem in that locals see it as part of the roading infrastructure. Without it roads are more congested. Having car parks far inside the gates do not help as they get full quickly on nice weekends and the the park resembles a car park. The council will never ban cars from the park, although maybe they should before 12 on weekends. However, maybe the answer is to make it a one way circuit running anti clockwise. Cars and bikes can then have their own lanes and confrontations would be massively decreased. The council can sort this mess out and remove the conflict.[/p][/quote]It amazes me that such a beautiful park is allowed to be used as a rat-run by motorists. I'm not suggesting motor traffic should be banned, but surely it should be closed to through traffic. One-way systems could ensure that those entering (to use the car parks) are directed back out the same way they came in. By the way, I've seen examples of that in NL too for towns, villages and housing estates: motor traffic is allowed (for deliveries, etc) , but through traffic is not. Richmond itself could benefit from having traffic redirected back out the way it came in, so through traffic is instead encouraged to use A316 instead. jenny_m
  • Score: 27

4:30pm Wed 28 May 14

alroutemaster says...

A lot of motorists are total arseholes. The vast majority of cyclists are too.
A lot of motorists are total arseholes. The vast majority of cyclists are too. alroutemaster
  • Score: -23

2:43pm Mon 2 Jun 14

pluton says...

jubileeboy wrote:
He should by all rights be prosecuted for assault but I imagine there is insufficient evidence that his actions were deliberate and were intended to cause harm so sadly we are left with what little can be proved.
His intentions were clearly (to anyone but a lawyer) intended at least to threaten harm so assault seems fair.
[quote][p][bold]jubileeboy[/bold] wrote: He should by all rights be prosecuted for assault but I imagine there is insufficient evidence that his actions were deliberate and were intended to cause harm so sadly we are left with what little can be proved.[/p][/quote]His intentions were clearly (to anyone but a lawyer) intended at least to threaten harm so assault seems fair. pluton
  • Score: 10

2:00pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Tulyar says...

The problem is that we have a special set of offences for motor vehicle drivers. Kill someone with any other device, including riding a bicycle, and the charge is manslaughter (unless intent is clearly proven, and it becomes murder)

Threaten and hit someone with any other object and its assault - but not apparently if that object is a car (although this could provide a good test case). It really is about time we stopped making these exceptions?
The problem is that we have a special set of offences for motor vehicle drivers. Kill someone with any other device, including riding a bicycle, and the charge is manslaughter (unless intent is clearly proven, and it becomes murder) Threaten and hit someone with any other object and its assault - but not apparently if that object is a car (although this could provide a good test case). It really is about time we stopped making these exceptions? Tulyar
  • Score: 12

1:01pm Wed 4 Jun 14

ArfurTowcrate says...

Anyone know whether an appeal can be made against this arguably "unduly lenient sentence"? http://www.cps.gov.u
k/legal/s_to_u/undul
y_lenient_sentences/
#a01
Anyone know whether an appeal can be made against this arguably "unduly lenient sentence"? http://www.cps.gov.u k/legal/s_to_u/undul y_lenient_sentences/ #a01 ArfurTowcrate
  • Score: 2

3:35pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Mind the gap says...

alroutemaster wrote:
A lot of motorists are total arseholes. The vast majority of cyclists are too.
I think your posts put you firmly in that group too.
[quote][p][bold]alroutemaster[/bold] wrote: A lot of motorists are total arseholes. The vast majority of cyclists are too.[/p][/quote]I think your posts put you firmly in that group too. Mind the gap
  • Score: 7

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree