Van driver pleads guilty to assault after rugby-tackling female triathlete on training ride

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

This is nothing more than GBH.

Where and why are irrelevant, surely.

Let's hope the Judge sees it that way and issues a custodial.

Nothing less, I think you mean.  But yes, a custodial sentence should be a certainty. 

kitsunegari wrote:

I find it hard to imagine what kind of person becomes someone who wants to defend pathetic people like this in court, much less stand up in court and speak absolute guff like this.

Hey, how else can they afford to pay for their kids' private education?

And you won't be going on 3 foreign holidays or pay for your exclusive apartment/5-bed house by working the tills at Boots, dontchaknow.

Everyone's soul can be bought, it's just that some are keener to sell than others.

kitsunegari wrote:

Quote:

Ayisha Smart told the court: "He says that he merely pulled over further up the road to try and speak to the victim, but the build up of stress he was under at work let his anger get the better of him.

I find it hard to imagine what kind of person becomes someone who wants to defend pathetic people like this in court, much less stand up in court and speak absolute guff like this.

Ayisha Smart desperately needs to re-evaluate her life choices.

Defence lawyers represent any and all kinds of people, some innocent, some guilty, but each of them is entitled to a reasonable defence, and if they didn't get it, that would be a miscarriage of justice.  Don't criticise somebody else doing their job to the best of their ability because you don't like the person they are doing their best to defend.  How would you like it if you were up in court and couldn't get anyone to defend you because they all thought you were a nasty person?  This is an absolute basic human right, and no matter how bad you think the defendant, they have the right to  be defended.

burtthebike wrote:

Defence lawyers represent any and all kinds of people, some innocent, some guilty, but each of them is entitled to a reasonable defence, and if they didn't get it, that would be a miscarriage of justice.  Don't criticise somebody else doing their job to the best of their ability because you don't like the person they are doing their best to defend.  How would you like it if you were up in court and couldn't get anyone to defend you because they all thought you were a nasty person?  This is an absolute basic human right, and no matter how bad you think the defendant, they have the right to  be defended.

Agreed. The right to a fair trial is essential for the law to work.

However, it is another thing entirely to use misleading language in an attempt to airbrush the character of a guilty defendant  for no better reason than to reduce his sentence.

I believe the latter is what kitsunegari is alluding to.

Simon E wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Defence lawyers represent any and all kinds of people, some innocent, some guilty, but each of them is entitled to a reasonable defence, and if they didn't get it, that would be a miscarriage of justice.  Don't criticise somebody else doing their job to the best of their ability because you don't like the person they are doing their best to defend.  How would you like it if you were up in court and couldn't get anyone to defend you because they all thought you were a nasty person?  This is an absolute basic human right, and no matter how bad you think the defendant, they have the right to  be defended.

Agreed. The right to a fair trial is essential for the law to work.

However, it is another thing entirely to use misleading language in an attempt to airbrush the character of a guilty defendant  for no better reason than to reduce his sentence.

I believe the latter is what kitsunegari is alluding to.

They weren't in court and neither were you and it ill behooves you and them to criticise something you know only from third and fourth hand reporting, which may or may not be accurate and is at the very least, only the reporters impression of what happened.  What she said was said in mitigation, and presented the best possible view of the driver, THAT'S WHAT SHE'S PAID TO DO, and it seems she did a good job, but you don't like it.

Is it ok if I criticise you for your lack of empathy and your willingness to condemn someone for doing the job they are paid for, based on nothing else than your posts on here?  At least they are your posts, not the opinion of someone else who had read your posts and summed what they thought you said.

Yes, the defendant is a despicable human being, but they are still entitled to a defence, otherwise it's mob rule, but perhaps you'd prefer that.

burtthebike wrote:

Is it ok if I criticise you for your lack of empathy and your willingness to condemn someone for doing the job they are paid for, based on nothing else than your posts on here?  At least they are your posts, not the opinion of someone else who had read your posts and summed what they thought you said.

Yes, the defendant is a despicable human being, but they are still entitled to a defence, otherwise it's mob rule, but perhaps you'd prefer that.

Go ahead. It's open season on rugby-tackling people you disagree with out on the roads so why not give both barrels on here too? Though I don't think I condemned them and, since you don't know me, you won't know anything about my degree of empathy for someone in that position.

Perhaps you'd like to defend the Spanish police for violently attacking apparently peaceful voters in Catalonia too. After all, they were only doing the job they are paid for. Personally I am disturbed by it and feel no 'empathy' for the police. If, as individuals, they don't like beating people up for a job perhaps they should make a career change and sacrifice their job security, excellent pay and pension provisions* (not forgetting the useful connections made through the force, freemasonry and other methods).

* I am making the assumption that Spanish police are treated in a similarly privileged manner as the ones in the UK and most other countries.

Simon E wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Defence lawyers represent any and all kinds of people, some innocent, some guilty, but each of them is entitled to a reasonable defence, and if they didn't get it, that would be a miscarriage of justice.  Don't criticise somebody else doing their job to the best of their ability because you don't like the person they are doing their best to defend.  How would you like it if you were up in court and couldn't get anyone to defend you because they all thought you were a nasty person?  This is an absolute basic human right, and no matter how bad you think the defendant, they have the right to  be defended.

Agreed. The right to a fair trial is essential for the law to work.

However, it is another thing entirely to use misleading language in an attempt to airbrush the character of a guilty defendant  for no better reason than to reduce his sentence.

I believe the latter is what kitsunegari is alluding to.

That's her job. 

Whatever side the lawyer represents they use weasley words to state their case. 

In this case the weasley words are so hopefully the judge doesn't give the harshest sentence possible, though the defendant can help with that by appearing sorry  and if they pleaded guilty by apologising.   Judges however aren't thick ( though some are clearly out of touch ) as they use to do the same job.

kitsunegari wrote:

Quote:

Ayisha Smart told the court: "He says that he merely pulled over further up the road to try and speak to the victim, but the build up of stress he was under at work let his anger get the better of him.

I find it hard to imagine what kind of person becomes someone who wants to defend pathetic people like this in court, much less stand up in court and speak absolute guff like this.

Ayisha Smart desperately needs to re-evaluate her life choices.

I'm imagining a smart lady in a suit sneering those words and peppering them with air quotes while rolling her eyes.

Either that or she goes home and cries herself to sleep.

davel wrote:

kitsunegari wrote:

Quote:

Ayisha Smart told the court: "He says that he merely pulled over further up the road to try and speak to the victim, but the build up of stress he was under at work let his anger get the better of him.

I find it hard to imagine what kind of person becomes someone who wants to defend pathetic people like this in court, much less stand up in court and speak absolute guff like this.

Ayisha Smart desperately needs to re-evaluate her life choices.

I'm imagining a smart lady in a suit sneering those words and peppering them with air quotes while rolling her eyes.

Either that or she goes home and cries herself to sleep.

why not both? - there's no reason for her to limit herself

beezus fufoon wrote:

davel wrote:

kitsunegari wrote:

Quote:

Ayisha Smart told the court: "He says that he merely pulled over further up the road to try and speak to the victim, but the build up of stress he was under at work let his anger get the better of him.

I find it hard to imagine what kind of person becomes someone who wants to defend pathetic people like this in court, much less stand up in court and speak absolute guff like this.

Ayisha Smart desperately needs to re-evaluate her life choices.

I'm imagining a smart lady in a suit sneering those words and peppering them with air quotes while rolling her eyes.

Either that or she goes home and cries herself to sleep.

why not both? - there's no reason for her to limit herself

Fair point, well made.

burtthebike wrote:

I did make the mistake of looking at the Sun comments, and to be honest, there are a lot of people on there that I would have no hesitation in banning from driving.

But, somewhat incredibly, the comments on the DM site are almost the exact opposite, with massive support for the cyclist and condemnation of the driver http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4962776/Road-rage-motorist-smash...

Have I finally gone through that wormhole and emerged in a parallel universe?

damn you, you made me read the Daily Mail!

I'm developing a theory that the gene which codes for blimpish fascism and cyclist hatred also codes for amusing mis-spellings:

"I don't particularly like cyclists but this is beyond the pail"
"I'm not a lover of the Lycra lot but I always give them a wide birth ". That'd be the helmet, I suppose.

wellsprop wrote:

Surely that deserves a jail sentence... Pretty disgraceful.

I made the mistake of going on The Sun website. Hard to believe those comments come from the same species who are able to send rockets into space then land them in reverse on a barge in the ocean.

Yeah the quotes on The Sun website are utterly beyond belief.  Some pretty experienced oxygen theives may read the Sun.

Apparently all cyclists need to wear helmet and gloves for their own protection..... I would be willing to place money on she was wearing helmet and possibly wearing gloves as anyone who ever races in a triathlon is requried to wear a helmet, and most people train as if they were racing.

I doubt a helmet and gloves would have prevented a fractured vertebra..... but then again it might have been a magical unicorn horn helmet which makes the rider invulnerable......