The newly appointed chair of BBC Children in Need has resigned after being given a suspended sentence for hitting a cyclist whilst turning at a junction.
The incident occurred in the village of Chalfont St Giles in Buckinghamshire in June. Terrence Duddy, 69, was driving a BMW SUV and cut across the oncoming lane and into a cyclist who had right of way. The cyclist, in her fifties, was seriously injured.
Sharing video footage of the collision, Thames Valley Police said: “Last Thursday, Mr Duddy, of Nightingales Lane, Chalfont St Giles, received an 8-month custodial sentence that is suspended for 18 months, 200 hours of unpaid work to be completed, costs totalling £272 and an 18-month driving disqualification.”
Duddy, a former boss of Argos and Homebase’s parent company, is credited with ‘inventing’ click and collect catalogue ordering. He stepped down as Chief Executive in 2013 amid growing scrutiny of his £1.6 million salary.
Since then, he chaired the board of welfare charity Catch 22 and London Marathon Events, the latter being the organiser of the RideLondon sportive that last took place in 2024. He was described as bringing “a wealth of governance and leadership experience across both the charity and commercial sectors, along with a strong commitment to supporting children and young people” at the time of his announcement.
His appointment as chair of BBC Children in Need was announced on the 8th October by which time Duddy would have already received his court date, raising questions as to the scrutiny that went into the charity’s appointment. He joined the Board of Trustees on Friday 21st October and would have led the process for appointing a new chief executive of the charity.
His resignation was confirmed to staff this morning, just days after this year’s telethon fundraising appeal which raised £45.5 million. The charity’s outgoing chief executive Simon Antrobus said in a statement: “I recognise this will be a surprise but I want to reassure you all that we remain in a strong and stable position, and we remain focused on helping children and young people thrive.”
Catch 22 told Civil Society they were “assessing what this means for his role as a matter of urgency”.
> Taxi driver who left cyclist paralysed after jumping red light avoids jail
BBC Children in Need told road.cc that it did not know about Duddy’s legal troubles prior to his appointment.
The charity said: “On Tuesday 18 November, our new Chair Terry Duddy informed us that he had been convicted last week of causing serious injury through careless driving.
“In light of this he offered his resignation, which the board accepted, agreeing he could not continue in this role. James Fairclough, a Trustee since 2021, has been formally appointed Chair with immediate effect. We remain focused on helping children and young people thrive.
“We were not aware of the court case before he was appointed.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
83 thoughts on “Children in Need boss resigns after careless driving conviction for seriously injuring cyclist”
Pretty shocking that that
Pretty shocking that that poor level of driving doesn’t get you jail time, hard to see how this could have been worse without being drunk/high or doing it deliberately
– Didn’t see the oncoming cyclist
– Didn’t indicate
– Turning into the wrong side of the road
Should be a much longer driving ban as well
Why? He was not drunk, he was
Why? He was not drunk, he was not speeding, he was not on his phone. We don’t even have enough prison places for all dangerous offenders at the moment. Yes he could have checked again for cyclists before turning right but it was not intentional, at most he should have got a longer driving ban maybe but he did indicate and there was no sign forbidding a right turn
Interesting that his “wealth
Interesting that his “wealth of governance and leadership experience” wasn’t sufficient to prompt him to disclose his upcoming trial to the prospective employer.
Clearly he was hoping to get off and pretend that it never happened.
absolutely this – a failure
absolutely this – a failure to mention this trial, even if he had been acquitted, when taking up a charity post doesn’t scream responsible leadership to me.
He should have disclosed it
He should have disclosed it but the offence did not relate to his job so no reason he could not have kept it in my view
I know it’s a minor compared
I know it’s a minor compared to what Duddy did but the preceding wankpanzer driver ought really to have been prosecuted as well for driving completely in the opposite lane towards fast-oncoming cyclists. Not only highly dangerous in and of itself but also, without in any way excusing Duddy’s appalling driving, if the preceeding driver had slowed or stopped to let the cyclists through, as they should have done, before driving in their lane he would not have had the opportunity to perform his atrocious manoeuvre.
There’s normally some word in these reports, and mention in court, of what has happened to the cyclist subsequently; nothing here except the fact that she was seriously injured. I hope she’s making/has made a good recovery and that now Duddy has been convicted she will receive a very substantial compensation package from his insurers.
Absolutely appalling.
Absolutely appalling.
Duddy would have realised he was bang to rights, why not tell CIN from the outset, rather than wait to be found guilty? Even without a custodial sentence (suspended) this would have been a bad look for CIN.
Why? It had no connection to
Why? It had no connection to his job and he was not drunk, not speeding and not on his phone, it was an accident. He just needed to check again for cyclists
The problem here is that the
The problem here is that the common view is that this is just something that everybody does and he was just unlucky that there was a cyclist here in the wrong place at the wrong time, and also that the cyclist was probably going too fast and should have been able to stop.
The only way to really combat this kind of behaviour is for a far greater number of people to cycle at least some of the time so they develop some empathy for road users who aren’t in cars.
Far harsher sentencing would help too, and prosecution for this kind of driving even if nobody is hurt.
Plus more cycle lanes on main
Plus more cycle lanes on main roads so drivers can see cyclists more easily
Not excusing the driving.
Not excusing the driving. But how does the council justify parking bays that block the lane, forcing traffic to use the wrong side of the road.
The road into which he turned seems to be one way, which would explain the line he took.
Also, look just how wide
Also, look just how wide someone’s chosen to make the entrance to that side road. It’s designed to maximise the speed you can take the corner.
That is a good point.
That is a good point. Corners like that can be designed out – if planners thought about it or were compelled to by design standards. The planners primary concern is to make it as easy as possible for motor vehicles to ‘flow’ and not be hindered. If the angle of the corner is changed to 90 degrees then the vehicle has to slow down and enter the junction at 90 degrees.
ChrisA wrote:
This appears to be the scene. It’s not a one way, but if the parking on the Street View visit is representative of the parking on the narrow view in the police video, it’s not an unreasonable line to take, given parked vehicles on the left of the major road, parked vehicles on the left of the minor road, and potentially parked vehicles on the right, too.
The video shows a car parked the last position within the marked bay of the major road, plus a further vehicle parked on double yellows (“just for a moment”, of course). I think it is reasonable in analysis to say that the DYL-parked car contributes to the restrictions the convicted driver faced.
If you track back, you’ll also see staggered zig-zag lines at the crossing behind the video camera: a parking bay is planned into the danger zone, albeit with limited impact on visibility.
The driver failed to take those restrictions into account. He did signal – that is fairly clear in the video, but that is a minor point, and it was not the cyclist’s duty to act on that signal.
GMBasix wrote:
It is. There are no entry signs at the other end, and only a single dashed line at that end, though admittedly it’s otherwise not very clearly marked.
mdavidford wrote:
#
There are no one way signs on the exit to the pub car park so I see no reason why cars coudn’t turn right from there even if it might not be a good idea.
Interesting. Is it really one
Interesting. Is it really one way…? If somebody turned round half-way or emerged from the pub car park and drove the other way, there is no enforceable restriction. What there is is a No Entry, which technically is slightly different.
Technically there may not be
Technically there may not be an enforceable restriction, but given the vast majority of traffic is likely to be going the other way, I would say the driver was entitled to take the line he did – just not when he did.
Yes. His errors relate very
Yes. His errors relate very specifically to failing to observe and failing to give way.
Even if it had been two-way, there were practical reasons why he might have turned in on the right side of that minor road in those cirumstances.
So, much of the discussion is semantic: interesting [discuss, 4 marks] but off topic.
It’s just that the very specific errors very specifically led to the serious injury of a vulnerable and innocent road user and the appropriate prosecution of the driver involved.
The cyclist should have noted
The cyclist should have noted the signal though of the driver to turn right, even if the driver should also have double checked for the cyclist before turning right
The road that the driver is
The road that the driver is lazily turning into is one way, have a look at the streetview roadmarking and the ‘No Entry’ signs at the other end of it, but it by no way excuses the lazyness and lack of observation demonstrated by them.
Agree with all the other
Agree with all the other replies here; practically encourages a driver to take the turn without checking properly. Can you imagine the residents howling if they proposed reducing the width of the road at the junction (as a safety measure). Council did it on a road near me to stop drivers taking the turn at full tilt; the complaints on the proposal included causing catastrophic queues and pollution. There was zero impact, apart from forcing drivers to slow down.
I hope the seriously injured
I hope the seriously injured cyclist has fully recovered and sued him for quite a few of the pennies of his obscene wealth, if not every penny.*
“He was described as bringing “a wealth of governance and leadership experience…”
I don’t understand how this even went to court, as any reasonable person would have admitted guilt as the facts are indisputable, unless he didn’t know that the video footage existed, and he thought he’d get away with it. Leadership skills involve admitting when you’re wrong, when you’ve made a mistake, and owning up to it, not taking it all the way until you can’t avoid the consequences.
Leadership this was not, and BBC Children in Need have had a lucky escape. He should resign from all such posts.
*I’ve just looked at five different reports of this, and not one mentions whether the cyclist has recovered or not. You don’t count.
The msm have been really poor
The msm have been really poor. It’s mainly being used for clickbait and more BBC bashing.
Also £272 for costs? This guy doesn’t get out of bed for that amount. What costs do they think this covers? Would love to compare this to his own legal expenses.
IanMK wrote:
I’m really not defending him – and this is pedantry more than anything else – but he clearly does, as the position is has lost was an unpaid one.
eburtthebike wrote:
It’s unclear whether or not he pleaded guilty – even with a guilty plea, he would have had a day in court for sentencing. Some of the media reporting indicates he did not (i.e. if he was “convicted” by the court, then that implies he had not admitted guilt beforehand) but I wouldn’t want to rely on that – it might be sloppy reporting and he was merely sentenced by the court.
To be fair to the media, the Police released this footage, and court cases are matters of public record. But unless the cyclist in question reached out to a media outlet, I don’t see that the media would have any way of identifying the cyclist.
OnYerBike wrote:
According to the BBC report
Although it turns out it wasn’t his fault after all:
OnYerBike wrote:
The BBC has him down as “admitted causing serious injury by careless and inconsiderate driving” which presumably indicates a guilty plea.
The same BBC report, incidentally, has the extraordinarily car-brained sentence, “Terence Duddy’s BMW knocked a woman off her bike as he turned right on High Street, Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire.” Even after he’s been found guilty apparently he still doesn’t have total agency, it was his BMW what done it. As ever, look forward to seeing BBC reports saying, “A man was charged after his knife stabbed somebody” and “John Smith was found guilty of attempted murder after his gun shot his victim three times”.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Its these foreigh cars, they don’t like driving on the left!
Though he wasn’t drunk, he
Though he wasn’t drunk, he wasn’t speeding and he wasn’t on his phone
SVXY wrote:
The law takes into account the damage the offence has caused to the victim in sentencing. In all your posts trying to defend this atrocious driving you haven’t once acknowleged the fact that he seriously injured the cyclist and could quite easily have killed her. I suggest you take a look at the sentencing guidlines for the offence to which Duddy pleaded guilty.
you haven’t once acknowleged
you haven’t once acknowleged the fact that he seriously injured the cyclist and could quite easily have killed her
I suppose such blinkered idiocy from this dimwit troll is the inevitable end-stage of the authorities listening to the exculpatory bilge that is ‘he didn’t mean to do it!’
He didn’t, it was not an
He didn’t, it was not an intentional act and he was not convicted of an intentional act, he just needed to check again for cyclists when turning right
It may do but cyclists who
It may do but cyclists who choose to drive on a main road are also 24 times more likely to be injured than those in a car when in a crash. Yes he should have triple checked for the cyclist when he overtook and turned right even though the cyclist was coming quite fast through traffic but he was not drunk, not on his phone and not speeding and it was not an illegal manoeuvre
SVXY wrote:
Here’s the cyclist (ringed) as she approaches. Look at all that traffic she’s coming through! You’re just making yourself more and more ridiculous with each successive post.
Before 2023 this offence
Before 2023 this offence would have been a fine and penalty points maximum, just adding a mandatory driving ban too would have been all that was needed
He did plead guilty but no
He did plead guilty but no reason at all he needed to resign from his posts, the offence had no link to his job, he was not drunk, not on his phone and not speeding
SVXY wrote:
If he couldn’t pay attention to the job of driving a car, why should anybody think he could pay attention to any other job?
Well for starters he was ceo
Well for starters he was CEO of a FTSE 250 company for a number of years, one of the most attention demanding jobs in the country!
What he used to be able to do
What he used to be able to do is not a predictor of what he can do now, I used to be able to do a sub 11second 200M sprint and now struggle to do sub 13.
Yes it is for a management
Yes it is for a management job, driving a car is something he could hire a chauffeur to do for him during his driving ban given how wealthy he is
SVXY wrote:
No, he’s well past normal retirement age, not surprising if he’s losing it a bit.
Backladder wrote:
That’s still better than Hussain Bolt, TBF…
Is he the Arabic one ?
Is he the Arabic one ?
No doubt overheard near the
No doubt overheard near the executive watercooler:
“…and all because of some f…ing cyclist!”
Same make and model that hit
Same make and model that hit me, I think the A pillar is wide on these and drivers make nano second glimpses looking for cars or bigger vehicles only.
Echo wrote:
This one didn’t see me and pulled out in front of me. Stopped to apologise after I managed to avoid being hit. I suggested he might consider moving his head. Reported anyway. Driver education course.
Echo wrote:
Don’t think that would apply in this case, he’s driving straight towards her and she would’ve been clearly visible to anyone looking straight ahead through the windscreen. One can only suppose that he saw the driver ahead proceeding through and made the assumption that there couldn’t be anything coming so was already looking to his right at where he was going and completely failed to check what was coming directly at him.
The car parked on the yellow
The car parked in front didn’t help either as he had to overtake that, he should have checked for the cyclists though they were going quite fast
Rendel Harris wrote:
Don’t think that would apply in this case, he’s driving straight towards her and she would’ve been clearly visible to anyone looking straight ahead through the windscreen. One can only suppose that he saw the driver ahead proceeding through and made the assumption that there couldn’t be anything coming so was already looking to his right at where he was going and completely failed to check what was coming directly at him.— Echo
I suspect his attention was focused on the kerb so as to make sure his precious alloys didn’t get scratched, and he paid no attention to the blatantly obvious need to keep an eye on the possibility of oncoming road users.
Echo wrote:
Clearly not the case here. My bet is that he was distracted by something in the seconds immediately before the crash. Likely texting or scrolling or whatever that required his eyes going on and off the road. Convicting of careless driving means his eyes must have been off the road, otherwise he would have seen the cyclist. If, however, he could see the cyclist and still proceeded to make the turn, then that’s not careless driving, that’s Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent, and with the use of a weapon.
Crashes just like this one are the reason why I always put my hands on the brake levers and slow down if I am traveling at high speed, prepared to slam them every time I see a car about to make a turn across my way.
He was not on his phone as
He was not on his phone as the police also check for that and he was not charged with it
There wasn’t even adequate
There wasn’t even adequate time to turn safely there before the second cyclist.
The cyclists were going quite
The cyclists were going quite fast and he had to overtake a car which was parked in front of him, yes he should have checked again for cyclists but had little time to see them in part because of the car parked in front
Quite fast?
Quite fast?
I’d wager that you’d describe a car doing that speed as quite slow.
Nighttrain123 wrote:
Cars that speed are easier to see
SVXY wrote:
[CITATION NEEDED] ?
Not always, according to relativity…
Just to be clear, smaller
Just to be clear, smaller (and darker) vehicles deserve opprobrium for driving too fast for some nebulous visibility-based speed limit, which is set by your own personal judgement?
Even smaller cars are easier
Even smaller cars are easier to see for drivers than cyclists in traffic, though yes drivers should check for both
Duddy will have been advised
Duddy will have been advised as to the nature of potential sentences in this case – he clearly chose not to disclose this prior to his appointment. It is worth noting that an SSO counts as “custody” for armed forces personnel. His position at Ride London is even more at risk I’d suggest.
3 years ago this offence
3 years ago this offence would have been a fine and penalty points maximum, it had no connection to his job and no reason at all his position at Ride London should be at risk
And yet it still happening
And yet it still happening and folks lives are put at risk, clear evidence the existing fines and points system isn’t working!
It is no longer fine and
It is no longer fine and penalty points that is the point but potentially an imprisonable offence when a driving ban would have been more than enough
SVXY wrote:
So the law was an ass up to three years ago when you could “carelessly” paralyze a cyclist for life through your incompetence, selfishness and stupidity and only face a fine and points. Lots of things that were once acceptable in law are now not (e.g. up until 1991 a husband could not be convicted of raping his wife), why do you think that the offence is somehow mitigated because it used not to be regarded as so serious? He has been convicted of a very serious offence and given a prison sentence for it; this offence involved causing very severe injury to a cyclist. Do you honestly believe that should in no way affect his position as the chair of the board of the organisation that runs the country’s biggest amateur cycling event? Seriously?
Well you weren’t driving
Well you weren’t driving dangerously were you and statistically cyclists are 24 times more likely to be injured in a crash if they choose to drive on a main road than car drivers. This was also not an intentional act unlike a man raping his wife. He was not drunk, he was not speeding and he was not on his phone, it was an offence but in the scale of Road Traffic Act offences not a very serious one. He was given a suspended sentence, he was not sent to prison though at most it should have been the driving ban in my view. Yes I do think this should have have no effect on his position of running the cycling event, the offence was unrelated to it and he is a very experienced former CEO of a FTSE 250 company ideal for the role
SVXY wrote:
Causing injury by careless driving is the fourth most serious offence in the large number of charges available under the law, with only causing death/injury by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving coming ahead of it. That’s why it’s punishable by up to two years in prison. The seriousness of the offence is reflected in the severity of the sentence, which is a prison sentence whether it’s suspended or not. Your comments are so ludicrous, and so deeply offensive in their attempts to downplay a serious criminal offence that caused severe injury to a completely blameless cyclist, that it’s hard to believe you don’t have a personal interest in the case.
Given they deny being duddy,
Given they deny being duddy, that leaves being a son or daughter.
Or they are another attention seeking pbu.
Probably one of his
Probably one of his underlings who buffs his Wikipedia page and trolls for him in social media.
Causing injury by careless
Causing injury by careless driving only came into statute law in 2023, before that it was treated as careless driving with just a fine and penalty points. It is also on the offence not consequence not more serious than dangerous driving, not just causing death by dangerous driving, causing serious injury by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs and causing death by careless driving without those factors.
SVXY wrote:
I understand that you weren’t doing too well at constructing any reasoned arguments, but I’m not sure this new tactic of throwing down a lot of words without bothering to make a sentence out of them is really going to help.
SVXY wrote:
I’m sure the cyclist would agree. What’s a broken arm or rib or two? Pah, nothing to it.
You utter prick.
Daclu Trelub wrote:
Be rude if you like but he was not on his phone, not drunk and not speeding and there was no sign forbidding right turns. Yes he should have checked for cyclists turning right but had he hit a driver doing the same thing the driver likely would have emerged unscathed
SVXY wrote:
Are you suggesting he is so blind he couldn’t see a car coming towards him?
Backladder wrote:
Are you suggesting he is so blind he couldn’t see a car coming towards him?— SVXY No but had he been doing the same speed and hit a car turning right as I said the driver would likely have emerged unscathed
SVXY wrote:
So what? He should have been given a lesser punishment because the injury would have been lesser in totally different circumstances? “Your honour, I accept that my shotgun went off by accident and killed someone but I think you should take into account that if they had been inside their house at the time they wouldn’t have been hurt”? The law is based on sanctioning consequences as well as actions.
A shotgun will likely kill
A shotgun will likely kill someone by equal chance regardless of age and whether indoors or outdoors. A cyclist on a main road who collides with a car however is 24 times more likely to be injured than a car driver whose car collided with another car in a crash
SVXY wrote:
Which is exactly why he had a greater responsibility to take care towards the cyclist (highway code rule 204) and why his punishment is deserved.
No it should have been a
No it should have been a driving ban maximum
a bajillion comments trying
You are Terence Duddy and ICMFP.
Well, well! An unusually
Well, well! An unusually thick-skinned and determined troll, but a troll nonetheless.
More “one of their reps” as
More “one of their reps” as mdavidford alludes to?
I suspect we are past the
I suspect we are past the point, on this thread, where responding to him is worthwhile.
Just waiting for their views
Just waiting for their views on when red lights are considered “established”… Or what makes a vigilante.