Cyclist punched repeatedly in the head by aggressive driver furious that group were riding two abreast

Thanks for that, even if it does make clear that the police can issue a caution for ABH, but the rest of it, as I read it from the perspective of the victims and being a cyclist myself, pretty well supports prosecution.

Para ten of the introduction is interesting:

"10. In addition, a simple caution may only be given if the decision-maker is
satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect
of conviction if the offender were to be prosecuted."

So he could be prosecuted and conviction is likely.

And 11:

"11. Furthermore, a simple caution must not be given if the decision-maker
considers that it is in the public interest for the offender to be
prosecuted."

I would argue most strongly that it is in the public interest that this thug be prosecuted, with the case given much publicity to deter and educate others who think that they know and can enforce the law, when neither is true.

Then there's this:

"44. Where multiple related offences have been committed, police and
prosecutors should consider the totality of the offending in determining
whether it is appropriate to deal with the case by way of caution."

There were multiple related offences, so did the police apply this test?

And this:

"54. In deciding whether to offer a simple caution, it is important to establish,
where appropriate and possible, and to take into account:
o The views of any victim about the offence and the proposed method
of disposal;
o The nature of any harm or loss caused by the offence and its
significance to the victim."

Since it appears that the victims' views were not established even though it was clearly appropriate and possible, and cannot therefore have been taken into account, the police definitely failed that one.

I suspect that the police ignored the driving and concentrated on Mr Short's assault.

As for the second victim, Mrs Short, was she recklessly assaulted or the victim of a road traffic collision? I would like to know how the police recorded that.

Whatever, the 'the victim wasn't on camera' is complete BS!

"Add lying to the list of Wiltshire police's failings"

Add this to the list eburtthebikes police freemason obsessions 

Isn't it funny that they seem quite happy to use crappy CCTV footage when they're actually interested in prosecuting?

If I were in a generous mood, I'd explain it as them thinking that you had post-processed the footage to add GPS, but they don't seem to have acted in good faith with yourself previously.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

The Beeb have just picked up this Wiltshire rozzer fail :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-wiltshire-58558802

Grab your popcorn.

Okay - that's an interesting edit they performed on the video and a narrative change with "when they caught up with the car" rather than "when the driver tried to cause a collision with a brake check on the cyclists".

Rick_Rude wrote:

When the sticky bottle goes wrong....

I don't think holding the mirror was a good idea at all. I'd feel safer with both hands on my handlebars and just keep at the same pace by the side. Drivers can get really irate if you touch their car which I think is some psychological demonstration that their personal space expands to their car.

Utter contempt for cyclists shown by the police, it smacks of "well I can understand why this person might have got aggressive"

It's not just suggestive of that, it is that. The police are always desperately seeking excuses for whatever a driver does, whether it's close-passing (deemed in Lancashire to be non-existent unless there is serious injury to the cyclist) or crashing through red lights 2 seconds after they changed. However, in the interest of balance, I should admit that well over a month after the nutter BMW driver threatened to 'f*****g flatten' me and 'you will get knocked off!', after I remonstrated with him after a close pass, Lancashire Constabulary has claimed that they will be taking a statement soon. 

a ‘caution’ is a formal admission of guilt leading to the scally in question getting a criminal record

I'm prepared to believe this because of the extraordinary dodges deployed by Lancashire Constabulary in avoiding any action which 'goes on the record'. The latest trick, which I admit to describing here before, is to send to the offending driver in a really close pass 'educational material derived from the Highway Code', with no mention of any warning letter. They hope I won't notice and will just assume that there really was a warning letter. Th police have created numerous ways of appearing to have done something- a 'something' which has no deterrent effect whatsoever and which involved negligible work

Its on the Sun, too 

Worth reading that if people want more background.  In particular there is a section on mixed offenses (more than one offense), that doesnt appear to have been considered by Wiltshire fuzz.

nicmason wrote:

"Add lying to the list of Wiltshire police's failings"

Add this to the list eburtthebikes police freemason obsessions 

What does that have to do with freemasonry?

As I said, they've had the video for well over a year and have never questioned the GPS data before- neither has it been questioned on any of the more than numerous videos I have submitted. My guess is that the nutter BMW driver has 6 or 9 points on his licence already, and isn't completely sure he can retain his licence with 12 points just by saying he needs the car to get to the shops a mile away. I can't work out why LC is trying so hard to get him off an offence with only 3 points at risk.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't think holding the mirror was a good idea at all. I'd feel safer with both hands on my handlebars and just keep at the same pace by the side. Drivers can get really irate if you touch their car which I think is some psychological demonstration that their personal space expands to their car.

Psychology Today - I Am My Car

My thinking is that it is in the public interest to prosecute road rage drivers. They are definitely part of the reason that a lot of people consider cycling on roads to be too dangerous, so the police should be clamping down, not utterly ignoring the dangerous driving.

I would have thought it should have been the CPS involved now and not the LP doing all the demanding of evidence. Maybe ask the LC what the CPS solicitor needs or suggest and get that person to speak to you. 

I think nic being a valued defender of the police knows all about that though. After all his middle name begins with F.

Now imagine it went to court and a jury of 12 drivers fail to convict the motorist. This is a distinct possibility and an example has been reported on this site. What message does that then send? There is also the cost of the court case.

A caution, if I've understood correctly, goes on the drivers criminal record. I would imagine this would be a considerable disincentive for a lot of drivers in general and this driver in particular. All this achieved with no delay, no risk of an aquital and no cost to the public.

Until the law changes to allow a car to be considered as an offesive weapon in these circumstances I feel this is a good result. If a successful prosecution could be guaranteed I would agree with you, as it stands we will have to agree to differ.

PS I hope this appears as a reply to hawkinspeter in the correct place. I am seeing the comments all over the place at the moment.

The person doing the asking was a legally qualified 'Court Presentation Officer, Safer Roads Unit' whose email heading bears the LC crest (with the words: 'cyclists can sod off out of Lancashire' in Latin) and it's a LC email address. No mention of CPS anywhere. Maybe they resort to an un-named person at CPS when they want to explain a decision to do nothing? I haven't had one of those yet- the usual modus operandi is a refusal to reply or tell you anything

No thats my brother. master of the Grand Lodge head of the police and prime mover behind the anti cyclist conspiracy endemic in Wiltshire policing apparently.

Meanwhile the roadcc comments section moves smoothly into armchair lawyers holding forth. 

I'm amazed no one has said prima facie  or even open and shut yet. 

Bungle_52 wrote:

Now imagine it went to court and a jury of 12 drivers fail to convict the motorist. This is a distinct possibility and an example has been reported on this site. What message does that then send? There is also the cost of the court case.

A caution, if I've understood correctly, goes on the drivers criminal record. I would imagine this would be a considerable disincentive for a lot of drivers in general and this driver in particular. All this achieved with no delay, no risk of an aquital and no cost to the public.

Until the law changes to allow a car to be considered as an offesive weapon in these circumstances I feel this is a good result. If a successful prosecution could be guaranteed I would agree with you, as it stands we will have to agree to differ.

PS I hope this appears as a reply to hawkinspeter in the correct place. I am seeing the comments all over the place at the moment.

That should be taken into account, but it appears that the caution was for the "common assault" and they have done nothing about the dangerous driving. I appreciate that the police do a certain amount of second-guessing what will end in a successful prosecution, but personally I think that a charge of careless driving would be successful (dangerous driving seems to be very rarely successful).

It's also about sending a message that violent behaviour whilst in control of a vehicle is not at any point acceptable.

Oh, it seems they are employed by the Police to bring traffic and minor crimes to the courts. Which is weird as the whole point of the CPS is to be independent of the Police. 

But not just them, it seems those similar roles are also used for when prosecuting parents for school attendence and other things the Local Authorities need someone in court for.

Looking at the job role supplied by TVP compared to WMP as well, 23 k a year to deal with 12k cases a year. Where WMP at least asks for some legal experience and are paying two grades higher. So essentially used to free up "real" police and "real" solicitors from having to prosecute offences and probably massively overworked.

Says the person who wrote: "I think you'll find law doesnt do what might have happened just what did happen."

Various counter examples have been given to this 'armchair lawyer' claim.

Bungle_52 wrote:

Now imagine it went to court and a jury of 12 drivers fail to convict the motorist. This is a distinct possibility and an example has been reported on this site. What message does that then send? There is also the cost of the court case.

 

Probably the same message as failing to prosecute in teh first place, so we're no worse off. 

As for the cost, we could save millions by dispensing with the legal system completely.

nicmason wrote:

No thats my brother. master of the Grand Lodge head of the police and prime mover behind the anti cyclist conspiracy endemic in Wiltshire policing apparently.

Ha!  We knew it! 

Don't forget this driver now has a criminal record. That would be a disincentive for most people, it certainly would be for me.

Now there's an idea.  Just lynch those who park on the pavement / double yellows (with appropriate signage of course...) .  Saves a ton of legal admin and they won't do it again.

Bungle_52 wrote:

Now imagine it went to court and a jury of 12 drivers fail to convict the motorist. This is a distinct possibility and an example has been reported on this site. What message does that then send? There is also the cost of the court case.

Except that the guidance on issuing cautions says:

"10. In addition, a simple caution may only be given if the decision-maker is
satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect
of conviction if the offender were to be prosecuted."

So it is possible that they would be acquitted, but there is definitely a realistic prospect of a conviction, which is all any prosecution can expect.

Fair point but then there is the old saying "a bird in the hand etc."

eburtthebike quote

"As I've previously suggested, is either in the same lodge as the chief constable, or possibly a police themselves or a close relative."

nicmason wrote:

"Add lying to the list of Wiltshire police's failings"

Add this to the list eburtthebikes police freemason obsessions 

I have to admit, it's a very long list, but at least I'm not you.