A driver who reversed into a group of cyclists then called them “English bastards” as he drove away has been convicted by a court in Wales of dangerous driving, failure to stop, and racially aggravated harassment by using threatening or abusive words or behaviour.
Gareth Jones. Aged 71, pleaded not guilty at Caernarforn Magistrates’ Court to all three charges, reports Wales Online.
The incident happened on an unclassified road near Beaumaris on Anglesey last summer as the cyclists headed towards Llandegfan.
Clare Bate, prosecuting, said that the bike riders “had to take evasive action to avoid being struck” when Jones overtook them in his Kia Sportage.
The rider leading the group, Valentin Scambraks aked Jones, “What the hell are you doing?”
In response Jones stopped, and told Mr Scambraks: “You’re not Welsh. You’re an English bastard.”
Jones then drove forward briefly before reversing into the group, with his vehicle’s rear bumper hitting the bike belonging to Mr Scambraks.
One of the riders, Tiernan Ryan, told the court that Jones had said, “Go back to England,” in response to which Mr Scambraks replied: “I’m from the Netherlands, I’m not English’.”
According to Mr Ryan, the motorist “purposefully reversed to try to intimidate us.”
Another rider, Will Holloway, said that “it was an uncomfortable speed to be reversing towards some people.”
Jones, who represented himself, told the court that he had been heading to Ysbyty Gwtynnedd to see his brother and that he had not been speeding on the road, which he had regularly driven along.
He claimed that as he rounded a bend, he encountered a “gang” of riders whom he described as “spread out across the road.”
He also insisted that photos taken at the scene by a couple who were out walking and which had been shared with the cyclists were staged, that the bike had been pushed into his vehicle, and that he had been verbally abused by the cyclists.
Under cross-examination, he denied having called Mr Scambraks “an English bastard,” conceding that “I might have called him an English snob.”
But he said: “How would you feel if someone called you a Welsh bastard? I would feel aggrieved.
“I’m Welsh. I’m proud to be Welsh and they verbally abused me,” he added.
Jones was convicted on all three charges and will be sentenced next month. In the meantime has been handed a temporary driving ban.
47 thoughts on “Driver convicted after reversing into cyclists and calling them “English bastards””
Racially aggravated
Racially aggravated harassment & hatred of cyclists. Nice fellow
Only the English ones
Only the English ones
Or in this case, dutch
Or in this case, dutch
Mybike wrote:
I know English people who have lived there for decades. Due to the uni & hospital in Bangor, the tourist appeal of Snowdonia and the coast and the busy ferry terminal at Holyhead, this area has significant in-migration so the cyclists could easily have been local residents. I usually go out riding on Anglesey when I’m there so will try to keep an eye out for a white Kia Sportage.
Would it be xenophobic rather than racial if they are all white?
He was found guilty of
He was found guilty of racially aggravated harrassment, so I assume reference to nationality counts the same as race under the law?
‘English’ is/are a race,
‘English’ is/are a race, hence racial harassment.
Race is an entirely social
Race is an entirely social construct.
It can mean whatever you want it to mean!
Rich_cb wrote:
Aren’t “constructs” a construct though?
zero_trooper wrote:
Really? How does one qualify?
zero_trooper wrote:
Are a group of TT riders a race? Asking for a fiend…
chrisonatrike wrote:
I saw what you did there…
chrisonatrike wrote:
No – it’s a disqualification.
chrisonatrike wrote:
IS a group… Correcting for a licensed door mirror.
TheBillder wrote:
Are a group of TT riders a race? Asking for a fiend…
— TheBillder IS a group… Correcting for a licensed door mirror.— chrisonatrike
Beetlejuice.
zero_trooper wrote:
I’m not convinced about that.
“English” can mean “my ancestors came over from France a thousand years ago” or “my parents came over from France the year before I was born and took up British citizenship”.
It can mean “my ancestors were brought here from Africa in the eighteenth century and their descendants have lived here ever since” or it can mean “my parents came here in the nineteen sixties and I was born here”.
It can mean “my dad was from Caerphilly, my mum is from Edinburgh, but I grew up in London and have always lived here”.
It can even mean “I paid a huge amount of money to the Government so now hold a British passport”.
I’m not convinced that nationality or even declared nationality are the same thing as race.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I understand that the racial identity of the victim does not have to be demonstrated, rather whether the act of harassment was motivated by bias around race as the accused perceives it.
For once Rich below is correct, there are no objective definitions of race, only subjective and cultural meanings and inferences.
Captain Badger wrote:
I can add something to that.
A few years ago (pre-Covid when I dressed smartly to come to the office) I was walking in Bristol city centre on my lunch break.
Wearing a dark grey three-piece suit, shirt and tie, black overcoat and a black hat (if it matters, I have a beard and glasses).
Three man walking past me, then stopped and shouted at me about “F-ing Jews!” (and I mean properly in-yer-face about it).
So, given that I am not Jewish, was that antisemitic harassment?
brooksby wrote:
Are you a spy?
mdavidford wrote:
Nah a hipster. He probably had an avocado under the hat
Captain Badger wrote:
Avocados are the food of the devil. Disgusting things.
Anyway, I’m too old to be a hipster, and I’ve never ridden a fixie…
brooksby wrote:
That’s just what I’d expect a Hipster to say
Captain Badger wrote:
You’ve fallen for BOTH his disguises! He was a “rootless cosmopolitan” all along. (Borrowing the Soviet Russian term because sadly highly relevant now).
chrisonatrike wrote:
Presumably that’s one that’s not made with potato vodka?
mdavidford wrote:
They weren’t dark glasses.
Anyway, I couldn’t tell you if I was 😉
brooksby wrote:
Wow, what a horrible experience, I’m really sorry to hear that.
My understanding is yes, it is. It was the act and intent of the individual that is the crime, whether or not they got it “right”. Philosophically the fact that they got it wrong only further illuminates their ignorance, however, that’s probably non-admissible…..
This is from Citizens Advice (see particularly last paragraph)
I presume that this principle is common to all circumstances
I seem to remember that Mikey got abused for being South African (I think he’s from Zimbabwe, and is a Dutch national) and the police offered to charge the perp with a racially aggravated offence. In that case Mikey turned the offer down in order to concentrate on the motoring offence.
brooksby wrote:
As far as I understand it, yes (IANAL, though): if I were cycling with my black mates and someone drove a car at us with the intention of harming black people, even if I (a white person) were the only person to be injured they could still be charged with racially motivated assault. It’s the motivation of the perpetrator rather than the accuracy of their understanding of whom they are attacking that is the crucial factor, I believe. Willing to stand corrected of course.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Sorry, not familiar with that acronym (and there’s no way I’m Googling it on a work computer….)
Does look dodgy, doesn’t it!
Does look dodgy, doesn’t it! I Am Not A Lawyer.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Aaaah, thanks
Yes.
Yes.
The racial element can be committed on someone’s perceived race even if it isn’t actually true. Some of my colleagues have been racially abused on the assumption that they are from Pakistan. Not actually true, but the demonstration of racial hatred either at the time, immediately before or after the offence wil suffice.
similarly one can be convicted of homophobic aggravation by using homophobic language at the time of an assault which is depressingly common.
Almost all decisions in relation whether to charge a hate crime are made by the CPS rather than the police and there’s a lot of interesting case law about what is and what isn’t a “race” or religion.
I think there are many of us
I think there are many of us who are grateful for these views from the other side of the fence, as they arise from an openly declared member of the police who has to be careful what he writes.
Captain Badger wrote:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/28
Meaning of “racially or religiously aggravated”.
(1)An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if—
(a)at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or
(b)the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
(2)In subsection (1)(a) above—
“membership”, in relation to a 2racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;
“presumed” means presumed by the offender.
(3)It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, 3on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
(4)In this section “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
(5)In this section “religious group” means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.
This and similar quoted
This and similar quoted definitions fail to tell us what race is:
“”racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to race,” or some other characteristics.
Race seems to be a concept that vanishes wheneve you start to examine it. “Hating People and Wanting to Harm them” seems rather more clear.
janusz0 wrote:
You are correct
In context with the offence, there does not need to be an objective definition of race, nor an agreed qualification to belong to one. The crime is from the perspective of the assailant, the harm of course being from the perspective of the victim(s).
In other words you don’t need to be correct (or even logical) in your assertions, or the premises that support those assertions, to commit a racially aggravated offence. Which of course (when considered with the distress and harm that these premises and assertions inflict on others) is the entire point.
I’m just thinking that my son
I’m just thinking that my son works in Bangor and sometimes cycles in the area. As he is Scottish I’ll tell him to wear tartan and/or kilt next time so it will be clear he is not English (or from the Netherlands). That will keep safe, aye right.
He who represents himself has
“He who represents himself has a fool for a client”
Not sure if that’s universally true, but it’s very apt in this instance
Captain Badger wrote:
Hehe yes for sure. I was particularly tickled by this statement “But he said: “How would you feel if someone called you a Welsh bastard? I would feel aggrieved.“
Because isn’t that exactly the point the prosecution was making?
It’s not entirely clear from
It’s not entirely clear from the report above, but I understood him to be alleging that they actually called him a Welsh bastard, that he was aggrieved and that he responded, rather than it being a hypothetical question to the prosecution.
As something of an old lag, I
As something of an old lag, I can confirm that the ‘fool for a client’ assertion is completely true.
jaymack wrote:
sounds like there’s a story or two behind that post!
Boomer from Boomerville.
Boomer from Boomerville.
Quote:
Is that a failure to prevent someone using threats and abuse to racially harass people, or a failure to use threats and abuse to prevent someone committing racial harassment?
Would the cyclists be
Would the cyclists be justified in calling him a sheep shagger then?
No
No
biker phil wrote:
Only if he was involved in styling their fleeces into an artistically tangled style. Or engaging in carnal intercourse with them.
Imagine living in some of the
Imagine living in some of the most peaceful and scenic parts of the UK and still having this much bottled anger
I prefer Hamster/Elderberry
I prefer Hamster/Elderberry hybrid.