• Norwich cyclist's crash death leads to two more arrests

    From Simon Mason@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 11 03:39:24 2023
    Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.

    The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.

    The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

    He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.

    All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JNugent@21:1/5 to Simon Mason on Sat Nov 11 12:26:09 2023
    On 11/11/2023 11:39 am, Simon Mason wrote:

    Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.
    The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.
    The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

    At 05:10?

    He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.
    All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987

    How many of the three (it was just three, was it?) were driving?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Simon Mason@21:1/5 to Simon Mason on Sat Nov 11 05:44:51 2023
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
    Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.

    The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.

    The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

    He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.

    All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987

    The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JNugent@21:1/5 to Simon Mason on Sat Nov 11 13:49:46 2023
    On 11/11/2023 01:44 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:

    Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.
    The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.
    The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.
    He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.
    All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987

    The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

    Please state what on Earth you are talking about (or trying to, at least).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Simon Mason@21:1/5 to Simon Mason on Sat Nov 11 05:59:50 2023
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 1:44:53 PM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
    Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.

    The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.

    The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

    He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.

    All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987
    The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

    They were only in their 20's and must have thought that the coppers were still wet behind the ears!
    Oldest trick in the book.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Spike@21:1/5 to Simon Mason on Sat Nov 11 13:57:34 2023
    Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:

    Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by
    dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.

    The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the
    junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.

    The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

    He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting
    the course of justice.

    All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on
    bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987

    The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

    Are you really that thick?

    QUOTE Christine Hamilton has escaped a fine for speeding - by claiming she didn't know whether she or her husband Neil was driving at the time.
    The former Tory minister's wife told a court that one of them was behind
    the wheel of her car when it was snapped by a speed camera going 63mph
    through roadworks on the M62 in a temporary 50mph zone.

    But Mrs Hamilton, 53, explained that the couple shared driving duties on
    their regular long journeys and she couldn't be sure who committed the
    offence.

    "Yes, it was speeding but I couldn't tell who was driving," she said.
    District Judge Alan Berg accepted the explanation and threw out the case.

    Outside court Mrs Hamilton declared: "One more victory for motorists.
    Justice has been done. It is not always my experience and I'm absolutely delighted."

    However, motoring groups voiced fears that many drivers could use the same defence to illegitimately escape fines. Represented herself

    Mrs Hamilton was accompanied by her husband to Manchester City Magistrates' Court, where she represented herself.

    She denied a charge of failing to supply details to the Chief Constable of Manchester of who was driving her R-reg Rover Sterling when the speeding offence was committed in Greater Manchester in February.

    Under Section 172(2) of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, it carries a fine of up
    to £1,000 and a mandatory three-point endorsement. The speed camera picture was submitted to the court but didn't show who was driving.

    The couple were snapped returning from Guiseley, West Yorkshire, to their former home in Nether Alderley, Cheshire, after opening a nursery school.

    Mrs Hamilton told the court that she and her husband drove more than 30,000 miles a year making guest appearances and in that particular week had been
    in Preston, Cumbria, Birmingham, Cheshire and Leeds.

    "It is pretty difficult to remember who was driving the car at any time on
    any particular journey," she said.

    When a letter arrived asking for the driver's details she had no
    recollection of the roadworks or speeding, she said.

    She replied to the notice but could not supply the information about the driver. "I did not know beyond reasonable doubt who was driving," she said.

    "I thought it would have been reckless to guess or calculate on the balance
    of probability. I would have had a 50 per cent chance of being wrong." Not guilty

    Under the law, it is an offence not to identify a driver unless the owner
    is unable to do so despite using "reasonable diligence".

    Finding her not guilty, the judge accepted this was the case with Mrs
    Hamilton. He added he had "absolutely no reason to disbelieve her in any respect at all".

    Mrs Hamilton's last speeding fine was 12 years ago and her husband's in
    1976. She said a fine would not have bothered her and points on their
    licences would not have been "catastrophic".

    The couple became celebrities after Mr Hamilton's failed "cash for
    questions" libel action against Harrods boss Mohammed Al Fayed.

    After the speeding case the former MP, 54, said: "It helps our average. Our experience in Court 8 at Manchester has been rather more enjoyable than
    Court 13 in the High Court."

    Mrs Hamilton insisted after the case: "I tried everything in my power to
    comply with the law." Charity condemns decision

    But Mary Williams, of the road safety charity Brake, said: "People should
    stand up and be counted for their own offending.

    "If the vehicle is theirs, they admit to being in it, if they can't
    identity one or the other then one should accept the speeding offence or
    both should be fined."

    Kevin Delaney, of the RAC Foundation, said the judge's decision was a "very wide interpretation" of the law and opened the way for "many thousands" of people to try to escape fines.

    Four years ago a speeding case against Sir Alex Ferguson was thrown out
    after Manchester United claimed it could not discover who was driving the club's BMW at the time of the offence.

    ENDQUOTE

    The news item is in the paper you sometimes quote from:

    <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-202833/Christine-Hamilton-cleared-speeding.html>

    --
    Spike

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JNugent@21:1/5 to Simon Mason on Sat Nov 11 14:08:24 2023
    On 11/11/2023 01:59 pm, Simon Mason wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 1:44:53 PM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
    Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.

    The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.

    The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

    He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.

    All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987
    The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

    They were only in their 20's and must have thought that the coppers were still wet behind the ears!
    Oldest trick in the book.

    What is?

    How often have you tried it (whatever it is)?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JNugent@21:1/5 to Spike on Sat Nov 11 14:07:50 2023
    On 11/11/2023 01:57 pm, Spike wrote:

    Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:

    Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by
    dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.

    The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the
    junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.

    The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

    He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting
    the course of justice.

    All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on
    bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987

    The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

    Are you really that thick?

    QUOTE Christine Hamilton has escaped a fine for speeding - by claiming she didn't know whether she or her husband Neil was driving at the time.
    The former Tory minister's wife told a court that one of them was behind
    the wheel of her car when it was snapped by a speed camera going 63mph through roadworks on the M62 in a temporary 50mph zone.

    But Mrs Hamilton, 53, explained that the couple shared driving duties on their regular long journeys and she couldn't be sure who committed the offence.

    "Yes, it was speeding but I couldn't tell who was driving," she said. District Judge Alan Berg accepted the explanation and threw out the case.

    Outside court Mrs Hamilton declared: "One more victory for motorists.
    Justice has been done. It is not always my experience and I'm absolutely delighted."

    However, motoring groups voiced fears that many drivers could use the same defence to illegitimately escape fines. Represented herself

    Mrs Hamilton was accompanied by her husband to Manchester City Magistrates' Court, where she represented herself.

    She denied a charge of failing to supply details to the Chief Constable of Manchester of who was driving her R-reg Rover Sterling when the speeding offence was committed in Greater Manchester in February.

    Under Section 172(2) of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, it carries a fine of up
    to £1,000 and a mandatory three-point endorsement. The speed camera picture was submitted to the court but didn't show who was driving.

    The couple were snapped returning from Guiseley, West Yorkshire, to their former home in Nether Alderley, Cheshire, after opening a nursery school.

    Mrs Hamilton told the court that she and her husband drove more than 30,000 miles a year making guest appearances and in that particular week had been
    in Preston, Cumbria, Birmingham, Cheshire and Leeds.

    "It is pretty difficult to remember who was driving the car at any time on any particular journey," she said.

    When a letter arrived asking for the driver's details she had no
    recollection of the roadworks or speeding, she said.

    She replied to the notice but could not supply the information about the driver. "I did not know beyond reasonable doubt who was driving," she said.

    "I thought it would have been reckless to guess or calculate on the balance of probability. I would have had a 50 per cent chance of being wrong." Not guilty

    Under the law, it is an offence not to identify a driver unless the owner
    is unable to do so despite using "reasonable diligence".

    Finding her not guilty, the judge accepted this was the case with Mrs Hamilton. He added he had "absolutely no reason to disbelieve her in any respect at all".

    Mrs Hamilton's last speeding fine was 12 years ago and her husband's in
    1976. She said a fine would not have bothered her and points on their licences would not have been "catastrophic".

    The couple became celebrities after Mr Hamilton's failed "cash for
    questions" libel action against Harrods boss Mohammed Al Fayed.

    After the speeding case the former MP, 54, said: "It helps our average. Our experience in Court 8 at Manchester has been rather more enjoyable than
    Court 13 in the High Court."

    Mrs Hamilton insisted after the case: "I tried everything in my power to comply with the law." Charity condemns decision

    But Mary Williams, of the road safety charity Brake, said: "People should stand up and be counted for their own offending.

    "If the vehicle is theirs, they admit to being in it, if they can't
    identity one or the other then one should accept the speeding offence or
    both should be fined."

    So as far as "Brake" is concerned, it doesn't matter if an innocent
    person is convicted and punished?

    Thanks for confirming that, Brake. It shows that you are, at heart, an organisation without regard for justice.

    Kevin Delaney, of the RAC Foundation, said the judge's decision was a "very wide interpretation" of the law and opened the way for "many thousands" of people to try to escape fines.

    Hey, RAC Foundation:

    1. Whose side are you supposed to be on?

    2. "...many thousands..." (or whatever number) of INNOCENT people. The
    offence being tried was NOT "speeding". It was "failing to identify" a
    person who was driving. And there is a reasonable defence to that charge written into the legislation (and quite right too).

    Four years ago a speeding case against Sir Alex Ferguson was thrown out
    after Manchester United claimed it could not discover who was driving the club's BMW at the time of the offence.

    ENDQUOTE

    The news item is in the paper you sometimes quote from:

    <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-202833/Christine-Hamilton-cleared-speeding.html>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Spike@21:1/5 to JNugent on Sat Nov 11 15:29:53 2023
    JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
    On 11/11/2023 01:57 pm, Spike wrote:

    But Mary Williams, of the road safety charity Brake, said: "People should
    stand up and be counted for their own offending.

    "If the vehicle is theirs, they admit to being in it, if they can't
    identity one or the other then one should accept the speeding offence or
    both should be fined."

    Funny that Brake says in one sentence “People should stand up and be
    counted for their own offending” and then says in the case of a vehicle containing two people “both should be fined”!

    Hypocritical or what!

    So as far as "Brake" is concerned, it doesn't matter if an innocent
    person is convicted and punished?

    Thanks for confirming that, Brake. It shows that you are, at heart, an organisation without regard for justice.

    It sounds like Brake would fit right in to the cycling world, what with cyclists’ total disregard for the law and all that…

    <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-202833/Christine-Hamilton-cleared-speeding.html>


    --
    Spike

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JNugent@21:1/5 to Spike on Sat Nov 11 15:37:03 2023
    On 11/11/2023 03:29 pm, Spike wrote:

    JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
    On 11/11/2023 01:57 pm, Spike wrote:

    But Mary Williams, of the road safety charity Brake, said: "People should >>> stand up and be counted for their own offending.

    "If the vehicle is theirs, they admit to being in it, if they can't
    identity one or the other then one should accept the speeding offence or >>> both should be fined."

    Funny that Brake says in one sentence “People should stand up and be counted for their own offending” and then says in the case of a vehicle containing two people “both should be fined”!

    Hypocritical or what!

    Indeed. Despite anti-libertarian laws forcing accused people to behave obligingly and convict themselves, the basis of any liberal democratic
    legal system is that it is up to the accuser (even if that's the state)
    to prove their case.

    And if they cannot do that (though they usually can): no case to answer.

    The absolute bedrock of law and order.

    So as far as "Brake" is concerned, it doesn't matter if an innocent
    person is convicted and punished?

    Thanks for confirming that, Brake. It shows that you are, at heart, an
    organisation without regard for justice.

    It sounds like Brake would fit right in to the cycling world, what with cyclists’ total disregard for the law and all that…

    <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-202833/Christine-Hamilton-cleared-speeding.html>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Simon Mason@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 11 08:58:50 2023
    The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

    Cleverer people than these thick chavs have tried and failed with that trick.

    QUOTE: Regina v Christopher Huhne and Vasiliki Pryce is the prosecution of the former British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne MP, and his former wife, Vicky Pryce, the former Head of the Government Economic Service, for
    perverting the course of justice, contrary to common law. Huhne became the first Cabinet minister in British history to resign as a consequence of criminal proceedings. On 4 February 2013, Huhne was convicted on the basis of his own plea after re-
    arraignment. The trial of Pryce began on the following day, lasting until 20 February 2013 when the jury were discharged by the judge. A re-trial began on 25 February 2013 and led to the conviction of Pryce on 7 March 2013. ENDS

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Huhne

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)