Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
UPDATE 9/8/2022: Dorset Police have confirmed a local man aged in his 60s has attended a voluntary police interview.
175 views
Skip to first unread message
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2022, 8:51:45 AM8/9/22
to
Police in Dorset have released a picture of a man, captured by a cyclist's helmet camera, who is alleged to have assaulted the rider, pushing him against a wall and throwing his bike into the road after confronting him about riding on the pavement.
The victim aged in his 20s was unknown to the man [pictured below], and suffered an injury to his shoulder that did not require medical treatment. His bike was also damaged during the incident in Poole last month.
Poole assault full image (Dorset Police)
The alleged assault happened at around 9.35pm on Wednesday 15 June on Ashley Road near Nuudle Bar in Poole and was captured by the rider's helmet camera, prompting the police to release an image from the footage as part of the investigation.
It shows a man believed to be in his 60s with grey hair and wearing an open-necked light blue shirt and navy blue suit trousers as he charged towards the cyclist.
Adam Cleaver, a spokesman for Poole Police said: "I have been carrying out a number of enquiries into this incident so far and am now in a position to issue an image of a man I would like to identify.
"I would ask anyone who recognises him to please contact Dorset Police."
Yesterday, we reported Dorset Police had confirmed it was investigating footage of another incident near Bournemouth, this time involving the driver of a car towing a caravan hitting a cyclist following a close pass dispute.
Dorset Police confirmed officers attended a report at 10.43am on Saturday 9 July 2022 of a collision involving the driver of a car towing a caravan and a cyclist on Parley Lane in Christchurch.
The collision came at the end of the footage, moments after one of the other cyclists in the group's rear-facing camera had recorded the driver apparently sounding their horn as they overtook the group, who were travelling at close to 40km/h.
"The cyclist sustained minor injuries that did not require hospital treatment. An investigation is underway to establish the full circumstances of the collision and enquiries are continuing," Dorset Police told road.cc.
https://road.cc/content/news/police-hunt-furious-assault-suspect-who-pushed-cyclist-294567
The victim aged in his 20s was unknown to the man [pictured below], and suffered an injury to his shoulder that did not require medical treatment. His bike was also damaged during the incident in Poole last month.
Poole assault full image (Dorset Police)
The alleged assault happened at around 9.35pm on Wednesday 15 June on Ashley Road near Nuudle Bar in Poole and was captured by the rider's helmet camera, prompting the police to release an image from the footage as part of the investigation.
It shows a man believed to be in his 60s with grey hair and wearing an open-necked light blue shirt and navy blue suit trousers as he charged towards the cyclist.
Adam Cleaver, a spokesman for Poole Police said: "I have been carrying out a number of enquiries into this incident so far and am now in a position to issue an image of a man I would like to identify.
"I would ask anyone who recognises him to please contact Dorset Police."
Yesterday, we reported Dorset Police had confirmed it was investigating footage of another incident near Bournemouth, this time involving the driver of a car towing a caravan hitting a cyclist following a close pass dispute.
Dorset Police confirmed officers attended a report at 10.43am on Saturday 9 July 2022 of a collision involving the driver of a car towing a caravan and a cyclist on Parley Lane in Christchurch.
The collision came at the end of the footage, moments after one of the other cyclists in the group's rear-facing camera had recorded the driver apparently sounding their horn as they overtook the group, who were travelling at close to 40km/h.
"The cyclist sustained minor injuries that did not require hospital treatment. An investigation is underway to establish the full circumstances of the collision and enquiries are continuing," Dorset Police told road.cc.
https://road.cc/content/news/police-hunt-furious-assault-suspect-who-pushed-cyclist-294567
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2022, 9:31:39 AM8/9/22
to
Fignon's ghost | 97 posts | 2 weeks ago
6 likes
Fuck it. I'll chuck it out there.
There's something about the look of this old codger that screams - Brexit! Or dare I say it. UKIP
This cuntry
6 likes
Fuck it. I'll chuck it out there.
There's something about the look of this old codger that screams - Brexit! Or dare I say it. UKIP
This cuntry
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2022, 9:33:35 AM8/9/22
to
ChrisB200SX | 1391 posts | 2 weeks ago
6 likes
Probably worth the Police taking that picture into Lovett's estate agent (right where the image was taken) and asking if they know who it is.
Blurry picture but I wonder...
----------------------
No need - the violent bastard's handed himself in.
6 likes
Probably worth the Police taking that picture into Lovett's estate agent (right where the image was taken) and asking if they know who it is.
Blurry picture but I wonder...
----------------------
No need - the violent bastard's handed himself in.
Spike
Aug 9, 2022, 11:18:18 AM8/9/22
to
with the death of a driver from just one punch (“being decked”).
It’s high time that cycling laws were tightened up and enforced.
--
Spike
Spike
Aug 9, 2022, 11:20:15 AM8/9/22
to
--
Spike
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2022, 11:51:27 AM8/9/22
to
Rich_cb replied to chrisonatrike | 2857 posts | 2 weeks ago
3 likes
Have a look at the legal definition of assault. It's a far lower bar than most people realise.
Once you've been assaulted you can defend yourself.
If someone is screaming in your face and you hit them it would never get anywhere near court.
Yet weirdly the Police don't treat attempting to force someone off the road with their motor vehicle as assault. Doesn't seem that low to me. I think the ideal and what you think can be done in retaliation doesn't add up to what would really happen.
JNugent
Aug 9, 2022, 12:08:22 PM8/9/22
to
On 09/08/2022 01:51 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Police in Dorset have released a picture of a man, captured by a cyclist's helmet camera, who is alleged to have assaulted the rider, pushing him against a wall and throwing his bike into the road after confronting him about riding on the pavement.
The footway-using fairy-cyclist has admitted the offence, has he?
> Police in Dorset have released a picture of a man, captured by a cyclist's helmet camera, who is alleged to have assaulted the rider, pushing him against a wall and throwing his bike into the road after confronting him about riding on the pavement.
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2022, 12:10:59 PM8/9/22
to
IanMSpencer | 821 posts | 2 weeks ago
8 likes
Back in the day, I believe it was Blunkett who was home secretary made a clear direction to the police that cyclists riding on the pavement out of concern for their own safety should not be prosecuted except if their behaviour was inappropriate. This was repeated by ACPO guidance.
Something happened, probably The Sun or The Mail, and this direction seems to have evaporated yet in terms of road safety the logic has not changed.
Without knowing the circumstances, which will probably take a couple of years of a court case is to ensue, we do not know whether the young man was pottering along or was acting inappropriately - though this is not entirely relevant as you aren't supposed to go bearing people up to enforce the law, that is called vigilantism.
8 likes
Back in the day, I believe it was Blunkett who was home secretary made a clear direction to the police that cyclists riding on the pavement out of concern for their own safety should not be prosecuted except if their behaviour was inappropriate. This was repeated by ACPO guidance.
Something happened, probably The Sun or The Mail, and this direction seems to have evaporated yet in terms of road safety the logic has not changed.
Without knowing the circumstances, which will probably take a couple of years of a court case is to ensue, we do not know whether the young man was pottering along or was acting inappropriately - though this is not entirely relevant as you aren't supposed to go bearing people up to enforce the law, that is called vigilantism.
JNugent
Aug 9, 2022, 12:23:29 PM8/9/22
to
On 09/08/2022 05:10 pm, swldx...@gmail.com [Del Boy Mason] wrote:
> IanMSpencer | 821 posts | 2 weeks ago
> 8 likes
>
> Back in the day, I believe it was Blunkett who was home secretary made a clear direction to the police that cyclists riding on the pavement out of concern for their own safety should not be prosecuted except if their behaviour was inappropriate. This was repeated by ACPO guidance.
It wasn't Blunkett.
> IanMSpencer | 821 posts | 2 weeks ago
> 8 likes
>
> Back in the day, I believe it was Blunkett who was home secretary made a clear direction to the police that cyclists riding on the pavement out of concern for their own safety should not be prosecuted except if their behaviour was inappropriate. This was repeated by ACPO guidance.
It clearly wasn't repeated by ACPO guidance.
Not doing very well, are you?
Be clear: "...[fairy-]cyclists riding on the pavement out of concern for
their own safety..." are cowardly little *******s who care nothing for
the safety of others, in particular, the the safety of pedestrians.
> Something happened, probably The Sun or The Mail, and this direction seems to have evaporated yet in terms of road safety the logic has not changed.
the footway. None whatsoever.
> Without knowing the circumstances, which will probably take a couple of years of a court case is to ensue, we do not know whether the young man was pottering along or was acting inappropriately
How "inappropriate" must his behaviour be before idiots like you condemn it?
- though this is not entirely relevant as you aren't supposed to go
...just as you aren't allowed to fairy-cycle on the footway, which is
for pedestrian use only.
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2022, 12:25:03 PM8/9/22
to
chrisonatrike replied to IanMSpencer | 3225 posts | 2 weeks ago
2 likes
Possibly this was a section of "sign it better" shared-space pavement also and the cyclist was there perfectly legally - I couldn't see anything in the story which would tell us one way or the other. I've certainly had people get very unhappy at me cycling - right in front of a big blue "cycles and pedestrians" sign.
2 likes
Possibly this was a section of "sign it better" shared-space pavement also and the cyclist was there perfectly legally - I couldn't see anything in the story which would tell us one way or the other. I've certainly had people get very unhappy at me cycling - right in front of a big blue "cycles and pedestrians" sign.
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2022, 12:28:06 PM8/9/22
to
OldRidgeback | 4131 posts | 2 weeks ago
7 likes
It's interesting how many people on FB are happy to defend this thug given that he's committed an assault. I'm glad that the cops at least have a decent sense of perspective.
Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to OldRidgeback | 3612 posts | 2 weeks ago
10 likes
Yes, I'm sure the Police have reviewed the footage and believe it is enough for an assault charge being as they are releasing a plea for tracing the assailant. I doubt they would have bothered if the footage they reviewed didn't show the evidence for them to go forward. But he has hit a cyclist and people seem to cheer that because another cyclist once did something. Look at all the ones defending a car driving over the bike and which easily could have been the cyclist as well.
Spike
Aug 9, 2022, 12:28:52 PM8/9/22
to
where else is there for people to turn?
--
Spike
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2022, 12:31:20 PM8/9/22
to
don simon fbpe replied to Jimwill | 3222 posts | 2 weeks ago
10 likes
It's not elder abuse, it'd be dickhead abuse. Unless you consider all elders to be dickheads. Dickhead abuse is fair.
10 likes
It's not elder abuse, it'd be dickhead abuse. Unless you consider all elders to be dickheads. Dickhead abuse is fair.
Spike
Aug 9, 2022, 1:55:49 PM8/9/22
to
--
Spike
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2022, 2:02:45 PM8/9/22
to
Rich_cb replied to don simon fbpe | 2857 posts | 2 weeks ago
2 likes
I don't think I'm relying on the word 'reasonably' at any point.
In the question of preemptive strikes the law is clear.
You are able to pre emptively strike if you consider yourself at risk of physical attack.
Your own assessment of that risk specifically does not have to be reasonable (hence why I'm not relying on it) merely 'honestly held'.
"Section 76(4) provides that where the defendant claims to have a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances, the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether the defendant genuinely held it. However, if it is established that the defendant did genuinely hold the belief he may rely on that belief to establish the force used was reasonable whether or not it was a mistaken belief and if it was mistaken, whether or not the mistake was a reasonable one to have made, i.e. the crucial test at this stage is whether the belief was an honest one, not whether it was a reasonable one. However, the more unreasonable the belief, the less likely it is that the court will accept it was honestly held."
2 likes
I don't think I'm relying on the word 'reasonably' at any point.
In the question of preemptive strikes the law is clear.
You are able to pre emptively strike if you consider yourself at risk of physical attack.
Your own assessment of that risk specifically does not have to be reasonable (hence why I'm not relying on it) merely 'honestly held'.
"Section 76(4) provides that where the defendant claims to have a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances, the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether the defendant genuinely held it. However, if it is established that the defendant did genuinely hold the belief he may rely on that belief to establish the force used was reasonable whether or not it was a mistaken belief and if it was mistaken, whether or not the mistake was a reasonable one to have made, i.e. the crucial test at this stage is whether the belief was an honest one, not whether it was a reasonable one. However, the more unreasonable the belief, the less likely it is that the court will accept it was honestly held."
Spike
Aug 9, 2022, 3:03:18 PM8/9/22
to
Shouting “Get out of the f•cking way!” or “I’m not stopping, you silly
moo!” would easily furnish enough grounds to form an honestly-held belief
of an imminent physical attack such that one could defend oneself against
it.
Pavement cyclists, watch out.
--
Spike
Spike
Aug 9, 2022, 3:06:42 PM8/9/22
to
--
Spike
Simon Mason
Aug 9, 2022, 3:12:27 PM8/9/22
to
Whatever the law says, if your self-defence causes injury to the initial assaulter, you may find yourself in front of a jury which is unsympathetic, and you may be short of evidence. How can you show the jury your honestly held belief? I know the cyclist had a camera but how can you be sure the video would be enough to back you up? Purely pragmatically, I think leaving the scene is safer.
You may well have greater knowledge of the law in England and Wales than I do, and know people who have successfully defended an accusation like this - but at what cost in stress, time and money? I'm happier being a coward at this point - and might argue (from my trendy lefty viewpoint) that a society in which self-defence is close to a last resort is better. YMMV, as we used to say.
The onus of proof is on the prosecution.
They have to prove that you didn't honestly believe you were about to be attacked.
Leaving the scene is always safer but, as the video shows, not always an option.
JNugent
Aug 10, 2022, 5:33:19 AM8/10/22
to
On 09/08/2022 08:12 pm, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> Whatever the law says, if your self-defence causes injury to the initial assaulter, you may find yourself in front of a jury which is unsympathetic, and you may be short of evidence. How can you show the jury your honestly held belief? I know the fairy-cyclist had a camera but how can you be sure the video would be enough to back you up? Purely pragmatically, I think leaving the scene is safer.
Break the law, injure someone, damage property (whether deliberately or
accidentally, even kill someone - and then just SCARPER.
>
> Whatever the law says, if your self-defence causes injury to the initial assaulter, you may find yourself in front of a jury which is unsympathetic, and you may be short of evidence. How can you show the jury your honestly held belief? I know the fairy-cyclist had a camera but how can you be sure the video would be enough to back you up? Purely pragmatically, I think leaving the scene is safer.
>
> You may well have greater knowledge of the law in England and Wales than I do, and know people who have successfully defended an accusation like this - but at what cost in stress, time and money? I'm happier being a coward at this point - and might argue (from my trendy lefty viewpoint) that a society in which self-defence is close to a last resort is better. YMMV, as we used to say.
>
> The onus of proof is on the prosecution.
>
> They have to prove that you didn't honestly believe you were about to be attacked.
>
> Leaving the scene is always safer but, as the video shows, not always an option.
The Fairy-Cyclists' Mantra:
> You may well have greater knowledge of the law in England and Wales than I do, and know people who have successfully defended an accusation like this - but at what cost in stress, time and money? I'm happier being a coward at this point - and might argue (from my trendy lefty viewpoint) that a society in which self-defence is close to a last resort is better. YMMV, as we used to say.
>
> The onus of proof is on the prosecution.
>
> They have to prove that you didn't honestly believe you were about to be attacked.
>
> Leaving the scene is always safer but, as the video shows, not always an option.
Break the law, injure someone, damage property (whether deliberately or
accidentally, even kill someone - and then just SCARPER.
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2022, 6:17:58 AM8/10/22
to
peted76 wrote:
Lookit that angry old gammon!
Either he's a Brexiteer who has finally realised he's been lied to, or he's upset about Boris the Liar going.
Crazy that you have to have a cam to catch rabid pedestrians. Whatever the cyclist was doing, it doesn't justify assault.
Lookit that angry old gammon!
Either he's a Brexiteer who has finally realised he's been lied to, or he's upset about Boris the Liar going.
Crazy that you have to have a cam to catch rabid pedestrians. Whatever the cyclist was doing, it doesn't justify assault.
Spike
Aug 10, 2022, 6:52:47 AM8/10/22
to
"Section 76(4) provides that where the defendant claims to have a
particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances, the
reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question
whether the defendant genuinely held it. However, if it is established that
the defendant did genuinely hold the belief he may rely on that belief to
establish the force used was reasonable whether or not it was a mistaken
belief and if it was mistaken, whether or not the mistake was a reasonable
one to have made, i.e. the crucial test at this stage is whether the belief
was an honest one, not whether it was a reasonable one. However, the more
unreasonable the belief, the less likely it is that the court will accept
it was honestly held."
Spike
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2022, 9:03:27 AM8/10/22
to
old bod wrote:
unless the cyclist had just hit him or one of his family on the pavement .....
Seeing as the Police didn't mention that, you seem to be just making up nonsense to use as whataboutery.
unless the cyclist had just hit him or one of his family on the pavement .....
Seeing as the Police didn't mention that, you seem to be just making up nonsense to use as whataboutery.
JNugent
Aug 10, 2022, 9:28:04 AM8/10/22
to
...except for "decking him with one punch"?
That never *needs* any justification, judging by your very own previous
posts here. And especially not if it results in the death of the punchee
(according to you, that is).
swldx...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2022, 9:48:44 AM8/10/22
to
Mrs Legal Law QC, for the prosecution, said "The victim, a community-minded 63 year old estate agent who was only trying to prevent a breach of the law, was subjected to a brutal assault by a much younger man armed with a bicycle. The victim suffers from heart and breathing difficulties and has been unable to walk 230 yards to the newsagent to pick up the Sunday Telegraph for 40 years now. Since the assault, these conditions have worsened and he has had to give up all outdoor walking."
0 new messages