Forum menu
Depends what you mean by a 'tough life'.
Economic depravity does not by itself make you more or less likely to be raised as a decent individual.
Violence and the various types of abuse are not confined to less well off households.
Pearson, who has a number of previous convictions including assaults and theft, may face prison as she was already subject to a suspended sentence.
Pearson was also found guilty of driving without reasonable consideration for other road users.
Is that an offence now? Never heard of that.
That seems a pretty wide definition. I guess that could include the likes of driving too slowly (as was referred to in one of the other recent car/speed threads)Driving without reasonable consideration
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.
A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:
flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.
I never knew that. Thanks for the info.
I like the Special Reasons in quotation marks in Scotroutes definition. Sounds like you could make up any old bollocks and get away with that charge.
"I's sorry for acting like a interstellar bell end your honour, but in my defence, I have an allergy to Gastropods, and there was a dead slug stuck to the mudguard of the cyclist. I ran him over by accident trying to rapidly overtake to avoid it".
She sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant individual!
Shame that's not enough to deny her a driving license.
Just to answer a few of things her lawyer tried to pull in court:
"Her lawyer, James O’Keeffe, said Vine’s involvement in the case had ensured the case was far more high profile than it should have been and said Pearson had faced racial abuse as a result."
Shouldn't have done it, then. Unintended consequences are not a defence. She should report the racial abuse to the police.
"O’Keeffe said during the trial Vine was “racially stereotyping” Pearson with the gun gesture claim."
Nope, she was doing that herself. She clearly made the gesture and clearly likes to be thought of as a bit of a gangsta, innit.
"Pearson was nine months into a suspended sentence for theft, assault causing actual bodily harm, and resisting arrest at the time of the altercation with Vine."
Not out of character, then.
"O’Keeffe said Pearson was a single mother and the incident was “out of character in the sense it was unplanned".
So, her usual MO is to plan her violence is it?
"Vine had made no attempt to pixelate her or her licence plate before posting the video"
Why should he have to?
At least the judge was sensible. I know her representative is bound to help his client, but surely he must at least feel he is just playing a game to pick up a fee here?
[i]Shame that's not enough to deny her a driving license. [/I]
I somehow don't think that the lack of one would stop her driving.
Stereotyping aside (and please let's all try to avoid making assumptions as to someone's character because of the ethnicity of their name), she sounds absolutely delightful given her past convictions.
The best possible outcome is for her to behave responsibly in future. We can't undo what's happened, here's hoping that her sentencing allows her sufficient time to contemplate her actions.
Just to answer a few of things her lawyer tried to pull in court:"Her lawyer, James O’Keeffe, said Vine’s involvement in the case had ensured the case was far more high profile than it should have been and said Pearson had faced racial abuse as a result."
Shouldn't have done it, then. Unintended consequences are not a defence. She should report the racial abuse to the police.
"O’Keeffe said during the trial Vine was “racially stereotyping” Pearson with the gun gesture claim."
Nope, she was doing that herself. She clearly made the gesture and clearly likes to be thought of as a bit of a gangsta, innit.
"Pearson was nine months into a suspended sentence for theft, assault causing actual bodily harm, and resisting arrest at the time of the altercation with Vine."
Not out of character, then.
"O’Keeffe said Pearson was a single mother and the incident was “out of character in the sense it was unplanned".
So, her usual MO is to plan her violence is it?
"Vine had made no attempt to pixelate her or her licence plate before posting the video"
Why should he have to?
At least the judge was sensible. I know her representative is bound to help his client, but surely he must at least feel he is just playing a game to pick up a fee here?
😆
I wonder if she instructed him to argue all of that.
Must be tough having to defend such a thoroughly unpleasant character in court.
tough, but lucrative .
nope, I imagine he came up with it as that is his job. He's not there to decide if she's guilty or not, he's there to do all he can to defend herI wonder if she instructed him to argue all of that.
afaik
nope, I imagine he came up with it as that is his job. He's not there to decide if she's guilty or not, he's there to do all he can to defend herafaik
As a general point, it would be better if courts were there to establish the truth, rather than be a playground for which lawyer can construct the best argument.
If it's true she tweeted this whilst in court (see Jeremy Vine's original twitter post) the option of a further non custodial sentence should be disgarded - she seems to have no respect for other road users or the court so the best place for her is in the clink.
"yea il be back straight back behind the wheel and let's up you don't ever get infrount of my car cah I wouldn't b stopping"
He's not there to decide if she's guilty or not, he's there to do all he can to defend her
True but, some might be surprised to hear, in a case where the defendant has admitted guilt to the lawyer then the lawyer cannot act in their defence.
The point I was trying to make is that it must take a special kind of person to trot out shite like that in defence of a nasty little thug who was obviously bang to rights. But I guess the fee helps with that. How he could say some of that stuff with a straight face is beyond me.
Given what she allegedly tweeted (ugh) I think it may well have been better if it wasn't a public figure with lots to lose who she confronted, but just a run of the mill person who may have just chinned her and ridden off.
[i]contemplate[/i] ! genuine 😆
thestabiliser - Member
Dr J's a racist, too? First Cougar, now Dr J, it's like its suddenly singletrackkkworld in here
❓
How's that work, then?
It's a shit name and defines her as a person.
It defines her parents as people with no taste, but that's all. It's her behaviour to others that defines her as a thoroughly unpleasant individual with no respect for others, and an over-inflated sense of entitlement big enough to have its own postcode.
that is interesting. Im guessing there must be a reason behind that but what is it?True but, some might be surprised to hear, in a case where the defendant has admitted guilt to the lawyer then the lawyer cannot act in their defence.
I tried to find a picture of the dear woman, but ended up on another report of the same story before leading me to one of Vine's so called [url= http://http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-vine-cycling-video-near-miss-car-london_uk_57fded31e4b0a9568544f89e ]"near miss"[/url].
I wouldn't have batted an eyelid at that, in fact I'd have been grateful to not have that driver behind me. I keep seeing cars pull up to junctions and I wave them out (quiet roads btw) and they just sit there. Bloody whiney cyclists.
She was unlikely to be an astronaut with a name like that
Or 'Virgil'. Or 'Buzz'. Stupid names. They'll never amount to anything.
"Buzz" was a nickname, his actual name is Edwin.
Did you even read what JV had to say about that incident? His point isn't that the driver nearly hit him, but that he would have hit any cyclist in the cycle lane a little way in front, because he quite clearly pulled out without taking time to look properly. This is a typical example of bad driving which didn't cause an accident today because the driver was lucky, but if there had been a cyclist there you'd be wanting to throw the book at him. A typical example of the sort of driving which should be prosecuted because otherwise such drivers expect to carry on being lucky - until they're not.
Names do define you.
My mum wanted to call me Salvador. Thank God Dad intervened and I was christened Michael.....
I dread to think what would have happened to my alter-ego......
"Buzz" was a nickname, his actual name is Edwin.
cool guy, cool name.
True but, some might be surprised to hear, in a case where the defendant has admitted guilt to the lawyer then the lawyer cannot act in their defence.
that is interesting. Im guessing there must be a reason behind that but what is it?
Well a lawyer can't lie in court - that's perjury. They say they've been 'professionally embarrassed' and leave the case.
Edwin Lightyear?"Buzz" was a nickname, his actual name is Edwin.
Well a lawyer can't lie in court - that's perjury
Perjury is lying under oath. This is misconduct.
I thought a defendant could still test the prosecution case even if they'd admitted guilt to their lawyer (not the court). I could we'll get wrong.
Where's crankboy?
Did you even read what JV had to say about that incident?
Hell no, he's Jeremy Vine, that annoying bloke on the radio.
His point isn't that the driver nearly hit him, but that he would have hit any cyclist in the cycle lane a little way in front, because he quite clearly pulled out without taking time to look properly.
Looks to me it would have been possible to see any moving object through the columns from the drivers approach.
The test here will be the sentence she cops.
What a fuc***g ignorant bitch she is; complying with the law is not an option you stupid woman - it's compulsory.
I hope she gets max allowable sentence and she then gets same again for being so fugly.
I thought a defendant could still test the prosecution case even if they'd admitted guilt to their lawyer (not the court). I could we'll get wrong
That's right. Otherwise how would a "self defence" defence against a murder charge work? "The deceased was already dead when he attacked my client".
If that tweet from the driver is genuine then clearly being found guilty holds no worries for her. So what deterrent is there for people with that attitude?
[quote=sirromj ]Looks to me it would have been possible to see any moving object through the columns from the drivers approach.
Seriously? 😯 So there's no chance of the driver failing to spot somebody obscured by the columns or the car waiting at the junction, which makes it's fine to drive straight out without the customary pause to check?
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39125341 ]APPEAL[/url]
Unlicensed vehicle, while on a suspended sentence, threatening abusive behaviour recorded on TV. APPEAL, what the hell is there to APPEAL Jeez!
My wee is getting warm.
If only she'd done that to Piers Morgan. I think we'd all be having a whip-round to help fund her defence.
We could still have a whip round to pay someone to run him over?
8)
We could still have a whip round to pay someone to run him over?
Preferably, someone with a licensed, taxed and insured vehicle.
We could still have a whip round to pay someone to run him over?
Preferably, someone with a licensed, taxed and insured vehicle.
Just make sure he's on a bike and claim low sun.
9 months
🙂
Well that turned out OK.
Dis she get 9 months for the threatening and abusive behaviour or is there something in there also for faliure to drive without due dillegence towards other road users?
Tymbian, don't ignore fact that car was not taxed.
That, in isolation, should get time.
And she's fugly.