[Closed] School Run driver runs into teacher

I disagree with life time bans ,many forms of employment need or prefer to employ drivers. Much of social life is easier with a driving licence. Work and happy stable social lives are massive stabilising influences that enable reintegration of offenders into society and prevent reoffeThe teacher was told to stand in the car park entrance and stop vehicles after a letter was sent out to parents by the head teacher citing it a risk to the children coming out of the school.re-offending . life time pans place a pressure to drive illegally which ups the risk of further offending . Two primary causes of dangerous police chases are not having insurance or behind disqualified from driving.

He has a duty first and foremost to his own health and safety and [b]that of others on the school site[/b], as we all do in our place of work.

but in this case it was of no use and only served to escalate the situation and put peoples health and safety at risk

allthepies - Member
That recently revealed spreadsheet of STW forum member categorisations needs a good old update. This thread would provide some useful reference material.

Must have missed that?? Mind you, I am new!

@crankboy - so how do we keep dangerous drivers off the roads? Presumably this chap will have to retake his driving test with that length ban, but that won't prove anything about his attitude and until he changes that he's always likely to be a danger to others. I understand what you're saying, but you mention "easier" - plenty of people manage to hold down a job and have a social life without needing to drive, I certainly could if I had to, and I personally know several people who do, including one who works somewhere most people would think it impossible to get to without one (before anybody gets any ideas, she's not a "keen cyclist" at all, just an ordinary person who owns a bike).

[quote=crazyjenkins01 ]

allthepies - Member
That recently revealed spreadsheet of STW forum member categorisations needs a good old update. This thread would provide some useful reference material.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/forum-contributer-awards

(sorry, you're not on the list, but then looking at some people who are it's quite an ancient list!)

life time bans place a pressure to drive illegally which ups the risk of further offending

+1 lifetime bans sound great but in reality are not

Aracer in my view Better and harsher road traffic policing ie officers in cars not cameras and anprs .the two year minimum ban for dangerous driving also carries with it further disqualification until enhanced retest past . hopefully his time in prison will impose a degree of attitude readjustment.
I agree with you a good life can be had without a car, many indeed the vast majority don't agree with us and if you disqualify offenders for life some will go on to be tempted to drive unlawfully with adverse consequences when with light at the end of the tunnel they would not.

Thanks for that aracer, looks like a fun thread to kill some time with!

if you disqualify offenders for life some will go on to be tempted to drive unlawfully with adverse consequences when with light at the end of the tunnel they would not

I see your point but this guy was [i]already[/i] driving illegally with no insurance or MOT.

I suspect you're right that if he was also banned on top of that he'd still drive.

Seems to me that the real issue is that it is very difficult to enforce driving bans.

I disagree with life time bans ,many forms of employment need or prefer to employ drivers. Much of social life is easier with a driving licence

Again I see your point, but FWIW I didn't learn to drive till I was in my 30s. Till then I had managed a social life and a job just fine without it.

Graham - the claim made in mitigation was that it was his partners car and he had mistakenly believed he was insured.

Crankboy - the other think to bear in mind with lifetime bans is it suggests rehabilitation is not possible. Are we really saying we all behave and react the same way now as 10,20,30,40 years ago? He's 22 after his ban he will be at least 25. Would it be reasonable to stop him driving at 55 for a "moment of rage" 30+ yrs before? You can murder someone and be rehabilitated in that time.

Graham - the claim made in mitigation was that it was his partners car and he had mistakenly believed he was insured.

Okay, not much of an excuse but sure that can happen. Did he also mistakenly believe his partner had MOT'ed the car?

Use your car as weapon: expect 10 months in jail even if you don't hurt anyone (much).

The teacher only didn't come out of it well because he got injured - he did nothing wrong.

See both of these are examples of gross exaggeration out of hundreds so nothing about these 2...

He didn't use the car as a weapon.... he didn't RAM, RUN OVER as the press reported ..
If he was using the car [b]as a weapon[/b] he'd have backed up and took a good run...

injury is subjective ... what I class as injury seems different to nurses and doctors.. when I broke my arm I also scratched myself... no differently to 101 other times.. but the nurse was convinced this was an "injury"... I'd stick it in the shower and wash the grit out and stick some antiseptic on... having a bit of glue on a head cut is pushing the bounds... would he have even bothered doing [u]anything[/u] if he's done it playing rugby?

The kids moving FASTER ... by FASTER you mean moving at all.... "nearly hit" etc.

Non of that excuses the driver .... however it is about intent and to an extent none was actually hurt.

I've watched the video numerous times at different speeds and I can't see the car moving WHEN he sits on it... from the resolution I can't say (and don't think anyone could say from that video) if it touched HIM or touched his trousers first...

The main point to this ...

Did the driver in a premeditated way set out to injure the teacher?
This is the implication from the reporting ... the guy was a dick but was that a moment of insanity or pre-meditated. All this talk of running over, narrowly missing, thrown over the bonnet ... essentially tries to establish pre-meditation... and conjure up exaggerated visions...

I have a lot of experience of being thrown off moving vehicles from decades ago when we used to "surf the minibus"... I would not expect any serious injury based on what the driver did - just a few bumps... the only time we had serious injuries was going way faster and the roof rack came off the minibus...

The driver should not have driven off HOWEVER him driving off is not in my experience a intent to cause serious injury

What I also think is that the driver was pushed into one stupid action or another.
If you either see the driver deliberately sits on the bonnet (or if you disagree just go with me) then from this point the teacher has created a situation that is likely to end badly.

The option of the driver to simply accept defeat and reverse has been taken away and the teacher has made in plain either accede or use physical force.

The reasonable thing to do would be to get out and plead with the teacher to get off the car and accede to his demands... which of course the driver should have done but IF the driver sat on the bonnet deliberately then he increased the risk of this ending physically many times.

that doesn't then excuse the driver but it does for me change the equation ... just the same as someone saying "you can't ride down here unless you are willing to fight me"... or "I'm pushing in the queue ahead of you what are you going to do?" or give me your wallet or I'll beat the shit out of you.

If you are going to do that then you should be expecting violence one way or another.
It amazes me that people who do this never seem to expect violence ... even when you tell them that's fine by you.

It's still not the correct response but then what is the correct response to someone sitting on your bonnet?

Taking away options for a non-violent ending is always a bad idea unless you actually WANT a violent ending. This is just basic conflict resolution and should be well within the bounds of a teacher.

Driving bans are enforced in the same way as other laws catch the offender and punish them . When I started Drive Disqualified mostly led to immediate custody normally a couple of months . the current guideline suggests custody only for cases that combine high culpability and greater harm eg driving shortly after ban imposed and going a significant distance or driving badly.
The usual outcome is now a community order ie unpaid work or some course.

I don't see it as a rehabilitation issue, more of you've lost your privilege, because that's what it is at the end of the day. It probably wouldn't work, but might make people realise that they need to be more responsible behind the wheel. Perhaps longer bans with a mandatory tracker would work. Like an ankle bracelet for shit drivers 🙂

It's still not the correct response but then what is the correct response to someone sitting on your bonnet?

Hi could you please get off my car bonnet, thanks.

What I also think is that the driver was pushed into one stupid action or another.

It is amazing people are making excuses for this lunatic.

Sorry Steve, but you appear to be on the drivers side. Whether you are or not is immaterial as that is how it appears. Much like 'driven into' in the video evidence (which was the judges take on it) whether the car DID or DIDNT drive into the teacher is difficult to tell but it APPEARS that way, so that is how it is handled.
Sitting on the bonnet of the car, if that's what happened, does not take away every non-violent action the driver could take.if the driver was reasonable he could have got out and [i]discussed[/i] it with the teacher like a grown up.
Also, as i have already said in a previous post above, the teacher had no other choice than to do all in his power to prevent the driver from entering the school grounds or face prosecution if the HSE had seen/heard about it. The HSE can prosecute even without an incident happening.
"...reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of other persons who may be affected by their acts and omissions at work." Does not say it has to result in injury, only may be effected.

[quote=stevextc ]See both of these are examples of gross exaggeration out of hundreds so nothing about these 2...

I'm not sure I was trying to make the point you think I was (and yes, I know you weren't trying to pick on me), but to suggest it's a gross exaggeration is, well, a gross exaggeration. You might want to make light of things (I am starting to get an uncomfortable feeling that you're defending the driver) but the teacher was injured in any normal terms - from the sounds of things that involved at least a trip to A&E - how else would you describe it? Yes I'm sure he would also have got it fixed if done playing rugby - head injuries aren't a trivial thing 🙄

Non of that excuses the driver .... however it is about intent and to an extent none was actually hurt.

That is a ridiculous statement - quite clearly somebody was hurt.

I've watched the video numerous times at different speeds and I can't see the car moving WHEN he sits on it... from the resolution I can't say (and don't think anyone could say from that video) if it touched HIM or touched his trousers first...

It is incredibly hard to tell, but I've downloaded the video and zoomed in and it is quite clear to me from winding backwards and forwards that there are two movements of the car before he "sits" on the bonnet, the second coming immediately before and continuously followed by movement of the leg and the "sit". I've given up trying to convince anybody else who can't see this, but even if you can't you have to accept that's just because it's really hard to tell from the video, not because it doesn't happen. You can't actually prove the car doesn't contact him and that isn't what causes him to end up on the bonnet. Meanwhile it was an accepted fact in court that he was knocked onto the bonnet by the car's movement. Therefore that makes any argument about the teacher "provoking" the driver moot.

I wouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not the teacher chooses to sit on the bonnet any more - having downloaded the video I decided the argument wasn't important enough to bother extracting frames and showing differences to prove the point. However unlike almost everybody else on her (and in the court) you still seem to think it an important point and that it somehow mitigates the driver's actions.

What I also think is that the driver was pushed into one stupid action or another.

No - the driver had complete choice in all of his actions, you're using victim blaming terminology there.

If you either see the driver deliberately sits on the bonnet (or if you disagree just go with me) then from this point the teacher has created a situation that is likely to end badly.

I disagree with you, because you're wrong (as accepted fact in court, and because the video does show you're wrong - I no longer care if you can't see it), hence the rest of your discussion is irrelevant.

He didn't use the car as a weapon.... he didn't RAM, RUN OVER as the press reported ..
If he was using the car as a weapon he'd have backed up and took a good run...

No, deliberately shoving someone with a car [i]is[/i] using it as a weapon. Driving off with them on the bonnet is also using it as a weapon.

Backing up and taking a good run would be using it as a weapon [i]with intent to kill[/i].

injury is subjective ...

He was charged with actual bodily harm.

would he have even bothered doing anything if he's done it playing rugby?

Even in rugby they take bleeding head wounds with concussion/memory loss fairly seriously.

.

Anyways, been looking for a a more detailed report and remarkably the good ol Daily Mail has provided one. Including these tidbits:

Schoeman was described as being 'immature' and having behaved 'outrageously' by his own defence barrister in court.

Charlotte Morrish, prosecuting, said Schoeman had on a previous occasion driven past Mr McCarthy.

The teacher was told to stand in the car park entrance and stop vehicles after a letter was sent out to parents by the head teacher citing it a risk to the children coming out of the school.

Ms Morrish said: 'Mr McCarthy turns his back on the car and feels the bumper on the back of his legs, making him sit down on the bonnet.

Judge Jonathan Davies said: 'One line stood out to me from Mr McCarthy's statement: 'I am appalled by this man's actions'.

'It stood out to me because that is the word that came to my mind. Appalled. Your defence used the word outrageous.

'It troubles me to hear from Probation that some how you seek to blame Gareth McCarthy for what happened. He was going about his work and the school had every right to restrict access to this car park.

'You took matters into your own hands by nudging him. it's horrific watching the video with his head banging on the concrete.

'These offences in my judgement are so serious that you should go to prison.
'It was one moment of madness. Of rage. You really need to examine yourself and ask why you behaved in that way.

'In his statement, Gareth McCarthy describes you as 'a selfish, brutish bully'. And in that moment, you were.'

The judge sentenced Schoeman to 10 months in prison, with a two year and five month disqualification from driving, followed by an extended test. He ordered Schoeman to pay a victim surcharge of £140.

-- http://www.****/news/article-4918424/Father-mowed-teacher-fit-rage.html

Even if we take the claim that the teacher sat down (which isnt clear with the quality of the video) the driver couldnt have apologised and then said "I am about to reverse and so you need to get off the bonnet?"

Yes he could but sitting on the bonnet that just got less likely.....

Sorry Steve, but you appear to be on the drivers side.

I'm just pointing out that the whole incident was exaggerated.
None actually got really hurt, or was thrown OVER a bonnet or Run over..... and the action the driver took wasn't meant to kill or seriously hurt him...

I'm not arguing with the actual sentencing.... in fact if the driver did what the press claims then he should have been given 10 years..... but the reporting and inaccurate and deliberately emotional statements do not match the video.

The same thing happens to cyclists.... because they are a group it is PC to attack cyclists.
This guy comes from a hated group.. "parents that drive kids to school".... so I find it disturbing that media can distort the truth and no-one cares.

Even a half blind person can see that he isn't thrown over the car or run over... but this sells papers/clicks and so long as we can lie about a hated group then it's OK???

Actual news is becoming indistinguishable from those adds where some person near you made 100,000 a year by filling out surveys or companies approach you saying they have data saying you have an outstanding PPI claim or a no fault accident

Trump can delete tweets that are recorded and then claim "I never said it" .. however many billion for the NHS can be "We didn't mean that" ...

"...reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of other persons who may be affected by their acts and omissions at work."

All it did was enflame the situation .....

I'm speaking from experience based on sitting on the bonnet being the sort of thing I would have done when younger .... the sort of thing I hope I've realised will often tip the balance towards a situation ending up physical.

Hi could you please get off my car bonnet, thanks.

From experience the person making it a physical is most likely to refuse and issue a "make me" challenge which then becomes even less likely to be backed away from.

the best end would be for the parent to have just backed up and driven off... which he can no longer do

He could have easily reversed.

Even if we accept that, counter to the case presented in court, the teacher did sit on the bonnet of his own accord then reversing would have just caused him to slide off onto his feet again. At the very worst he might have landed on his arse.

Which is unlikely to happen between 2 hot headed people seeing red mist....

Despite what you and deviant have said, I still don't see any evidence to suggest that the teacher was "hot headed" or "seeing red mist".

He looked pretty calm to me. Hands in his pockets. Back turned.

He could have said I'm going at any stage, he chose not too. There was only one hot headed person in that incident, it's been accepted by the court that the teacher did not sit down on the car and was hurt.

I'm sure you aren't defending him (much 😆 ) Steve but as I said it [i]appears[/i] you are defending him. I do however, agree with your 'hated group' point, and the fact the media will twist everything to get the sales.

From my perspective sitting on the bonnet increased the risk of the safety of themselves significantly and did nothing to prevent the car entering...

That I cant agree with. To expect a legally licensed driver (I know, don't assume anything) to believe, whether in a fit of rage or not, it is acceptable to drive forward into/with someone on the bonnet is not a rational thought. And while as was shown, it didn't prevent the driver entering the school, how many people faced with this would do as this driver did? I would hazard a guess at not many. Exit the vehicle and hurl abuse and profanities, yes. Exit and assault the teacher, yes some would but not as many.
But the overall point is this teacher was doing as he was instructed, and if somebody is willing to do this, or assault the person trying to prevent their vehicle from moving, they should not be allowed a driving license for a period of time, and should also be given a custodial sentence. Heavily publicized, this would help prevent re-occurrence.

[quote=stevextc ]I'm just pointing out that the whole incident was exaggerated.
None actually got really hurt

If you ignore the head injury which he attended hospital to get fixed.

You do also know that the driver had committed assault as soon as the car contacted the teacher's legs (ie before he "sat" on the bonnet).

This guy comes from a hated group.. "parents that drive kids to school".... so I find it disturbing that media can distort the truth and no-one cares.

You're accusing others of exaggerating! The guy comes from the "dickhead entitled drivers" group. I don't even personally have anything against parents who drive kids to school - I have friends who do every day, and I sometimes do myself. I do dislike entitled drivers who park badly and endanger others, but you know what, being part of that "group" does make "hate" legitimate. The comparison with cyclist hatred is ridiculous.

From my perspective sitting on the bonnet increased the risk of the safety of themselves significantly and did nothing to prevent the car entering...
All it did was enflame the situation .....

Which is all still predicated on your incorrect assumption that the teacher chose to sit on the bonnet.

I have a lot of experience of being thrown off moving vehicles from decades ago when we used to "surf the minibus"... I would not expect any serious injury based on what the driver did - just a few bumps...

I realised I missed this one from before. Presumably you also wouldn't expect any serious injury from being hit by a bike at 10mph? The car is going considerably faster than that when the teacher is thrown off it, he's lucky his head injuries weren't more catastrophic...

aracer - Member

If you ignore the head injury which he attended hospital to get fixed.

he's lucky his head injuries weren't more catastrophic...

Serious complications from that head injury could manifest themselves months or years down the line.

[quote=GrahamS ]He looked pretty calm to me. Hands in his pockets. Back turned.

Indeed - I've seen criticism on here of the teacher casually having his hands in his pockets, but he's actually deliberately trying to show how nonchalant he is and not getting involved in any argument. He's pretty much doing the opposite of what he's been accused of. TBH he can't win - I can't think of a single thing he could have done which wouldn't have resulted in some people criticising him.

Wow. Just wow. Reading through this and I am struggling to believe that anyone is putting any blame whatsoever on the teacher. Unauthorised cars are not allowed on school grounds. End of. The teacher bears absolutely no responsibility for what happened. The fault is 100% with the driver.

There are some real ****puffins on here escalating the "rights" of the driver and his precious car. I am stunned.

Honestly dumbfounded by those defending this driver. 🙁

You need to adjust your thinking.

Thanks, Coyote. Was gonna have a read but your post tells me all I need to know.

🙂

That about sums it up, Coyote. End of thread.

Honestly dumbfounded by those defending this driver.

Indeed. And on a cycling forum.

Injury in a criminal case is not subjective 'He had a wound to the back of his head which required gluing,' a wound is a legal term for a break to the whole skin strictly the driver could have faced a more serious charge than ABH but current charging standards go against that.
I am staggered that any one can seek to minimise driving a car into someone and or accelerating with them on the bonnet. With an unlucky landing that would have been a clear manslaughter conviction.

[quote=stevextc ]I'm just pointing out that the whole incident was exaggerated.
None actually got really hurt, or was thrown OVER a bonnet or Run over..... and the action the driver took wasn't meant to kill or seriously hurt him...
I'm not arguing with the actual sentencing.... in fact if the driver did what the press claims then he should have been given 10 years..... but the reporting and inaccurate and deliberately emotional statements do not match the video.

Actually I feel a need to pick up on this again, as it seems to be the crux of your argument. What you appear to have an issue with is the [b]headlines[/b] used on these articles. I agree with you, some of them are inaccurate and exaggerated, but that's what headlines are - I CBA searching, but I'm sure I could find similar exaggeration in headlines on lots of other news stories. Do you seriously take headlines as the gospel truth - do you think other people do? Surely they're well known to often be works of fiction.

As for the articles themselves, could you please point out to me the inaccurate statements in those - from what I can see most of the more comprehensive ones are simply reporting what was said in court.

[quote=crankboy ]With an unlucky landing that would have been a clear manslaughter conviction.

Thanks for making that point - I thought about suggesting it earlier, but it carries more weight coming from you 😉

I am once again (as you might have noticed) drawn to the comparison with the Charlie Alliston case, and how significant a part luck has in the sentence you might get. Though it should also be pointed out how luck resulted in significantly different outcomes for Gareth McCarthy and Kim Briggs 🙁

Honestly dumbfounded by those defending this driver.

Pfft.. some of the online comments I've read not only backed the driver but said that the teacher should be prosecuted for obstructing the highway 😯

Which is unlikely to happen between 2 hot headed people seeing red mist

[quote=GrahamS ]Pfft.. some of the online comments I've read not only backed the driver but said that the teacher should be prosecuted for obstructing the highway

😯 😯 😯 😯 😯 😯

Where was that - I feel irresistibly drawn to see such levels of stupidity and driver entitlement?

Actually given the context, I should probably make an admission here. I have stood in front of an artic lorry in order to prevent it driving where I was. Though there were several other people around and I never seriously thought the driver was likely to drive into me. Driver got out and threatened to call the police because I was obstructing him. I laughed - I was standing on the pavement.

GrahamS -

Pfft.. some of the online comments I've read not only backed the driver but said that the teacher should be prosecuted for obstructing the highway

Some (not all) drivers believe that anything you can drive on is "the highway" and that they have right of way. I had to clarify this for a lovely gentleman in an Audi who was doing about 50mph through Tesco's car park and was forced to stop because I was "walking in the middle of the *ing road".

When I pointed out to him that we weren't on a road he screamed "what do you call that black stuff you * *?" to which I replied "car park". He then informed me that if I didn't get out of the "road" he was going to murder me and cut my **** head off, and that I was a *.

I had a bit of a sore knee that day and strangling a grown man unconscious infront of children and old ladies seemed bad form so I moved out of his way and he sped off to park across two bays.

Where was that - I feel irresistibly drawn to see such levels of stupidity and driver entitlement?

A few places.

[url= http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/we-know-school-car-parking-13672749 ]GetSurrey[/url] had this: "The teacher was standing the street not on the roadway that is enclosed by gates. They were thus obstructing the highway as per s137 Highways Act 1980 "If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding..." The teacher should therefore be prosecuted."

[url= http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/26/father-jailed-for-knocking-down-teacher-for-blocking-school-entrance-6955636/ ]The Metro[/url] had:
"I think, if a person is going out of their way to obstruct you and cause you inconvenience, you should be lawfully allowed to continue on your day whether that means stepping around the person getting in your way, pushing them out of your way or merrily asking you to move.
In the instance of someone deliberately blocking traffic, should they then get run over... It's their own fault. Forcing a motorist to stop on a corner outside school gates is far more dangerous for children and the driver than moving the teacher out of the way with your car."

and

"The teacher eas out of order he stops a car turning and blocks a main rd up and for what the entrance was clear if i was driving that car a would have got out moved the teacher and caried on why the hell was he standing in the rd blocking traffic"

and

"Why is the teacher blocking the drivers way!!He or she is getttung late to pick their child up!!!! I would ran him over!!!"

As well as about 50% of the comments being something along the lines of "Tcha shudunt have sat on car. Tcha make Grog mad"

I had to clarify this for a lovely gentleman in an Audi who was doing about 50mph through Tesco's car park

Did you find out what his login on here was jimjam? 😉

Did you find out what his login on here was jimjam?

It was an S3 so I knew not to bother. If it had been a diesel A4 Avant (S Line) I might thought it thread worthy.

Honestly dumbfounded by those defending this driver

The real worry is that they no doubt drive themselves and make their everyday driving judgements in a similar way.

[quote=GrahamS ]A few places.

Oh FFS I should't have asked should I? Need to find where I keep my anti-boiling pills for my blood. So, so many entitled drivers - I note several others citing obstruction and suggesting prosecution of the teacher (and that not doing so sets a bad example 🙄 ). There isn't even any point engaging with these people is there?

The Metro article is usefully comprehensive though, hadn't seen some of those details before. So the driver still feels entitled and also thinks the teacher was partly to blame? I'm now amazed at how light his sentence was with attitudes like that (attitudes mentioned by his defence no less!)

More needs to be made of fining/punishing parents who attempt to get around the rules like this person did (in an extreme way!). I am a parent and I understand the issues with driving children to/from school but rules are rules.
You would think that this sort of thing needs to be publicized more in [u]national press[/u] (in an unbiased way, with less sensational headlines), so that the message gets out that driving is not a RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE that can be taken away if/when you break the rules then ALL road users would be safer.
I wonder how many would still be defending the driver if he had hit the kids on bikes as well?

I wonder how many would still be defending the driver if he had hit the kids on bikes as well?

I'm guessing that at least a few of those commenters would be saying it was the teachers fault for obscuring his windscreen.

I wonder how many would still be defending the driver if he had hit the kids on bikes as well?

[quote=GrahamS ]

I wonder how many would still be defending the driver if he had hit the kids on bikes as well?

No helmets or hi-viz - actually it's probably their fault the teacher got hurt.

(doh - cross-posted, but I'll leave mine up as nobody else has yet blamed the kids like that)

Well hopefully they'll get buggered senseless when inside, but it's only a short stretch so it's not a certainty.

This is what's needed

[img] [/img]

Funnily enough, I came up with those 'excuses' myself once I posed the question!

I never ever get tired of saying this... (the vast amount of, before anyone complains of sweeping generalisations) [b]people are selfish and stupid.[/b]
I cannot fathom why anyone would defend the driver, and I'm a driver! Attack the situation, yes, but defend the actions of that c0ckwomble? Unbelievable.

As already pointed out, those people making comments are a sample of people who will serve on a jury when a driver runs into a cyclist. I do always hope that it's only a tiny minority making comments like that, but when it comes to entitlement and cars I'm not so sure.

I'm guessing that at least a few of those commenters would be saying it was the teachers fault for obscuring his windscreen.

genuine lol

Just imagine what a driver who thinks he can do something like that has got away with in the past or is likely to do in the future.

Anyone driving like that or thinks it is ok to drive like that should not be allowed a driving licence.

And the moment you use any object to project force, it is a weapon and a car is a pretty lethal one.

I obviously didn’t read the full detail and facts, no insurance nor MOT it seems.

The sentence is too lenient... 2 years and a 5 year driving ban, and an asbo tracker to make sure the nutcase is kept off the road.

IMO.

Ghastly fella.

Actually I feel a need to pick up on this again, as it seems to be the crux of your argument. What you appear to have an issue with is the headlines used on these articles. I agree with you, some of them are inaccurate and exaggerated, but that's what headlines are - I CBA searching, but I'm sure I could find similar exaggeration in headlines on lots of other news stories. Do you seriously take headlines as the gospel truth - do you think other people do? Surely they're well known to often be works of fiction.

As for the articles themselves, could you please point out to me the inaccurate statements in those - from what I can see most of the more comprehensive ones are simply reporting what was said in court.

You're entirely correct .... except you uncovered my larger worry ....

Frankly I don't think the video is proof one way or another .. we have both watched it several times...
However I think that the power of suggestion is also playing a role.

What bothers me to the core is I don'y think the now famous nationally judge believed it either.
He seems to have chosen a populist stance that everything the teacher say's is true and everything the driver say's is a lie.

His summing up was chock full of soundbites and I wouldn't be surprised to find these were supplied directly to the press... and the sentencing seems more in tune with what I see happen than what the judge describes.

The driver is definitely guilty .. but my feeling is there is an aspect of then "so he's guilty how can I better my career".

We disagree on the video... for me I'm concerned that what I see is simply ignored... and I absolutely can't say the video shows beyond reasonable doubt that he drove into him causing him to fall onto the bonnet or not but there is a concern for me that this obviously gilt bloke has been used as a springboard to several careers and by press omission the defence don't seem to have really challenged the "take the teachers story as 100% true"

Mr Schoeman is a bit stupid and given to fits of temper, something I suspect Mr McCarthy knew all to well. I don't think he set out to kill Mr McCarthy or even to injure him in a way I don't injure myself on a monthly basis.

To answer an earlier question: Coming off a bonnet or bike at 10mph is completely different to being hit by a car or bike at 10 mph. The former I wouldn't expect to cause serious injury (though they could with bad luck) whereas the latter I'd expect to cause serious injury.

but my feeling is there is an aspect of then "so he's guilty how can I better my career".

He seems to have chosen a populist stance that everything the teacher say's is true and everything the driver say's is a lie.

It was the jury that found the driver guilty, not the judge.

I don't think he set out to kill Mr McCarthy or even to injure him in a way I don't injure myself on a monthly basis.

Of course! He was merely trying to brighten an otherwise mundane day by giving the teacher a bit of a thrill. How thoughtful. He drove the car intentionally at the teacher thereby setting out to injure him by default. If someone sits on your car, you ask them to get off, you don't accelerate at them!

Why are you fighting his corner?

It was the jury that found the driver guilty, not the judge.

He pleaded guilty, there was no jury. Though even his defence barrister seems to admit stuff that Steve seems unable to.

I can't address Steves post on my phone, I'll do it later - that and I'm still laughing too much when I read it.

Why are you fighting his corner?

Because automatically despising entitled car drivers is as bad as automatically despising entitled cyclists?

Because shoddy reporting leads to shoddy thinking and shoddy justice?

It's not the car driver I'd be trying to defend, just the importance of dispassionate assessment of the evidence, which in this case, as this thread proves, is more than slightly ambiguous at best. All the 'he drove his car at him' braying is kind of scary in a way, because that's not what happened, to my eyes.

evidence, which in this case, as this thread proves, is more than slightly ambiguous at best

Can you give us more details of the evidence then as you were presumably in court? I'm still having to rely on reports of what the judge said about the evidence.

He pleaded guilty, there was no jury.

Sorry, yes. It's a bit puzzling that people on here seem to want to defend the driver when he has already admitted his guilt.

It was the jury that found the driver guilty, not the judge.

Whose careers are you speaking about here?

Of course! He was merely trying to brighten an otherwise mundane day by giving the teacher a bit of a thrill. How thoughtful. He drove the car intentionally at the teacher thereby setting out to injure him by default. If someone sits on your car, you ask them to get off, you don't accelerate at them!

He was IMHO showing Mr McCarthy he was willing to respond to his challenge.... that's not the same as setting out to hurt someone seriously. It's still bloody stupid ... and can result in them getting hurt but the intent is different.

Why are you fighting his corner?

Can anybody here name this celebrity judge?

[img] [/img]

He was IMHO showing Mr McCarthy he was willing to respond to his challenge

It's worrying that see thing.s in such a binary manner , there was no challenge as has been pointed out the teacher "sat" on the car post being nudged. The teacher was going about his lawful business and carrying out his duties. I'm sure the judge will be a shoe in for the next job at the High Court based on this one. You do know that judges aren't promoted based on the press cuttings?

'he drove his car at him' braying is kind of scary in a way, because that's not what happened, to my eyes.

He clearly hits him first - whether he chose to sit down or was forced to no one is saying he was not hit first so this clearly happened.
He then drove off with him on the car and then admitted his guilt.

What exactly is your account of this then ?

not reading 9 pages, did we get many stwers agreeing with the many, many idiots on social media that the teacher had it coming?

<sounds like steve may be apportioning a small amount of blame on teach, which isn't quite the same>

Can anybody here name this celebrity judge?

once that is done can someone explain how exactly their career will be boosted. I wasnt aware of joe public getting a say on judges careers in the UK.

Ok I'll kinda give you

.. it's a question of what and what the judges summing up say's...

But can't give you

He was IMHO showing Mr McCarthy he was willing to respond to his challenge...

And I've no idea how you think this will happen

however I don't think the judge should be getting celeb judge status

What do celebrity judges do anyway? Is there some reality TV programme I've missed here (I don't watch much celebrity or reality TV)?

I wasnt aware of joe public getting a say on judges careers in the UK.

Have you never seen The eX parte Factor?

Poor legal joke, IGMC

not reading 9 pages, did we get many stwers agreeing with the many, many idiots on social media that the teacher had it coming?

Steve is trying really hard, but I don't think he's capable of abandoning rational thought to quite that level 😉 No, some very mild victim blaming, but compared to wider social media people here seem to accept he was doing a valid job.

that's not the same as setting out to hurt someone seriously

Yeah, presumably he didn't set out of the house thinking [i]"Right I'm going to attack a teacher with my partner's uninsured, un-motted car while her young daughter sits in the back"[/i]

But he made the decision to nudge him with his car and then accelerate forward with him on the bonnet. At those points he decided to take reckless actions that could easily have hurt someone seriously or worse.

I think he deserves the sentencing* from what is provable in the video and beyond reasonable doubt...

I think he got that! He plead guilty to actual bodily harm, dangerous driving, driving without insurance and having no MOT. Not sure which of those you think is made up?

I don't think the judge should be getting celeb judge status based on this

Eh???? What's the judges name? I've read multiple accounts and I have no idea.

I don't think he'll be get a slot on Strictly or I'm A Celebrity based on this case.

carefully worded soundbites released and then made bigger by the press

Surrey Police released the video.

As far as I know the defence & prosecution statements, plus the judges somethingion and court proceedings are a matter of public record (crankboy can probably clarify).

It was held at Guildford Crown Court if that makes any difference.

Such a celeb that Graham didn't realise it was a woman judge IIRC!

Having looked at the video on [url=

at 0.25 speed, I can see that between 30 and 32 seconds the driver is slowly creeping forward. The gradually narrowing gap between the passenger side front wheel and the road arrow marking clearly shows this, and the movement is even clearer if you stop the video and click at various points on the timeline bar in the video between 30 and 33 seconds.

The teacher then turns from looking away to the right to stand with his back directly to the car driver. It looks to me as though he did then deliberately sit down on the bonnet, because he kept his hands in his pockets and because the movement in his upper body posture is consistant with the action of sitting down (neck/head and upper torso lean forward at 34s to maintain his balance).

We don't have the full court transcript etc., but I suspect that when the teacher turned with his back to the car, it was because the car had crept forward sufficiently to press against his left leg. The driver was trying to force the teacher to get out of the way by pushing him with his car. The teacher was quite justifiably determined to maintain his position and not give way. I cannot tell from the video whether the car was pushing against the back of the teacher's legs when he sat down on the bonnet (i.e. he had to sit down at that point or step/fall forward), but frankly I think that is academic: the responsibility was entirely on the driver to back down and reverse.

Oops. 😳 To be fair, Jonathan is an unusual name for a woman.

😆

Damn, was sure but I do get things backwards sometimes...........

I think the celebrity judge in the Charlie Alliston case was a woman, maybe you're thinking of her. Whatever her name is.