[Closed] School Run driver runs into teacher

Ah yeah, that could be it. I did follow that one fairly closely and was on here in the thread discussing it

'he drove his car at him' ... because that's not what happened, to my eyes.

I’ve watched the video again, I think perhaps there’s a couple of pupils pushing the car from behind - ha, ha, this gets better and better.

It was actually a steep hill and the jolt of the teacher sitting on the car knocked the handbrake off.

Crown court transcripts are on tape only available on payment of a transcription fee to the company with the contract. Press are in the gallery making accurate or inaccurate notes. Advocates and some judges occasionally try for pithy lines to see if the local press will quote them . I don't because a)I'm shy b) they always spell my name wrong and that annoys my mum and c) I'm too busy trying to serve my clients interest to play silly games . in the magistrates I do try to insult by pause and punctuation, "you are a bunch of idiots your worships .....the defendant said to the police." Etc

PS no crown court judge will advance his career off the back of an unappealable sentence for a fairly mundane dangerous driving case that will never trouble the higher courts. Good solid robust sentences that get appealed but appeal refused and sound legal reasoning on complex law that's how you advance but it is not the stuff that headlines are made of.

ok, first time I've looked at the vid. The teacher clearly sits down on the car bonnet while the car is stationary. This presumably enrages the car driver who then drives into the carpark with said teacher on the bonnet.

ok, first time I've looked at the vid. The teacher clearly sits down on the car bonnet while the car is stationary. This presumably enrages the car driver who then drives into the carpark with said teacher on the bonnet.

Ooh, do we get to start all over again? 😉

 

You need to work on your quotation skillz 🙂

Indeed 🙂

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.

Er... he did drive his car at him. Unless the school is Hogwarts and the teacher is magically dragging the car behind him.

Coyote - Member

Unless the school is Hogwarts and the teacher is magically dragging the car behind him.

Well let's be careful not to rule anything out here before we get the full transcripts.

Right I've done a timelapse gif - though unfortunately I still can't spot the kids pushing or the teacher doing magic.

[img] [/img]

Interval between frames 0.8s - clear movement between first and second frames, car stops between second and third frames, then another small movement of car in the last 0.8s (watch the tyres or the driver's door pillar), the last frame is just before the teacher "sits".

the last frame is just before the teacher "sits".

Hmmm. If you look closely you can see a red light jumping cyclist jumping through the car window and so nudging it forward.

They have a pretty simple solution to this near me every school and business with a carpark gets to rent a police officer or 3 for the morning and afternoon rush. If you don't do what they say you get a fine and a trip to the courthouse...

Nicely done gif, aracer, and yet some took the Mickey when I posted this a few pages back:

Watched repeatedly on a 36" monitor the car udges forward and contact is made with his left leg. The light passing between the teacher's leg and the car that lights the bumper disappears and the teacher sits back. Contact before sitting.

Will the apologists persist now?

Sadly I strongly suspect that they will...

Great GIF, cheers - it was clear to me from early doors that, from watching the shadow under the front left-hand corner of the car and the white arrow on the road that the car continuously moves forward, albeit at varying pace. There's a limit to how long you can argue with those who refute the observable truth!

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.

It's clearly turbulence caused by the passing van that makes the car move forward. I feel sorry for the driver 😉

runs and hides

They have a pretty simple solution to this near me every school and business with a carpark gets to rent a police officer or 3 for the morning and afternoon rush. If you don't do what they say you get a fine and a trip to the courthouse...

As I said in an earlier post, I live on a school road and the drivers stopping on pavements, over drives, on the zigzags, etc. is appalling. Every so often a copper turns up, and miraculously everyone behaves perfectly. So it's not ignorance, or the danger to the children that is the key to the decision process, it's the thought of getting a bollocking or a ticket.

Make photo evidence summarily admissable and start fining people on that, then give teachers or lollipop ladies Go-Pros for school gate or crossing duty.

Except, as noted here there'll always be some **** that'll threaten them anyway / try to take the evidence . Which i think is a missed point in this 'discussion'; from what I've been told (I have friends with kids at the school so I'm going to add 'allegedly' to this bit) - the driver had past history of having been denied access to the car park and had used his car to force past them anyway. So the 'escalation' by the teacher of physically denying him access was IMHO only and appropriately in response to the driver's escalation in the first place. And that still wasn't enough.

I drove past the school yesterday. Gates now double manned by (I assume) teachers and school staff in fluoro tabards. Great use of an already stretched resource. Anyone defending this sort of behaviour, have a word with yourself.

[quote=theotherjonv ]Which i think is a missed point in this 'discussion'; from what I've been told (I have friends with kids at the school so I'm going to add 'allegedly' to this bit) - the driver had past history of having been denied access to the car park and had used his car to force past them anyway.

It's been reported, no need for the caveats. Another thing reported for those who've missed it is that he was demanding to see something written down that he wasn't allowed in - despite letters having gone home.

For those who can cope with such things, have a look at the comments on the Metro article linked above - plenty of other people sharing his level of entitlement who think it's reasonable to accelerate because somebody has sat on your bonnet, or that the teacher was causing an obstruction of the highway and should have been prosecuted (ie that the driver had a right to drive where they liked). It is at least a relief not to get that level of thinking on here.

Meant to answer this one earlier - though I'm a bit worried we've "shouted down" steve - apologies that wasn't my intention (though the "celebrity judge" thing is too hilarious to resist taking the piss out of).

[quote=stevextc ]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.

Why would you think hitting the ground at 10mph coming off a bonnet is less likely to cause serious injury than being hit by a bike at 10mph, where given sharing of momentum you're going to be hitting the ground at less than 10mph? Given that in the case I'm (obviously) talking about the serious injury was done on hitting the ground.

[i] It is at least a relief not to get that level of thinking on here.[/i]

Hmm, they might not actually type those words onto their screens...

I'm actually quite surprised Steve hasn't come back. Maybe he has changed his mind?
In either case...

Every so often a copper turns up, and miraculously everyone behaves perfectly. So it's not ignorance, or the danger to the children that is the key to the decision process, it's the thought of getting a bollocking or a ticket.

I may look at things differently as I'm a Unionised Safety Rep so part of my duties is to look at the consequences of something being wrong, and that carries on into my home life too. But regardless of even that, road markings/signs are instructions and they must be followed. That goes for 'you cant drive into there as it said in the letter sent home" as well. Why do people, mostly motorists but not all, insist on thinking they are above the rules? Also interesting is that they then get upset when you call them entitled tw*ts.

Absolutely, I'm not a safety rep but i do work in the chemical industry and adherence to safety is non-negotiable; should be the same outside. But you'll always get self entitled self appointed experts (I know I'm not supposed to speed here / use a phone while I'm driving / stop on the zigzags), but I know what I'm doing and it'll be OK. And unfortunately or fortunately as you may see it, most of the time it is. Until it isn't and then these sorts of things happen.

Precisely. If Everyone followed the rules more strictly, accounting for the occasional lapse, a lot of issues we see and hear about would just disappear.

Right I've done a timelapse gif

The way I see it, if a pedestrian(ped) is standing side on to a car, and the car starts driving into their legs then if the ped doesn't sit on the car then their legs will be broken. It doesn't really matter if the ped consciously sat down or whether they fell back, either way it is perfectly reasonable for the ped to sit on the car to avoid getting their legs broken and the whole incident is instigated by the driver trying to force their way into a car park to which the public do not have right of access, whilst there is an agent standing right in front of them who is asking them to leave.

[i]On the 10th page and people are still debating the sitting on the car thing [/i]..

[i]The way I see it...[/i]

Yep, needed more too 😆

On the 10th page and people are still debating the sitting on the car thing

sidenote: mate of mine when he was young and stupid (more evidence for not giving licences to teenagers) drove forwards while a young lady was sat on the bonnet, unfortunately she jumped off [i]the front[/i] while still in motion, ended up with a broken leg. Seeing him at weekend will ask his opinion of this 🙂

Meant to answer this one earlier - though I'm a bit worried we've "shouted down" steve - apologies that wasn't my intention (though the "celebrity judge" thing is too hilarious to resist taking the piss out of).

Being a celebrity anything is all relative to who... you don't need for your actual name to even be known by the wider public as much as being the person who ... in a professional sense.
My various work CV's are all built around "being the guy who" because when it comes to discussing who is going to take a role the discussion is between "the guy who delivered/developed X,Y,Z" rather than my actual name. Having sat on the other side of the fence this is how it goes... and the more well known X,Y,Z is the better as then people remember that when it's time for role appointments.

It's obviously even better to be known in general by name but simply being "the guy or girl that..." is almost as good.

Obviously for example the general public have heard of Brunel but few will know of say Sir John Fowler and Sir Benjamin Baker who built the Forth Suspension Bridge... however if back then someone was looking for someone to make a suspension bridge being known as "the guys that built the Forth suspension bridge" is nearly as good as being Brunel...

Now instead of being the backwater judge from Guildford they are the sentencing judge in "the parent that mowed down a teacher then ran over him" case that was widely reported in National Press and Video Media.

Why would you think hitting the ground at 10mph coming off a bonnet is less likely to cause serious injury than being hit by a bike at 10mph, where given sharing of momentum you're going to be hitting the ground at less than 10mph? Given that in the case I'm (obviously) talking about the serious injury was done on hitting the ground.

There pages and pages of crash tests etc. showing why being hit by a car at 10mph has far worse injuries than falling on the floor 10 mph or why (to use snooker/pool) whiteball suffers much less damage than the coloured/striped or why when you run (as in literally) into someone of the same mass the one one with the momentum gets far less damage.

The car itself is pretty irrelevant to the injury in that he was sat (either voluntarily or on purpose) on the bonnet so his injuries are from hitting the floor...

Being hit by a car/bike/person at 10mph you are as a first principal hit at 90 degrees by an object with more momentum ... hitting the floor at 10mph is with YOUR momentum only and not at 90 degrees

Bike are also much harder than tarmac and much pointier meaning the force per area is much higher...

However simple experience as a ST rider I hit the ground at 10mph all the time ... and very rarely injure myself beyond a few scrapes and bruises.... (obviously helmets and padding aren't irrelevant) but mainly what stops you injuring yourself in a crash is ability to carry part of the momentum or not
i.e. if you mess up a road jump and bail onto the landing the likelihood is you will be up back up and on your bike...
if you bailed and hit a concrete wall to the road jump then chances are you are not riding away...

Bailing onto the landing is like bailing off the bonnet.... bailing into the wall is more like being rammed by a car at the same speed.

I'm not sure of the relevance of being hit by a car at 10mph - I wanted to compare with being hit by a bike at 10mph, where the momentum is clearly far less, so momentum imparted to the pedestrian is less. Hence crash test results involving cars are irrelevant (though I'm curious about the test results you mention for a pedestrian being thrown to the ground at 10mph - where would I find those?)

I'm also interested in injuries from hitting the ground - whatever you might say about bikes having pointy bits, those don't tend to cause injury in collisions, not least because unlike the ground there is a lot of give in the parts of a bike which hit a pedestrian, and most of the momentum is imparted to the pedestrian directly by the bike rider. As I pointed out, in the case I'm obviously referring to, the principle pedestrian injuries were caused by hitting the ground.

[quote=stevextc ]mainly what stops you injuring yourself in a crash is ability to carry part of the momentum or not
i.e. if you mess up a road jump and bail onto the landing the likelihood is you will be up back up and on your bike...
if you bailed and hit a concrete wall to the road jump then chances are you are not riding away...
Bailing onto the landing is like bailing off the bonnet.... bailing into the wall is more like being rammed by a car at the same speed.

Nope - you're suggesting that you avoid injury when messing up a jump by being in some control of what happens - ie you "bail". Exactly how much control do you have when being thrown from a bonnet? Pretty much the same amount of control as you have when being hit by something.

This argument is almost as bizarre as the celebrity judge argument - you seem to be suggesting the situations have different analogies despite zero evidence for making the analogies in that way. In one case you're thrown to the ground at speed, in the other case you're thrown to the ground at speed.

It's been reported, no need for the caveats. Another thing reported for those who've missed it is that he was demanding to see something written down that he wasn't allowed in - despite letters having gone home.

I've no idea what the correct/incorrect emails ratio is.... it's probably better than I think as you tend to remember the incorrect ones... but there are still a huge amount sent to the wrong parents etc. and plenty of others that don't arrive at all or without attachments. The school have both my personal and OH's personal emails (and OH's work email is the schools) and yet it seems half the time we get different emails...

Iv'e no idea if the driver did or did not receive a letter/email or if that letter/email is clear.. but if its anything like our school they need to make sure they have a proper system in place for stuff like changing uniform/parking etc. because claiming not to have received a written communication is a pretty easy excuse.

This is assuming written actual means letter or email... don't get me started on "didn't you read Facebook we cancelled the 8am practice" after turning up at 7:45

Our own school also makes exceptions as and when it's convenient as well. There are a few times I've been told "Oh you can use the car park as his Mum is teaching staff" ... no doubt other parents would see this as being entitled...

Anyway the point to that is really that it's reported that the school say's he received written communication ... hence that is taken as fact... non of this changes him being guilty but it is at least likely (based on my Son's school communications) that he didn't receive it (perhaps the mother did, perhaps it went in his spam or perhaps he isn't on the dist. list or perhaps there is no consistent diet list.)

This doesn't change his guilt.. but it changes the accuracy of reporting and shows the willingness of people to believe something merely because it's "reported".

Technically I never received the one from our son's school.... I still park legally EVEN when they tell me not to (because it is more inconvenient for them than me).

The bloke is obviously stubborn way beyond his own good.... he could simply have lied to the probation officer and said he accepts all responsibility (even if he doesn't) and the teacher is actually a nice bloke (even if he thinks he's a brutish thug)... I mean he was pleading guilty anyway... it would only be to his personal good. We also don't know if he did and the probation officer lied... but it's a set of soundbites taken as FACT...

Had this gone to trial then these could have been challenged and I'm sure some would turn out to be not quite what they seem but at it is we have a set of soundbites that most people seem quite happy to take as fact.

For those who can cope with such things, have a look at the comments on the Metro article linked above - plenty of other people sharing his level of entitlement who think it's reasonable to accelerate because somebody has sat on your bonnet, or that the teacher was causing an obstruction of the highway and should have been prosecuted (ie that the driver had a right to drive where they liked). It is at least a relief not to get that level of thinking on here.

I think this is a consequence of the overall reporting... [b]not specifically Metro's[/b] which is better than most IMHO BTW...

1/ Much of the reporting is written to make people outraged and emotive rather than report what actually happened and internet wise it becomes click bait.
"See the moment when a parent ploughs down a teacher before running over them"
So you get one set defending a false headline and hence others taking the opposite stance.

2/ The topic itself is already divisive.
The same papers run articles making out every parent that drives their kid to school drives 300m in a Range Rover before driving home to make sure the domestic staff do a thorough job....

This simply isn't the case ... indeed most parents (from the ones I know) reason is so they can get to work...so again you have a load of people who are emotive and using "he shouldn't be driving to school anyway" ... there is plenty of that on this thread.... because neighbour X drives 300m and is able bodies then that MUST be the normal case.

In short what this does is create a whole load of populist one side or the other because that's how the comments sections work....

It starts off someone simply defending their NEED to drop their kids off at school if they are to do their job (for example as a teacher at another school 10miles away) and then being labelled "entitled" ... so before you know where you are they are defending the driver because the driver is also being attacked for driving to school.

[img] [/img]

I think this is a consequence of the overall reporting...

So before this case was reported, those people suggesting that the teacher got what he deserved were perfectly normal reasonable people and it's all the fault of the media?

It's all quite amusing, but maybe you need to step back a bit and look at what you're posting here steve, because it's all getting a bit

[img] [/img]

or maybe

[img] [/img]

I couldn't find anything on this case in the Guardian.

If you hadn't seen the video, you would think from the reporting and from some of the more rabid anti-car-driver views on this thread, that the driver saw the teacher on the pavement, accelerated, steered off the road towards him, kept accelerating, deliberately collected him on the bonnet, and deliberately drove him towards some school kids.

That's not what happened. What actually happened was more nuanced than that, and it's the way that that nuance seems to be happily overlooked in popular reporting and online discussion that bothers me more than the behaviour of either party in that sad video, neither of whom I would seek to defend or want to know.

The internet is great, but not when it gives disproportionate voice to unreasonable thought. And I'm not saying that anyone on this thread is being unreasonable, either.

But I'm glad stevextc has dug his heels in, because I think it's important. I don't get the tin-foil-hat reference at all, it all seems depressingly relevant and real to me, given the direction that the poor quality of debate and 'public thought' has taken society (and Western Democracy) lately.

Er... Person tries to park on school grounds, against school rules. Appointed representative of school tries to prevent this. Person deliberately drives car into authorised school representative causing injury. Not seeing the subtle nuances to be honest. It seems pretty cut and dried.

The internet is great, but not when it gives disproportionate voice to unreasonable thought. And I'm not saying that anyone on this thread is being unreasonable, either.

You are being unreasonable, with this:

neither of whom I would seek to defend or want to know.

Person deliberately drives car into authorised school representative

From the video, I don't think that's what happened. I think the man sat on the car bonnet deliberately - perhaps, in a moment of understandable anger, to annoy and provoke the driver.

It seems pretty cut and dried.

QED.

Yeah saw that on The Metro FB feed and was amazed/appalled at all the number of folk commenting that the teacher got what he deserved!

Thick arse, comfortable and entitled Brits don't feel the need for teachers - so society doesn't value them. They're up there with cyclists in the eyes of Daily Fail readers (yet the same people bang on about a loss of traditional values......eg the right to be a racist ****, the death penalty and respect for the old).

This is why my children are either going to go to a good private, or to a school in Asia.

From the video, I don't think that's what happened. I think the man sat on the car bonnet deliberately - perhaps, in a moment of understandable anger, to annoy and provoke the driver.

Even if it was deliberate, what [i]possible[/i] justification can the driver have for then driving off with the teacher on the bonnet and dumping him on the floor???
Please, enlighten me on the logical and understandable justification for this?

Holy shit, I thought this had been bumped with some new information! Not the same old crap over again.
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/school-run-driver-runs-into-teacher?replies=361 ]click here[/url]
and when you get back to this page, click the link again

To make this clear to the trolls.
The school has repeatedly sent letters to the parents saying your not allowed to drive in the school.
There are big signs saying your not allowed to drive in the school.
The driver in the video, had repeatedly been told not to drive in the school.
Yes, the teacher was being belligerent, but what the **** else can they do? Wait until someone kills a kid? That make you happy?

If you hadn't seen the video, you would think from the reporting and from some of the more rabid anti-car-driver views on this thread, that the driver saw the teacher on the pavement, accelerated, steered off the road towards him, kept accelerating, deliberately collected him on the bonnet, and deliberately drove him towards some school kids.

Only if you are the kind of person that only ever reads the five word headline (or the the first post in a thread) and doesn't concern themselves with reading the actual story.

No one on here has suggested that anything remotely like that happened and I haven't seen any news coverage suggesting anything like that, beyond a clickbait headline.

and when you get back to this page, click the link again

haha, fair enough

EDIT: running away

I’d like to ask, not to derail the thread..

When sentencing an offender (let’s just say this driver, f’rinstance) when the judge passes sentence does the offender go straight to prison, there and then ?

Yes, normally straight after sentencing to the nearest available space.

it's the way that that nuance seems to be happily overlooked in popular reporting and online discussion that bothers me more than the behaviour of either party in that sad video

Great to see you've got your priorities sorted. Yes, I agree it's far more important that some details in the description of the incident are precisely reported to your taste, than that entitled aggressive drivers like that **** are on the road.

normally straight after sentencing to the nearest available space.

Unless it's for staff only.

The school has repeatedly sent letters to the parents saying your not allowed to drive in the school.

I'd hope a school would use you're instead of your.

Had this gone to trial then these could have been challenged and I'm sure some would turn out to be not quite what they seem but at it is we have a set of soundbites that most people seem quite happy to take as fact.

The process when someone pleads guilty is essentially this:

- the prosecutor reads out a "narration of facts"
- the defence have the opportunity to dispute any fact they disagree with
- if the defence don't argue with anything the narration is accepted as fact. (If they do disagree and it is material it will go to proof).
- the prosecutor will not normally make public statements (although the police do). When the prosecutor is being quoted that will usually be from the court room and part of the narration (although it is sometimes misquoted/out of context)
- so although there was no trial the "sound bites" have been tested/agreed in court not press releases.

Often when a guilty plea is lodged after some discussion there is an "agreed narration" that the prosecution and defence have discussed in advance. E.g. "He'll plead guilty and avoid the trial if you make no mention of XX or if you describe the driving as "YY" or even if you mention that AA was provoking him"

From the video, I don't think that's what happened. I think the man sat on the car bonnet deliberately - perhaps, in a moment of understandable anger, to annoy and provoke the driver.

With respect, the debate on that point has been covered in some depth over a number of pages, with detailed, slo-mo analysis from a number of posters, still freeze frames, the works.

I honestly don't think anyone else wading in at this point with either "I think he sat on the bonnet" or "I think the car was moving into him when he sat.." is going to move it on in any meaningful way - people have seen the video, and formed their opinion one way or the other.

I honestly don't think anyone else wading in at this point with either "I think he sat on the bonnet" or "I think the car was moving into him when he sat.." is going to move it on in any meaningful way - people have seen the video, and formed their opinion one way or the other.

Quite right.

(Although, that wasn't the point of my post. Rather, I was making a more general point related to public debate, which I wish I hadn't tried to make now, which alluded to the foregoing discussions on this thread around bonnet-sitting and grainy CCTV coverage, which you reacted to as though it were my main point, so I am sorry for not being clear.)

which I wish I hadn't tried to make now

...and with us all in agreement, we can let the thread die a peaceful death.

🙂

with us all in agreement

lol

I disagree

[quote=Dorset_Knob ]If you hadn't seen the video, you would think from the reporting

Has anybody seen the reporting and not seen the video?

some of the more rabid [s]anti-car-driver[/s] anti-bad-car-driver views on this thread

fixed - because I suspect you're referring to me there, and I drive a car and so do most of my friends. I'm not sure exactly what is wrong with being anti people who drive their cars in a way which endangers other people.

But I'm glad stevextc has dug his heels in, because I think it's important. I don't get the tin-foil-hat reference at all

I originally thought of suggesting that when steve started about celebrity judges, but more recently he's made similar conspiracy theory type comments about the reporting - it appears he thinks the reporting is inaccurate not because of any evidence of inaccuracy, but because he's starting from the theory that reporting is inaccurate (it's a bit of a self-fulfilling argument). Apparently the existence of entitled drivers is also all the fault of the media.

it all seems depressingly relevant and real to me, given the direction that the poor quality of debate and 'public thought' has taken society (and Western Democracy) lately.

That direction isn't generally one of condemning dangerous driving.

Oh, and sorry everybody I'm just going to pick at this one again:

[quote=Dorset_Knob ]From the video, I don't think that's what happened. I think the man sat on the car bonnet deliberately - perhaps, in a moment of understandable anger, to annoy and provoke the driver.

Did you see my stop frame gif (I wasn't so sure about it myself, but others seem to think it provides reasonable evidence)? Though in any case it was an established fact in court that the teacher ended up on the bonnet because he was driven into - can you provide definitive evidence to disprove that? And as already pointed out far too many times, it's essentially irrelevant, even [b]if[/b] the teacher did deliberately sit on the bonnet, that doesn't change anything else in any way - it's only entitled car drivers who think it does.

edit: actually it's also worth addressing the "in a moment of understandable anger" - I see no evidence of the teacher being angry, and the only circumstance in which it might be understandable (given his otherwise calm demeanour) is because the car had just been driven into his legs. Nor is there any logic behind it being an attempt to "annoy and provoke the driver" - the only thing he ever appears to be attempting to do is stop the driver going through the gate.

Go on, drive off now..

[img] [/img]

Seeing as this thread is still rumbling on I'll challenge Steve's comment:

For millions they have no choice but to use a car to take the kids to school then drive to work.

They don't have to park right outside the school gate though! Get up 5 minutes earlier, park somewhere safer and have a little walk with your children, the exercise won't kill you 8)

[i]Seeing as this thread is still rumbling on[/i]

Pretty sure it's not.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Poly where do you get your term "narration of facts " from ?
We do :-
Plea G
Basis of plea (if relevant)
Do the prosecution accept the basis ?
Does the dispute/difference make any impact on sentence if so go to trial of issue before a judge ( Newton hearing)
If not go to sentence.
Prosecution opening ( your narration of facts )
Mitigation ( possible angry diversion to basis of plea and Newton if defence advocate starts asserting different facts)
Sentence.
You can informally sort out an agreement as to opening beforehand.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Touching a car is de facto provocation to some. Maybe related to considering it a penis extension/substitute?

Sit on my cock and I'll definitely react (exactly how I react, depends on who does the sitting). Touch my van? Not so much.

Sit on my cock and I'll definitely react (exactly how I react, depends on who does the sitting)

Not outside the school gates though eh?

Sit on my cock and I'll definitely react (exactly how I react, depends on who does the sitting). Touch my van?

Touching is ok then?

Touching a car is de facto provocation to some.

That only further supports the "entitled drivers" thing - which was pretty much the basis of the OP. 😀

Touching a car is de facto provocation to some

Maybe we should have just ignored the issue of whether the teacher deliberately sat on the bonnet, and concentrated instead on why if he did that some people think that constitutes provocation, or as suggested earlier in the thread it makes him a dick. Or indeed why some people on social media are quite happy to admit they'd assault somebody for doing so - the really peculiar thing there being that they're presumably ignoring the prison sentence somebody just got for doing what they think to be reasonable.

Peole massively overvalue their things.

In a discussion at work someone said they woudl kill a burgular if they broke into their house and stole ANYTHING
After much debate this also included the free microwave they were given that did not work.

Some folk just value their trinkets , however shit they are, above other lives.

I have to say some things would make me act. I In the chips car vandalism for example I think would have stopped the individual and called the police for example.

Crankboy - sorry I assumed the process and nomenclature was the same up North and down South! What's your "basis of plea" stuff?

I In the chips car vandalism

Can someone reboot Junkyard please?

Its performing above expected parameters

Some folk just value their trinkets

Yes they do, especially cars. However someone sitting on the edge of the bonnet is not really the same as someone kicking the door in - that would have been provocation.

poly - Member
Crankboy - sorry I assumed the process and nomenclature was the same up North and down South! What's your "basis of plea" stuff?

It's where the defendant, having lost the opportunity by pleading guilty, still gets to lie to the court about their guilt (via instructing their Counsel)

[img] [/img]

Maybe we should have just ignored the issue of whether the teacher deliberately sat on the bonnet, and concentrated instead on why if he did that some people think that constitutes provocation

That's how I viewed it, the provacation was all on the part of the driver, he wasn't allowed to be there, he knew he wasn't allowed to be there and he could have ended the confrontation at any time by backing up.

Poly basis of plea is where the defendant accepts guilt but disputes the factual basis. A classic illustration would be assault where defendant asserts self defence gone too far or disputes kick to head but accepts an unlawful punch . His account means he has to plead guilty to the crime charged but there is such a difference between versions that the court would impose a different sentence dependent on which was used . we draw up a written document setting out the basis . the judge asks the pros if its agreed if the pros accept it AND the judge agrees then sentenced on the basis if not we go to a trial ( newton trial)without a jury to decide which basis is true , burden and standard of proof on pros but most judges are " sceptical " of guilty defendants. We lose guilty plea discount for a lost " newton trial ."

Damage my stuff on purpose and get a thump. It really is that simple.

I take great care to treat people and their property with respect. It’s not too much to expect the same in return. Damage my home, my car, my bike intentionally and yes I will be pissed off. It’s not entitlement to expect basic respect.