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.

Steve, I gave up on this thread but since I ta come back alive…

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

Has anybody seen the reporting and not seen the video?

some of the more rabid anti-car-driver 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:

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 if 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..

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)

Seeing as this thread is still rumbling on

Pretty sure it’s not.

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.

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

One has to ask why he drive it into someone thereby causing the touch to happen if he was the sort to be annoyed by this. Perhaps he just loved his partners non MOT or insured car so much he would kill for it? Who could blame him for such a choice eh.

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)

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.