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.

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 national press (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?

well they werent wearing helmets and high vis and were also on the road (using the special interpretation of road some of those who support the nutter have used) so basically they would have deserved it.
Plus it was the evil teachers fault for forcing the poor driver to be an idiot.

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

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

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) people are selfish and stupid.
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”.

Whose careers are you speaking about here?

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.

There is a video … it’s not hard to decide the driver is guilty (you’d need to be completely blind) … it’s a question of what and what the judges summing up say’s…

Whose careers are you speaking about here?

The judge…

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?

Depends what you mean by fighting his corner….
I think he deserves the sentencing* from what is provable in the video and beyond reasonable doubt… however I don’t think the judge should be getting celeb judge status based on this or that the carefully worded soundbites released and then made bigger by the press are actually appropriate.

Can anybody here name this celebrity judge?

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.

What did happen in your eyes then if he did not drive his car at him?

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…

What ******* challenge. Attempting to ensure the driver followed instructions is not, and should und not be seen, as a challenge to any rational person.

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 “Right I’m going to attack a teacher with my partner’s uninsured, un-motted car while her young daughter sits in the back”

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 summation 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 Youtube 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.