Angry cyclist in bookshop rampage

[LLB]

Leaning a bike against a window isn't going to break it. Glass is surprisingly tough. I'd only be annoyed if it was my window because they'd be in my garden.

Would you like to put a grand on that if it were to go through ?

It fundamentally is down to respect for the property of others (or lack of)

 

[Cab]

don't know what business it is of theirs if he chooses to park his bike against the window. Seems like they're being a bit petty by telling him to move it - still, showing people cyclists aren't to be messed with - it's a novel way of fighting the cyclists' corner.

Their shop window. People need to be able to see in to see whats in there. Its a nice little shop with a handy display window to get people in to spend money for a worthwhile cause.

At the end of the day, its up to the owner of the window to decide, and if they don't want a bike leaning on it then fair enough.

 

[Cab]

Noticed a couple of things

1

She had no power of authority to touch his property.

That works both ways though. Shows major disrespect to lean a bike on a window, I think.

2

Fantastic workmanship unless this guy was juiced on Angel Dust.!!!!

I know the shop well; they're book cases bolted in place rather than being held up with bolts. Wouldn't be hard to get 'em off, I think. Although this was on Milll Road, so don't rule out the angel dust angle.

3

I was under the impression that her persuit of him would have been unjustified and any personal injury sustained would have been her own fault. I make this statement as I used to work in a charity book shop and was told much the same thing.

Legally you're probably right. Morally, I disagree.

 

[Jake]

blame the council for not providing enough places to leave your bike securely

 

[LLB]

I would, get your money ready.

Then you have the woman moving his bike without asking him.

No, I mean you pay a grand for the new window (you have no idea if it is toughened glass), and she removes his bike which he dumped on her property

 

[Cab]

blame the council for not providing enough places to leave your bike securely

I have never failed to find bike locking in Mill Road, somewhere within 75 yards of my destination. Plenty down there.

 

[ComedyPilot]

I was under the impression that her persuit of him would have been unjustified and any personal injury sustained would have been her own fault. I make this statement as I used to work in a charity book shop and was told much the same thing.

Not true.

PACE 1984 allows a citizen to detain anyone known to have committed an offence (indictable or either way), and to detain them to stop them doing a runner before a police officer can get to the scene. If matey boy then assaulted her during this, then that is assault. She had legal grounds to detain him.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Legally you're probably right. Morally, I disagree.

No, you are right, legally and morally.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Sorry, I was referring to her terms of employment. Had she been a customer I agree 100% with you but I am pretty sure AI would not back her actions unless they are VERY different to other charitable organizations. Even the DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) does not allow and will not back any employee who defends him or herself and in doing so inflicts injury upon a customer!!!!!

Not true.

PACE 1984 allows a citizen to detain anyone known to have committed an offence (indictable or either way), and to detain them to stop them doing a runner before a police officer can get to the scene. If matey boy then assaulted her during this, then that is assault. She had legal grounds to detain him.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Sorry, I was referring to her terms of employment. Had she been a customer I agree 100% with you but I am pretty sure AI would not back her actions unless they are VERY different to other charitable organizations. Even the DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) does not allow and will not back any employee who defends him or herself and in doing so inflicts injury upon a customer!!!!!

Good job it wouldn't be the DWP going to the scene to deal with the matter. The police did go to the scene, and now they want to trace the cyclist, which kinda indicates the woman was within her rights to try and detain the cyclist.

Come on Cambridge, shop the 'Mad Cyclist' with the same gusto that Brand and Woss have been pillaried.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Good job it wouldn't be the DWP going to the scene to deal with the matter.

Very true indeed. It would take months for any response at all and then the mountain of forms that would have to be completed would be lost

The police did go to the scene, and now they want to trace the cyclist, which kinda indicates the woman was within her rights to try and detain the cyclist.

Not necessarily. They would chase him down for criminal damage and assault yes, but that does not imply that the shop or organisation would back her actions.

Come on Cambridge, shop the 'Mad Cyclist' with the same gusto that Brand and Woss have been pillaried.

Agreed

 

[ComedyPilot]

Not necessarily. They would chase him down for criminal damage and assault yes, but that does not imply that the shop or organisation would back her actions.

Sorry, I didn't imply they would back her actions, but I would like to see them have a go at her over this. I would be queueing up to represent her as a solicitor if there was some comeback on her (employment-wise).

I'd get max clifford involved too.

Imagine the headlines, "Have-a-go heroine charity shop worker loses job for confronting maniac cyclist"

That I am afraid is not the sort of publicity a charity wants, but it is the type of publicity it would get if it took action against the woman.

I suppose it all depends on what the phrase 'would not back her actions' entails?

I am just saying in these lean times bad publicity is something a charity can do without.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

What I mean by that phrase is that the organisation would give her no backing or support if the man involved counter claimed against her. Insane I agree but it costs less to include such details in a contract and then turn your back than it does to defend an employee.

Please do not get me wrong I am not condoning the actions taken by the 'cyclist', but simply looking at other angles of the printed article and mapping then against my person experiences.

I suppose it all depends on what the phrase 'would not back her actions' entails?

 

[bonj2]

Their shop window. People need to be able to see in to see whats in there. Its a nice little shop with a handy display window to get people in to spend money for a worthwhile cause.

At the end of the day, its up to the owner of the window to decide, and if they don't want a bike leaning on it then fair enough.

and he needs to be able to see out to make sure his bike isn't being nicked!
besides people can still see through the window past his bike. It isn't a solid plane.

 

[Cab]

and he needs to be able to see out to make sure his bike isn't being nicked!
besides people can still see through the window past his bike. It isn't a solid plane.

Go to the shop. Look at it. Tiny shop front, narrow path, busy road, but plenty of bike locking. If the shop staff choose not to have a bike leaning precariously on their window, good luck to them.