Confrontation with a Driver [Video]

[ianrauk]

You damn well should have done.
And now it's all in the public domain it won't be long until they do know about it and they do the right thing by giving him the boot.

 

[dee.jay]

What an absolute knobend (Car driver)

 

[jarlrmai]

You damn well should have done.
And now it's all in the public domain it won't be long until they do know about it and they do the right thing by giving him the boot.

Unless it's his company..

 

[lozcs]

Only a caution?

What a vile piece of work...

 

[Crankarm]

I would be complaining to the police that they ONLY give him a caution. I thought he was either going to run you down or drive into you. The latter being exactly what he tried to do as it was clearly premeditated and he drove his car at you which IS an assault and as it's in a car which means assault WITH a weapon. I think you have been let down by the Met especially as the footage is SO clear - surprise surprise. Why hasn't he been reported for dangerous driving as well? He may well be known to the police. He certainly has anger management issues.

Any chance of finding out who his insurer is and informing them? I am hoping the plod checked thoroughly to make sure he was insured to drive this vehicle.

How about emailing his employer this footage or putting it on their Twitter feed? Ha-ha! They employ ignorant violent thugs.

 

[Drago]

The dibble have to follow a disposal matrix. If he has no previous history of convictions for previous kindred offences then all he is eligible for is the caution.

In order to jump straight to a charge requires either one of the more serious offences in the schedule, or aggravating factors such as a racial motivation .

Any officer ignoring the matrix like that themselves faces prosecution (theoretically at least, never heard of it happening)

Looks to me like a run of the mill S4 or 4a Public Order Act offence, and without an existing caution or previous conviction would never be authorised for a charge.

 

[Crankarm]

The dibble have to follow a disposal matrix. If he has no previous history of convictions for previous kindred offences then all he is eligible for is the caution.


In

So on the basis he has no previous convictions he can get away with a caution? Ok he has admitted the offence put to him but it is still not the seriousness of offences he should be facing. That stinks. This guy is a violent menace and gets to keep his driving license. He wasn't walking on the cracks in the pavement he deliberately drove his car at some one making them fear for their safety and life and after some considerable deliberation as well. He should lose his license. So had he driven over the cyclist are you saying plod would still have cautioned the driver??!! But it's only a cyclist ………………….

 

[Drago]

In a nutshell....

Yes. That's what the CPS tell the dibble to do.

Had he driven over the cyclist that would have have been an assault and/or motoring offences and he could well have them been charged. But he didn't. He put our chap 'in fear', which is S4 POA, not an assault.

It's a case of "and if my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle." As frightening a it was our OP was not assaulted - the offender can not be dealt with for an offence he didn't commit.

 

[Black Country Ste]

I don't know why he wasn't given a PRA s59 warning.

The prick who got me last year got away with a local resolution. Police could have easily given him a s59 and prosecuted the near-dooring, and I asked for these, but they chose to offer LR/caution for the assault alone. Road rage isn't taken seriously by police, treated as isolated incidents rather than a specific problem in the public interest.

 

[Drago]

It wasn't nuisance or anti social use of the vehicle, but a criminal act - falls outside the scope of S.59.

They don't 'offer' a caution. If he accepts guilt it's all he's eligible for (previous disposals permitting). If he doesn't then a court can decide it. I expect his free and independent legal adviser read him his tea leaves.

Your final comment is disingenuous. The police took it quite seriously, and progressed it is far as they were lawfully able. The police can not charge where they have no power to do so. Charging procedure and guidance is set by the CPS - as aforementioned, step outside it and the officer authorising the charge themselves commits an offence, and then the CPS would discontinue the case once they caught wind of it.

The CPS have a nickname based upon their initials. The middle word is 'protection'. You can guess the other two.

 

[jefmcg]

Or their twitter feed.
@tlhconstruction

Interesting. I clicked that link. No new tweets since may, and a link to a website that doesn't work. Wondering if they are still trading.

Oh, it's supposed to forward to http://tlhak2012.wix.com/tlhconstruction, which is still live, so maybe they are still in business. Though it's a free site, so no motivation to tear it down.

Really ?

A 3 dr Astra coupe thing, with NI plates is the classic vest-wearing-tattoo'dup -TOWIE wannabe - lager & well' ard staffy on a chain - fighty-chav-mobile car par excellence round here...

Not that I believe in stereotyping drivers according to their cars, of course..might even get one myself one day.

Nicely spotted. The TLH twitter feed is mostly retweets from a tanning salon that does teeth whitening as "seen in The Only Way is Essex".

Who'd get dental work at a tanning salon????

Edit: I don't think they get much business from the website ...

 

[soulful dog]

Well done on remaining so calm and having the common sense not to continue cycling in front of him. I'm not sure I'd have handled it as well!

 

[EthelF]

In a nutshell....

Yes. That's what the CPS tell the dibble to do.

Had he driven over the cyclist that would have have been an assault and/or motoring offences and he could well have them been charged. But he didn't. He put our chap 'in fear', which is S4 POA, not an assault.

It's a case of "and if my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle." As frightening a it was our OP was not assaulted - the offender can not be dealt with for an offence he didn't commit.

I can't agree entirely. Surely had he driven over the cyclist it would have been (attempted) murder. Ah, no, silly me, he used something as harmless as a 1 tonne motorised vehicle, not a 200g knife. I digress.

IIRC under Common Law (or possibly even under some old statute law), assault includes causing a reasonable fear that unlawful violence will be inflicted - the next level up being assault occasioning actual bodily harm, if physical contact is actually made (caveat: I studied criminal law almost a quarter century ago, but as far as I know no statute law has overruled this). In that sense, the gentleman in question clearly WAS assaulted.

All this notwithstanding, the CPS advice does not surprise me, taking into account likelihood of conviction, loose definition of wording, taking into accoutnt of "good character" (legal definition), etc. So all things considered, this was not a surprising outcome. Sadly.

Well done OP, you remained much calmer than I could have managed under the circumstances. Still flippin' scary.

 

[jarlrmai]

that numberplate does not come up anywhere I search...

 

[Cycling Dan]

I can't agree entirely. Surely had he driven over the cyclist it would have been (attempted) murder. Ah, no, silly me, he used something as harmless as a 1 tonne motorised vehicle, not a 200g knife. I digress.

IIRC under Common Law (or possibly even under some old statute law), assault includes causing a reasonable fear that unlawful violence will be inflicted - the next level up being assault occasioning actual bodily harm, if physical contact is actually made (caveat: I studied criminal law almost a quarter century ago, but as far as I know no statute law has overruled this). In that sense, the gentleman in question clearly WAS assaulted.

All this notwithstanding, the CPS advice does not surprise me, taking into account likelihood of conviction, loose definition of wording, taking into accoutnt of "good character" (legal definition), etc. So all things considered, this was not a surprising outcome. Sadly.

Well done OP, you remained much calmer than I could have managed under the circumstances. Still flippin' scary.

Police investigate. They don't judge or prosecute. If they are the guidelines set out by the CPS the complaint should be with the CPS not the police.