GreersElbow
New member
Obviously a stupid thing to do, but surely he had no idea a bus was coming and just did it because she was in his way.
I've also always struggled to move whilst running..
Obviously a stupid thing to do, but surely he had no idea a bus was coming and just did it because she was in his way.
Wonder which bank he works for
You said that if she had been run over by the bus 'that would be manslaughter - that would be an easy case to prosecute'.The jogger of course, are you suggesting the bus driver could be?
You can have attempted voluntary manslaughter (even though not in this case).No, there's not.
But earlier you said 'if a jogger knocking into someone is assault, then every time that a jogger knocks into someone, that's assault'. You can't make your mind up.I'm sure that an assault charge could be brought against him and I'd have no complaints if he were found guilty
No, he wouldn't be - as I explained earlier
You keep using the word "clearly" incorrectly. If it was clear, it would mean that there wouldn't any dispute that he bumped into her deliberately. That's certainly not how I saw it and I'd be willing to bet that there would be plenty of people in a jury room who wouldn't see it that way. He didn't raise his arms to push, he didn't markedly swerve towards her, he didn't hit her face on. It would be a tough one
Absolutely and he's a ratbag for not stopping and helping her up but failing to render an apology is not a criminal offence
The jogger of course, are you suggesting the bus driver could be?
No, there's not. If there were, I'd agree that the jogger would have a case to answer.
Just to make things crystal clear: I'm not defending the jogger in any way. Whether it was a deliberate act or not, it was an appalling thing to do and the fact that he jogged on when she approached again is deplorable behaviour. I'm sure that an assault charge could be brought against him and I'd have no complaints if he were found guilty.
I was just putting myself in the mind of the CPS lawyer handling this (assuming they find him) and thinking that this could cause all sorts of problems in the future.
Not on a bridge.
On the front page of The Standard too so someone's going to recognise him soon.
As a runner - note NOT jogger- I'm saddened there's someone like that in our community. My fellow runners are generally the best people there are so this is doubly sickening.
There's no defending it at all. He clearly makes a move towards the woman and shoves her.
Once you are committed to a sudden move you can't pull out of it at speed but that's why we always run in a straight line as a rule, and get annoyed with those elastic dog leads on the seafront or "moving trip hazards" if you like. So to do that could easily be prosecuted because he's done something extremely unnatural that could also be a danger to himself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why not cctv on a bridge? There are plenty of other council run cctv cameras in that location including on that bridge (see camera 601 on this link). As you will see that area is saturated with cctv. He must have been captured countless times even after leaving the bridge so I think there is a likelihood that there will be better images of him available in which he is more identifiable. Of course it depends what priority the police are putting on this. They might not consider it in their interests to devote the manpower in tracking his movements to find a better image.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...ghOMAw&usg=AFQjCNFjLG3wL4j0UVj9IGkFNYmhLeSrKw
Living in London - you see cctv all over the place - but not so liberally on bridges generally; practically speaking where would you attach them?
On lampposts.