Whats amused you (in the news) today ?

You've no idea whether he is an unpleasant individual ? He filmed a woman having sex with him without consent. He then either posted it, or got someone else to post it, onto a website whereby he was financially rewarded for people clicking to view it. Again without her consent.  Not only is that a crime, but I'd say it also makes him fairly unpleasant so I don't feel any need to reserve judgement in that regard.  

You can't put it in the same category as rape or offences against children ? Well no.    Although I'd suggest you are not in a great position to really judge the level of harm associated with having a porn video of yourself uploaded against your will and without your knowledge for others to gratify themselves with, all to the monetary gain of someone you trusted.

And neither the law nor the judge treated them as the same seriousness. So the attempted comparison is a false one anyway. Which is why he wasn't charged with any such offences, and why his sentence doesn't come up to the level that would almost certainly apply in those cases. That includes the requirement to sign on to the sex offenders register, which as I read was for a period of 10 years. Whereas for those other offences it would likely be life (because it "follows the sentence"). 

So what do you think the purpose of the sex offenders register is ? I was under the impression that it wasn't a punishment per se, but rather a way of tracking a sex offender. Registration is an automatic requirement for any sexual offender, including internet related sex offences. And the required period of being on the register is inherently tied to the sentence duration. Presumably as a fairly simple way of relating it to seriousness. So his sentence tariff required 10 years on the register. If he was being treated similarly to a 'rapist or child sex offender' then more than likely his sentence would have been >30 months, and he would then require to be on the register indefinitely. So you are right, offences are not comparable, and the contrasting sentencing and registration requirements reflect that. 

The idea that a man can video a woman having sex with him without her knowledge is vile. Uploading it to a platform where people pay to see it (presumably he got paid) is beyond.. To me almost a lock up and throw away the key just so nasty. Your daughter?

Coming back for the moment to the verdict and sentencing for involuntary manslaughter of the woman whose actions were judged to have been the cause of the 77 yo woman falling into the path of a car, to the long term detriment of her health. 

I see there are new statements from the police, covered in the following article:

Huntingdon cyclist death: Police warn over ill-informed views

I note from the article a few particular points:


Det Sgt Dollard, who interviewed Grey, told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire: "I'll always remember the morning after it occurred obtaining the CCTV and watching it in its entirety.



"In all honesty it's horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void."

and also:

He added that there were "considerations in relation to Auriol Grey's vulnerability" in their investigation.



"A lot of medical records... professional expert evidence was sought and presented to a jury, it's important to note, and with all that, in fact, she was found guilty of an unlawful act and that is why she was convicted," he said.

On the topic of whether it is pedestrian only or shared use - which to my mind is of limited relevance in relation to the guilt or otherwise of the defendant:


A Cambridgeshire County Council spokesperson said: "We cannot categorically say it is a shared use path as we could not find any legal records to evidence this.



"We know it is used by cyclists and we are looking at this location to see if there is any work required to make things clearer.

Which suggests the situation in that regard is more complicated than perhaps assumed. 

None of which has any bearing on the "c**p cycling infrastructure" discussion. 

And, I would imagine, a much longer sentence than the three years handed down in this particular manslaughter case. 

She also "gestured in an aggressive and hostile manner towards the victim", according to the news report.  We even have the video evidence to support that.  It shows her behaviour perturbed the elderly lady enough to lose control and fall into the road. 

Do you think the judge, who heard all the evidence for and against, with all his years of experience, was wrong in his assessment? 

Look again at the footage, and especially carefully at the foot positioning of the accused.  It looks very much to me like she actually pushed the elderly cyclist off her bike.  If she didn't physically make contact, her actions certainly look hostile enough to cause the loss of control.  Have a good look - can you honestly say there was nothing more than just a simple expletive?  

EDIT:  Having posted the above, I've just read bracknellboy 's latest link above, which goes some way to confirming my own interpretation of the encounter...
"In police interview, Grey said she believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward. "   
That is indeed how it looks to me too. 

If you want to see a proper cycle route come to the Netherlands, or Denmark, or Germany.

It isn't tricky it just requires a little thinking.

The fun bit is all three countries have managed it through ancient market towns, in the country and in modern cities.

It is easy, just hire planners who have not seen the "Tuscan Hillside" dream of driving but have driven through terrible UK urban roads.

Good infrastructure for bicycles means good infrastructure for car drivers too.

I believe the advertising authority should fine all car companies who advertise nonsense.