Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.

The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.

The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.

All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987

On 11/11/2023 11:39 am, Simon Mason wrote:

> Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.
> The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.
> The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

At 05:10?

> He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.
> All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987

How many of the three (it was just three, was it?) were driving?

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
> Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.
>
> The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.
>
> The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.
>
> He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.
>
> All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987

The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

On 11/11/2023 01:44 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:

>> Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.
>> The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.
>> The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.
>> He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.
>> All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987

> The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

Please state what on Earth you are talking about (or trying to, at least).

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:

>> Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by
>> dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.

>> The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the
>> junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.

>> The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

>> He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting
>> the course of justice.

>> All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on
>> bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.

>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987

> The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

Are you really that thick?

QUOTE Christine Hamilton has escaped a fine for speeding - by claiming she
didn't know whether she or her husband Neil was driving at the time.
The former Tory minister's wife told a court that one of them was behind
the wheel of her car when it was snapped by a speed camera going 63mph
through roadworks on the M62 in a temporary 50mph zone.

But Mrs Hamilton, 53, explained that the couple shared driving duties on
their regular long journeys and she couldn't be sure who committed the
offence.

"Yes, it was speeding but I couldn't tell who was driving," she said.
District Judge Alan Berg accepted the explanation and threw out the case.

Outside court Mrs Hamilton declared: "One more victory for motorists.
Justice has been done. It is not always my experience and I'm absolutely
delighted."

However, motoring groups voiced fears that many drivers could use the same
defence to illegitimately escape fines. Represented herself

Mrs Hamilton was accompanied by her husband to Manchester City Magistrates'
Court, where she represented herself.

She denied a charge of failing to supply details to the Chief Constable of
Manchester of who was driving her R-reg Rover Sterling when the speeding
offence was committed in Greater Manchester in February.

Under Section 172(2) of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, it carries a fine of up
to £1,000 and a mandatory three-point endorsement. The speed camera picture
was submitted to the court but didn't show who was driving.

The couple were snapped returning from Guiseley, West Yorkshire, to their
former home in Nether Alderley, Cheshire, after opening a nursery school.

Mrs Hamilton told the court that she and her husband drove more than 30,000
miles a year making guest appearances and in that particular week had been
in Preston, Cumbria, Birmingham, Cheshire and Leeds.

"It is pretty difficult to remember who was driving the car at any time on
any particular journey," she said.

When a letter arrived asking for the driver's details she had no
recollection of the roadworks or speeding, she said.

She replied to the notice but could not supply the information about the
driver. "I did not know beyond reasonable doubt who was driving," she said.

"I thought it would have been reckless to guess or calculate on the balance
of probability. I would have had a 50 per cent chance of being wrong." Not
guilty

Under the law, it is an offence not to identify a driver unless the owner
is unable to do so despite using "reasonable diligence".

Finding her not guilty, the judge accepted this was the case with Mrs
Hamilton. He added he had "absolutely no reason to disbelieve her in any
respect at all".

Mrs Hamilton's last speeding fine was 12 years ago and her husband's in
1976. She said a fine would not have bothered her and points on their
licences would not have been "catastrophic".

The couple became celebrities after Mr Hamilton's failed "cash for
questions" libel action against Harrods boss Mohammed Al Fayed.

After the speeding case the former MP, 54, said: "It helps our average. Our
experience in Court 8 at Manchester has been rather more enjoyable than
Court 13 in the High Court."

Mrs Hamilton insisted after the case: "I tried everything in my power to
comply with the law." Charity condemns decision

But Mary Williams, of the road safety charity Brake, said: "People should
stand up and be counted for their own offending.

"If the vehicle is theirs, they admit to being in it, if they can't
identity one or the other then one should accept the speeding offence or
both should be fined."

Kevin Delaney, of the RAC Foundation, said the judge's decision was a "very
wide interpretation" of the law and opened the way for "many thousands" of
people to try to escape fines.

Four years ago a speeding case against Sir Alex Ferguson was thrown out
after Manchester United claimed it could not discover who was driving the
club's BMW at the time of the offence.

ENDQUOTE

The news item is in the paper you sometimes quote from:

<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-202833/Christine-Hamilton-cleared-speeding.html>

--
Spike

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 1:44:53 PM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
> > Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.
> >
> > The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.
> >
> > The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.
> >
> > He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.
> >
> > All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.
> >
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987
> The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

They were only in their 20's and must have thought that the coppers were still wet behind the ears!
Oldest trick in the book.

On 11/11/2023 01:57 pm, Spike wrote:

> Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>>> Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by
>>> dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.
>
>>> The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the
>>> junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.
>
>>> The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.
>
>>> He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting
>>> the course of justice.
>
>>> All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on
>>> bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.
>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987
>
>> The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.
>
> Are you really that thick?
>
> QUOTE Christine Hamilton has escaped a fine for speeding - by claiming she
> didn't know whether she or her husband Neil was driving at the time.
> The former Tory minister's wife told a court that one of them was behind
> the wheel of her car when it was snapped by a speed camera going 63mph
> through roadworks on the M62 in a temporary 50mph zone.
>
> But Mrs Hamilton, 53, explained that the couple shared driving duties on
> their regular long journeys and she couldn't be sure who committed the
> offence.
>
> "Yes, it was speeding but I couldn't tell who was driving," she said.
> District Judge Alan Berg accepted the explanation and threw out the case.
>
> Outside court Mrs Hamilton declared: "One more victory for motorists.
> Justice has been done. It is not always my experience and I'm absolutely
> delighted."
>
> However, motoring groups voiced fears that many drivers could use the same
> defence to illegitimately escape fines. Represented herself
>
> Mrs Hamilton was accompanied by her husband to Manchester City Magistrates'
> Court, where she represented herself.
>
> She denied a charge of failing to supply details to the Chief Constable of
> Manchester of who was driving her R-reg Rover Sterling when the speeding
> offence was committed in Greater Manchester in February.
>
> Under Section 172(2) of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, it carries a fine of up
> to £1,000 and a mandatory three-point endorsement. The speed camera picture
> was submitted to the court but didn't show who was driving.
>
> The couple were snapped returning from Guiseley, West Yorkshire, to their
> former home in Nether Alderley, Cheshire, after opening a nursery school.
>
> Mrs Hamilton told the court that she and her husband drove more than 30,000
> miles a year making guest appearances and in that particular week had been
> in Preston, Cumbria, Birmingham, Cheshire and Leeds.
>
> "It is pretty difficult to remember who was driving the car at any time on
> any particular journey," she said.
>
> When a letter arrived asking for the driver's details she had no
> recollection of the roadworks or speeding, she said.
>
> She replied to the notice but could not supply the information about the
> driver. "I did not know beyond reasonable doubt who was driving," she said.
>
> "I thought it would have been reckless to guess or calculate on the balance
> of probability. I would have had a 50 per cent chance of being wrong." Not
> guilty
>
> Under the law, it is an offence not to identify a driver unless the owner
> is unable to do so despite using "reasonable diligence".
>
> Finding her not guilty, the judge accepted this was the case with Mrs
> Hamilton. He added he had "absolutely no reason to disbelieve her in any
> respect at all".
>
> Mrs Hamilton's last speeding fine was 12 years ago and her husband's in
> 1976. She said a fine would not have bothered her and points on their
> licences would not have been "catastrophic".
>
> The couple became celebrities after Mr Hamilton's failed "cash for
> questions" libel action against Harrods boss Mohammed Al Fayed.
>
> After the speeding case the former MP, 54, said: "It helps our average. Our
> experience in Court 8 at Manchester has been rather more enjoyable than
> Court 13 in the High Court."
>
> Mrs Hamilton insisted after the case: "I tried everything in my power to
> comply with the law." Charity condemns decision
>
> But Mary Williams, of the road safety charity Brake, said: "People should
> stand up and be counted for their own offending.
>
> "If the vehicle is theirs, they admit to being in it, if they can't
> identity one or the other then one should accept the speeding offence or
> both should be fined."

So as far as "Brake" is concerned, it doesn't matter if an innocent
person is convicted and punished?

Thanks for confirming that, Brake. It shows that you are, at heart, an
organisation without regard for justice.
>
> Kevin Delaney, of the RAC Foundation, said the judge's decision was a "very
> wide interpretation" of the law and opened the way for "many thousands" of
> people to try to escape fines.

Hey, RAC Foundation:

1. Whose side are you supposed to be on?

2. "...many thousands..." (or whatever number) of INNOCENT people. The
offence being tried was NOT "speeding". It was "failing to identify" a
person who was driving. And there is a reasonable defence to that charge
written into the legislation (and quite right too).

> Four years ago a speeding case against Sir Alex Ferguson was thrown out
> after Manchester United claimed it could not discover who was driving the
> club's BMW at the time of the offence.
>
> ENDQUOTE
>
> The news item is in the paper you sometimes quote from:
>
> <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-202833/Christine-Hamilton-cleared-speeding.html>

On 11/11/2023 01:59 pm, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 1:44:53 PM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:39:26 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
>>> Two more men have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after a cyclist was killed in a crash with a Mercedes.
>>>
>>> The cyclist, a man in his 50s, died at the scene on Watton Road, at the junction with Colney Lane, Norwich, at about 05:10 GMT on Thursday.
>>>
>>> The motorist was also arrested on suspicion of drink driving.
>>>
>>> He and the two occupants of the car were also suspected of perverting the course of justice.
>>>
>>> All three, who were aged in their 20s, were questioned and released on bail, Norfolk Constabulary said.
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67384987
>> The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.
>
> They were only in their 20's and must have thought that the coppers were still wet behind the ears!
> Oldest trick in the book.

What is?

How often have you tried it (whatever it is)?

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2023 01:57 pm, Spike wrote:

>> But Mary Williams, of the road safety charity Brake, said: "People should
>> stand up and be counted for their own offending.

>> "If the vehicle is theirs, they admit to being in it, if they can't
>> identity one or the other then one should accept the speeding offence or
>> both should be fined."

Funny that Brake says in one sentence “People should stand up and be
counted for their own offending” and then says in the case of a vehicle
containing two people “both should be fined”!

Hypocritical or what!

> So as far as "Brake" is concerned, it doesn't matter if an innocent
> person is convicted and punished?

> Thanks for confirming that, Brake. It shows that you are, at heart, an
> organisation without regard for justice.

It sounds like Brake would fit right in to the cycling world, what with
cyclists’ total disregard for the law and all that…

>> <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-202833/Christine-Hamilton-cleared-speeding.html>

--
Spike

On 11/11/2023 03:29 pm, Spike wrote:

> JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2023 01:57 pm, Spike wrote:
>
>>> But Mary Williams, of the road safety charity Brake, said: "People should
>>> stand up and be counted for their own offending.
>
>>> "If the vehicle is theirs, they admit to being in it, if they can't
>>> identity one or the other then one should accept the speeding offence or
>>> both should be fined."
>
> Funny that Brake says in one sentence “People should stand up and be
> counted for their own offending” and then says in the case of a vehicle
> containing two people “both should be fined”!
>
> Hypocritical or what!

Indeed. Despite anti-libertarian laws forcing accused people to behave
obligingly and convict themselves, the basis of any liberal democratic
legal system is that it is up to the accuser (even if that's the state)
to prove their case.

And if they cannot do that (though they usually can): no case to answer.

The absolute bedrock of law and order.
>
>> So as far as "Brake" is concerned, it doesn't matter if an innocent
>> person is convicted and punished?
>
>> Thanks for confirming that, Brake. It shows that you are, at heart, an
>> organisation without regard for justice.
>
> It sounds like Brake would fit right in to the cycling world, what with
> cyclists’ total disregard for the law and all that…
>
>>> <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-202833/Christine-Hamilton-cleared-speeding.html>

> The old switcheroo trick NEVER works, you thick muppets.

Cleverer people than these thick chavs have tried and failed with that trick.

QUOTE: Regina v Christopher Huhne and Vasiliki Pryce is the prosecution of the former British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne MP, and his former wife, Vicky Pryce, the former Head of the Government Economic Service, for perverting the course of justice, contrary to common law. Huhne became the first Cabinet minister in British history to resign as a consequence of criminal proceedings. On 4 February 2013, Huhne was convicted on the basis of his own plea after re-arraignment. The trial of Pryce began on the following day, lasting until 20 February 2013 when the jury were discharged by the judge. A re-trial began on 25 February 2013 and led to the conviction of Pryce on 7 March 2013. ENDS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Huhne