In the news

Tony Danker by name Touchy wanker by nature?

Cockney rhyming slang if I ever heard it.

https://www.pharmacy.biz/closure-of-lloyds-pharmacy-branches-will-wake-up-ministers-to-reality-of-funding-crisis-faced-by-community-pharmacy/

Old news (Friday), but it does completely undermine the government plans to increase the involvement of pharmacists in primary care if the second largest provider were to offload all of its stores.

The immigration stories have been ramped up again with all the bad press the government should be getting (partygate again, empty shelves, Hancock, Raab, etc.), of course...

Full statement from the judge in that angry pedestrian vs elderly cyclist on pavement case. Lots of context and explanation here which of course not covered in the media:

You have been convicted of manslaughter after a re-trial. You gave no evidence at trial one or two. In broad terms, the issue at trial was whether what took place might have been an accident, self-defence or unlawful violence. You were convicted unanimously by the jury.

Most of what took place was captured on camera footage. You were walking on the pavement. You resented the presence of an oncoming cyclist. The footage shows you shouting aggressively and waving your left arm. You do not stop, slow down or move to one side. You are territorial about the pavement and not worried for your own safety. After careful thought, I concluded these actions are not explained by your disabilities.

The court heard evidence from a number of witnesses, and I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”. She fell into the busy ring road where she was killed by a passing car driven by Carla Money.

This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide.

I have considered the evidence about eyesight and the CCTV footage and visual impairment was not a factor in this incident.

You and Mrs Ward both welcomed the safety of the pavement. She because she was an elderly cyclist and you because of your disabilities. Consideration for other road users is the lesson of this tragic case. We are all road users, whether as motorists, cyclists or on foot.

I have been referred to the guidelines on unlawful act manslaughter issued by the Sentencing Council and have heard submissions from both parties.

In terms of the guidance, looking at these matters in the round, culpability C is made out, but towards the lower end of the scale.

A starting point of four years seems just, based on my finding that the sweep of your arm was an intentional act but being reckless as to whether harm would be caused.

I reject the submission that this is best framed in terms of category D for reasons I have indicated.

Aggravating factors

The vulnerability of Mrs Ward who was on a bike.

The effect on Mrs Carla Money (in so far as her first statement extends). Her enduring distress is entirely foreseeable.

Matters reducing seriousness and personal mitigation

You offered assistance at the scene, but you were turned away by others. But, on the other hand, you then left before police arrived and went off to do shopping. You were evasive when police traced you and told lies in interview.

You have no convictions or cautions or reprimands. You are 49 years old. This stands to your credit.

Your medical history and significant disabilities would have crushed many but you have endured all that in a commendable way. Until now have demonstrated a positive lifestyle and I have no doubt that over the years you have endured all kinds of difficulties when going around the town centre which may have made you angry on this occasion. In any event, your prior good character stands to your credit.

Is there a mental disorder bearing on these issues? I do not think so.

As to learning difficulties, there are none. Much was made in cross examination of what witnesses referred to as a “childlike face”. In fact you went to a mainstream school and denied in interview having any impairment of intellect. That is not decisive, in my view and I put it to one side. Both experts suggested that the childhood surgery resulted in “a degree of cognitive impairment”. (In my view, these difficulties do not bear on your understanding of what is right and wrong and what is appropriate or not). I should say that I saw the video your police interviews, I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle. I have also read the pre-sentence report and medical evidence and have learned as much about you as I can.

Remorse. There has not been a word about remorse from you until the pre-sentence report was prepared, and here there is a reference to remorse which has never been passed on to the Ward family. In this regard I accept your counsel’s explanation that this may be a function of your disabilities and do not hold it against you.

There has been a delay in getting this case to trial. This is a mitigating factor I must take into account in your favour.

I also take into account the particular difficulties, occasioned by your disabilities, that you will face in prison and when you emerge.

Balancing all these considerations, the proper sentence is three years imprisonment.

Judges really sometimes are remarkable people aren't they?

I couldn't do it for the world.

I know quite few, personally, ranging from county to supreme court. Genuinely impressive people, all of them. Some more than others, mind.

Full statement

Thanks, useful, although (I'm sure you know this) these are specifically the sentencing remarks, which naturally concentrate on the defendant. The judgement will contain more information on the events. From a cursory search, I think one may have to register on thelawpages.com to view it, or perhaps request it in some other way that I've missed. Lawyers on here will know, of course.

Great, would you be able to share further detail?

Je suis Lineker ✊

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/08/gary-lineker-bbc-uk-asylum-policy-nazi-germany-match-of-the-day-presenter

You are on your own apparently:

“Gary Lineker is paid for by the British taxpayer and it is disappointing that he is so far out of step with the British public.

The deputy chair of the Conservative party Lee Anderson wrote on Facebook: “This is just another example of how out of touch these overpaid stars are with the voting public.

Jenrick: “Gary Lineker is paid for by the British taxpayer and it is disappointing that he is so far out of step with the British public.”

Remind me who pays your wages, Robert?

Good old Gary, upsetting the right people.

Bloody snowflakes.

Interesting.

Shit like this though doesn't help anyone - https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cyclists-have-been-given-a-licence-to-ride-on-the-pavement/

Doesn't even mention that it was a shared path.

Robert Jenrick, massive champion of free speech except "no, not you talking about that thing"

Genuinely fuck these people for printing such shit.

Yes, Clarkson levels of fuckery there

Fuck sake, you've fallen for it and given them clicks.

Reminds me of the first few seconds of this song

https://youtu.be/MGl0UQTSLL8

Good old Gary, upsetting the right people.

You might change from 'Good' to 'Complicated' or possibly even 'Tax avoiding', should you know that Gary thinks he does not work for you.

shared path.

These are the work of the devil though

At least they make a couple of grand in advertising from a dead cyclist.

All it's missing is a thumbnail of the perpetrator with an angry emoji face and a big yellow arrow.

Fuck sake, you've fallen for it and given them clicks.

I think nowadays it's subscriptions that are the baseline, so more clicks, but no subscriptions (I hope) should reflect the content isn't resonating and their conversion numbers down a smidge.

That's my theory anyway.

(I also sent a complaint to the editor about lazy journalism etc, but I expect they get a lot of them and don't particularly care).

(I also sent a complaint to the editor about lazy journalism etc, but I expect they get a lot of them and don't particularly care).

I have just done the same and included the judges summing up posted above.

Edit - And the IPSO on the basis of accuracy.