Auriol Grey conviction overturned

[Icantpossibly]

The original decision split opinion and I have no doubt today’s one will do the same.
I saw the report in The Independent online.
Aplogies if this duplicates another post. I looked and couldn’t see one

She is demonstrably a risk to others, because someone has died as a result of her behaviour.

Either she can control her actions and she should be held accountable for them, or she can’t and she should be assisted.

It’s pretty shocking how inconsistent people are. On the one hand this site is overrun with people demanding and expecting compassion and consideration for any neurodiversity or possible disabilities. Oh the other hand there is absolutely no compassion and even celebration of people’s misery if they have been deemed unworthy. Bunch of hypocrites.

I don't want her to be harassed, but it's a good thing that she can now be recognised so people will know to give her lots of space and stay safe.

“If she is too disabled to make that logical thought process, then she shouldn't be out on her own.”

I agree with this.
I don’t think she meant to cause death, clearly she was angry, waving her arms about and swearing. She’s had an autism diagnosis after the trial I believe?

A cyclist shouldn’t have been on the pavement, I didn’t think this was allowed? What I don’t understand is why the cyclist didn’t stop, get off her bike- don’t know how fast it all happened.
It’s tragic for all involved, including the driver of the vehicle.

There need to be more cycling lanes too- at least on roads like the one the lady died on.

A cyclist shouldn’t have been on the pavement, I didn’t think this was allowed? What I don’t understand is why the cyclist didn’t stop, get off her bike- don’t know how fast it all happened.

It was a shared path wasn't it? I would have been afraid to stop and walk past an aggressive person. Maybe there was no path on the opposite side to safely get by.

^This x1000

It was a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists.

Grey DID make contact with the cyclist - she admitted that eventually.

Grey has family members and other sympathisers who want to convince themselves she did nothing wrong, despite it being plainly obvious that the cyclist would not have fallen under a car and been killed if Grey hadn't sworn aggressively, gesticulated and made contact.

The fact Grey is released is because there was common assault was not named at the trial as a 'base offence' and therefore manslaughter couldn't be upheld. Her release does not negate her horrible act.

There are hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities who would never act like Grey did and would be horrified by what she caused.

I have to say I agree with you. It was an a accident and I’ve posted my other thoughts on another thread re this.

Auriol is ND, Mrs Ward was NT. But yes, let’s blame a ND person completely for this, who patently hasn’t had support from a lot of corners.

She was already abused verbally in public before this but you think that on top of this she should be given the same treatment? Do you want Auriol to become a recluse, self harm herself because of this incident?

What same treatment? I did not say I wanted her to do anything. Grey very obviously needs her personal space and her behaviour is unpredictable and possibly violent. If people know this then they can give her space and in doing so, also protect themselves from harm.

A woman has lost her life. I doubt that Grey has learnt from this and understands what she has done. Similar incidents could happen again, I just hope without such tragic consequences.

She’s got a powerful left arm for sure.

and can move quite quickly- That poor victim was clearly pushed off her bike - a sideways push with force can easily cause a lightweight cyclist to fall over sideways.

All sympathy with Cyclist’s family and the poor driver who doubtless will have stress for years because of Grey’s rage.

I‘m not surprised she lied in her interview. Her brother/BIL hadn’t been informed she was about to be questioned by the police and she’s someone who quite clearly is childlike and has brain damage from her birth date including cerebral palsy. But yes, it’s fine isn’t it to interview her as you would a NT person?

Of course she needs to not threaten people and to control her outbursts but this takes time and understanding.

I was actually wondering and we will never know now, if Auriol had seen Mrs Ward cycling on the same path or elsewhere or if indeed Mrs Ward had seen Auriol out and about (Auriol is a noticeable looking character and Mrs Ward may have heard of her or seen her doing similar before). Then this would explain why Mrs Ward didn’t stop and dismount. Why did no other member of the public step in to tell Auriol to stop berating Mrs Ward?

The same treatment was her being abused by members of the public.

I know some members of the public who’ll verbally abuse someone like Auriol for kicks. And they know that if they wind them up enough they’ll snap.

If it was a shared path (no markings or information to say that it was) then it shouldn't have been. It was far too narrow to be shared beside such a busy road. The cyclist should have stopped when she saw Auriol Grey approaching.

The same treatment was her being abused by members of the public.

I said in my previous post that I didn't want her to be harassed. I think members of the public should keep their distance if she is out unsupervised, give her space and avoid approaching her. I don't think anyone should treat her like she treats others, harass or abuse her. That would be both nasty and dangerous.

This lady has many issues and disabilities

I’ve said this on the other thread. Why on earth didn’t the cyclist stop, dismount and walk her bicycle?

But no, she didn’t do this and I was accused of victim blaming.

I'd guess fear of assault.

I think Auriol needs maybe accompanying when she goes out. Apparently she’s had an autism diagnosis since the trial.

I know an on the spectrum young man and whilst I don’t think he’d do what Auriol did, in the past he didn’t have a filter and I think was a target for others to verbally abuse. Now he lives and works in a small, well to do village where everyone knows him and he made friends with a prominent member of the village plus her family.

Had he stayed where he’d grown up, I think he’d be in danger of being harassed.

It’s all very well you and others think vulnerable adults aren’t abused the fact is they sometimes are. There’s a local home for adults with learning disabilities and other disabilities and you sometimes see them in the parks or community with their support workers but at least people see them and they in turn learn how to interact with members of the public.

But you weren’t there so how do you know she feared assault?

As I said on the other thread, if Mrs Ward cycled on the road, surely she’d encounter road users who may be aggressive at times. That’s what happens with road users sometimes and they should all be aware of that and act accordingly.

I have wondered this too. She was 77, I wondered if perhaps despite being fit enough to cycle she might have found getting on and off her bike difficult. Also I think Auriol Grey’s disabilities might not have been obvious to her- you would hope if a cyclist is approaching a disabled person on a narrow track they would dismount but perhaps she didn’t realise Grey wasn’t able bodied.

I have also wondered why more attention hasn’t been paid to the fact that the path was inadequately wide for a shared track and wasn’t properly signed, so neither of the people involved can be blamed for thinking they were using it properly: the cyclist for thinking she had a right to be on it and Auriol Grey for thinking she didn’t.

In any case the tragic accident was clearly a result of a number of different factors and if Auriol Grey is released from prison there is not a realistic danger she’s going to go around pushing cyclists off bikes willy nilly.

Cyclists seem to be able to go around killing pedestrians and not go to prison, so I guess it should be the same the other way round 🤷‍♀️ it's only fair isn't it?

I never said vulnerable adults aren't abused, I said they shouldn't be.