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

That is a different question as to whether she should be convicted. If she is deemed to be unsafe to others because of her mental health then she should be detained on that basis. The two questions are completely separate considerations. People are not making that distinction in their responses.

Yes it is, it’s victim blaming. Any idea why I would have left if below your post?

Riding quickly past an aggressive person versus getting off my bike, turning it around, leaving my back to the aggressive person, then the time to get back on again. Yes its clear to me which is the riskier option when faced with a potential threat. Would be different if I could ride off in another direction without having to get off but there isn't room to turn the bike around without getting off it.

I'm disappointed you didn't answer my question about the walking stick..

How do you know she has hemiplegia? You are making a lot of assumptions about her medical condition and possible difficulties - are you qualified to do so? You talk of your own difficulties - how do you know hers are the same or similar, (there's no one size fits all)? And, as I said before, how do you know she was wearing a leg brace or that she always wears a leg brace? You seem to be assuming rather a lot.

Absolutely agree. And anyone who watched the police interview will have seen how she was fully cognisant to be able to lie, to be evasive or to "forget" at will. It is perfectly possible for someone to be disabled and yet to be fully aware of their actions and everyone will make up their own mind whether this was the case in this instance. Her frailty has been mentioned - but there was certainly force behind her gesticulations at the cyclist, and no problems with her balance when she did so, and (has been mentioned several times) she walked towards the cyclist, not away from her. If she was frightened for her own safety, surely the opposite would have been the case.

I find it odd that some posters on this and the previous thread have said that Grey walking directly at the cyclist, blocking the shared path, was a reasonable fear response, yet that a cyclist would have stopped if she was afraid.

Yes, these attempts to justify or minimise her behaviour are bizarre.

I understand that she has certain family members and perhaps others who are desperate to support her. And we all understand that the manslaughter conviction was overturned, that no assault 'base' charge had been brought and that she's now released from prison.

None of those things change the fact that Auriol Grey and Celia Ward both had a right to be on that path. Grey shouted and swore aggressively at Ward and flung out her arm making contact which clearly caused Ward to die a horrible death under the wheels of a car, which then led to PTSD for the car driver. I don't believe anyone honestly thinks Celia Ward would have fallen off the path without Grey's actions.

The subsequent lies and 'forgetting' in the police interview adds to the callousness of Grey's actions.

Because you're the sort of poster who likes to start unpleasant arguments on any thread and will stay up til the early hours to do that?

I am not blaming the victim in this case whatsoever, I'm just picking up on a comment a poster made earlier ie joining in the discussion.

Auriol Grey is at fault morally and Celia Ward shouldn't be victim blamed but a suitable shared space for cyclists would have had enough room for the cyclist to pass on the other side of the pavement and this didn't.

My DB’s FIL has a brain injury firstly as he has cerebral palsy and secondly because he suffered a stroke as an adult.

He has anger and aggression issues which he manages to keep under control on a day to day basis but sometimes he does get upset especially as some people think he’s stupid which he definitely isn’t.

I’ve seen a comment here though that this isn’t the first time that Auriol has attacked a cyclist whilst out, and whilst you can’t control people’s actions sometimes I do feel someone (social worker/someone assigned to her) should have known of this and spoken to her about her behaviour and actions. In a sense, I sort of understand why the police interview was why it was, they seemed to be asking relevant questions and Auriol as she assumed she was in the right avoided them or lied. But knew as an accident had happened and she was interviewed and it was a police matter that it was very serious.

You're walking down the street and you see someone walking towards you, shouting and gesticulating. What would you do?

I've been cycling for decades and use pavements when necessary, mostly it's fine and sometimes pedestrians get annoyed especially when they've previously had incidents with cyclists going past them too fast. When I'm on the pavement and I see I'm heading towards someone clearly in an unfriendly/aggressive mood I stop and get off my bike in the hope I won't have to have another tedious convo about cycling on the pavement being against the law.

Celia didn't have much time to read the situation, probably didn't want to have to stop and get off, a tragic accident resulted.

I found your comments unpleasant. Do you think that the cyclist bears some responsibility because she didn’t steer clear of Auriol? Because if so then yes, you are victim blaming.

Maybe you should refer to the appeal court judgement section 4 which gives a review of the appellants medical conditions.

You're walking down the street and you see someone walking towards you, shouting and gesticulating. What would you do?

If I was walking that would be scary. Nip between cars to cross the ring road maybe. Put my phone away securely and be ready to defend myself if I needed to pass them. If I thought of it, enter the surgery I was passing.

Agreed that most people would not continue moving towards someone who they were in fear of or presented some sort of hazard to them, or try to move past them in close proximity.

It's just not what people normally do.

It doesn't really matter what any of us might/ might not have done, the fact is that Celia Ward had every right to be on the shared path. Auriol Grey didn't like that and was verbally and physically aggressive resulting in Celia Ward's death.

I agree if you were walking, like Grey was. She did not approach Celia like she was afraid or thought the bike was a danger to her at all, she walked straight towards the bike, flinging her arm about aggressively and forced Celia onto the road. She did not act defensively or appear to consider her own safety or Celia's.

On a bike it is much trickier, as you would need to stop, dismount, swing your bike around, get back on, then get away quickly.

Celia did nothing wrong, she is the victim here. It was Grey who refused to share the path and forced Celia onto the road.

But surely if you’re cycling and especially at her age, you ensure you have time to read the situation, stop and get off your bicycle if need be and you’d know there could be issues with other motorists or as in this case, a pedestrian.

None of us like conflict but surely if she’d stopped, got off the bicycle and walked it to a safe place and in a safe way, this could’ve been avoided.

If it had just been a case of an obstruction in the pavement then obviously the correct course of action is to dismount and go round. It doesn't look like Celia knew what to do in the face of such an aggressive response.

Bloody hell, we're now into victim blaming territory....
'She didn't react in the 'right' way.'
Dear god...

Why was she riding a bike then?

I’ve said this before, if you know Highway Code or pass your Cycling Proficiency Test then you’d know what to do, as Celia would’ve known had she done either of these.

Not victim blaming at all. I think there were 2 sides to this story.

But, having seen Auriol had attacked another cyclist before this sort of changes my view on her.

No thanks. I have, however, watched the videos. And I'd also point out that medical reports have been known to be wrong - as have psychiatric reports. Or are you saying that doctors and/or psychiatrists have never been known to make mistakes? Very naïve, if so.

Yes, very odd that that’s what Auriol Grey chose to do isn’t it?