Auriol Grey's manslaughter sentence overturned for killing cyclist. Correct decision?

[Locutus2000]

Reported in multiple outlets - BBC.

Mixed feelings - it was a complex case with no winners on any side.

The judge didn't see a push.
You're imagining things to suit your own narrative.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2068852/shocking-video-nine-drivers-jump-red-light-falkirk/

Never happens

AG is not a victim. She's an extremely lucky woman who has gotten away with killing someone. Celia and Carla and their families are the victims and are suffering a life sentence, dished out by an aggressive AG.

This. The number of apologists is unreal.

Not terribly nice to refer to someone with obvious mental health and learning difficulties, not to mention partial blindness as ‘the lunatic’ is it ?

This.

The fact of the matter is that if AG had not comes across Celia that day and behaved the way she did as though she owned the pavement. Celia would not have lost her life in such a horrific way.

AG might have got away with this, but her aggressive actions caused a death.

I’m convinced it’s because they feel protective over the fact AG is an older woman, has some form of disability and struggles socially. It seems to be the profile of many on here to be fair so I’m not surprised. The comments would be wildly different had she been a man shouting abuse before seemingly knocking or forcing an elderly female cyclist into the road where she was run over and killed.

And clearly didn’t read the judgement. Even prosecution have accepted there was no evidence of a push and didn’t try to argue against the appeal on those grounds.

An older woman???

She was 46 when the incident occurred! 🤯

@Welovecrumpets agree. Mumsnet is full of antisocial intolerant people who hate everyone and fit the profile of AG.

It's because: cyclist

Seriously.

That’s why I said older; not old. 46 is probably the median age on here

The fact of the matter is that if AG had not comes across Celia that day and behaved the way she did as though she owned the pavement.........

The irony.
Pavements are for pedestrians, not cyclists.

Seems likely. Added to which MN is incredibly ageist and seems to see a 77 year old woman as expendable.

"Something you read at the time", huh? Good job we don't make laws on that basis.

I still 😬 at the idea of anyone older than 14 referring to a 46 year old as “older woman”.

Now I’m thinking the median age on here must be really young. 😅

She acted like one, It shouldn't be normal to shout and scream at someone on a path is it?

If she has such impairments, should she be allowed out on her own? for her safety and for everyone else's.

I wonder if AGs many fans would be so keen on her if she 'd forced a young child on bicycle in to the road? or would we get "the little bastard deserved it, shouldn't be on the shared path"

Maybe it wouldn't matter, seems any cyclist is fair game on MN.

It's been now proven that it was a shared space and there is now signage. Even IF Celia was using the pavement incorrectly. She did not deserve to be killed.

Britain is becoming more cycle friendly so get used to it.

Pedestrians always cross at formal crossings, don't they? Show me a city or town where some pedestrians don't recklessly weave in and out of busy traffic to cross roads. It doesn't meant that all pedestrians do that. Some do, some don't.

What other cyclists do or do not do or where is irrelevant. What matters is that someone, who happened to be on a bike, was killed as a direct result of another person's actions. It wasn't an unavoidable accident. There is fault and there is blame but they are not Mrs Ward's. AG shares the blame along with her parents and any other teams involved in the care which failed her. This behavior/risk did not just manifest overnight.

She hasn't done anything against the law. Apparently.

So it is my opinion that the law should change.

If you cause someone's death by behaving aggressively, anti-socially or erratically then you should be punished.

Pedestrians can cross where they want?

Somebody ‘accused’ us of fixating on the ‘death of an old woman’ rather than rushing to defend AG and her ‘needs’ some pages back. Shocking.

You mean the same law that worked really well for all parties in this case? You really think it would make a difference? Parents know whether their children can have violent/angry outbursts if they have had additional needs from birth.