To think Auriol Grey being jailed is not appropriate.

If people are saying AG shouldn't be in a prison because she can't help it, then she cannot be rehabilitated from thinking that her actions are OK, and therefore should absolutely not be out in society and permanently detained elsewhere.

The fact she lied in her police interviews suggests that she knew that what she'd done was wrong and was manipulating events to try to give a different version. She clearly had capacity to do that.

I am appalled by this verdict. She shouldn't be in jail, she should be getting help.

Exactly this.

When you push a 77 year old woman to her death, flee the scene, lie to the police about all of it and show absolutely no remorse you absolutely deserve jail and the judge and jury saw to that.

How about you save your sympathy for the victim, her family and the poor driver.

That's not what actually happened though.

@thebigwangtheory The legal judge and jury who jailed her disagree with you. It's exactly what happened.

Agreed

She killed someone, she belongs in jail.

Daily Mail stirring the pot and promoting the 'waving' myth

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11822541/Disabled-woman-jailed-waving-cyclist-car-bullied-life.html

It was a tragic accident, an unfortunate chain of events. Let's hope she gets a suspended sentence on appeal.

She was walking closer to the inner side of the pavement but changed her direction to walk into the cyclist’s path then gesticulated at her, making contact, and making her fall off into the path of the car.

If she had stayed on her original path or moved closer to the inner side of the pavement, she would have been in no danger whatsoever - it was her choices and her lack of control that led to the death of another human being, and the trauma to her family and to the driver. Why don’t they matter?

That’s really sad.

It was no accident.

Celia falling off her bike and onto the road would have been an accident.

AG forced Celia onto the road. There was no reason for her to do that. None.

Had AG remained on her side of the pavement, this incident would never have occurred.

It was not an accident, and it is really concerning to hear so many people insist that it was.

What is accidental about barrelling intentionally towards someone while shouting and swatting at them?

It was not an accident, and it is really concerning to hear so many people insist that it was.

They don't understand the concept of manslaughter. They think that since Grey didn't carry out her actions with murderous intent, the only other thing it could be was an accident.

A truly shocking miscarriage of justice.

Auriol was a pedestrian who simply defended herself when a cyclist illegally rode on the pavement and rode past her leaving a tiny gap. The cyclist was inconsiderate and reckless. The cyclist attempted an unsafe manoeuvre. Cyclists do not have the right to force pedestrians out if their way.

Which side was her side?

1. The cyclist was not ‘illegally on the pavement’. It was accepted in court it might well be shared use. If not even the council / police can be sure, Celia may well have thought she was riding legally. It is quite possible she was correct.
2. There was a tiny gap because Auriol deliberately moved to the centre to block Celia. If she had stayed where she was or moved the other way, there was plenty of room. The only person trying to force someone out of their was was Auriol.
3. Auriol moved towards Celia (screaming abuse) to confront her and accepted ‘making contact’. Therefore she accepted assault.
4. The jury must have found the assault directly resulted in Celia’s death to find Auriol guilty of manslaughter.

There was no miscarriage of justice.

Which side was her side?

Out of their way not was

The side she was walking on.

She had no reason to cross over into the side that Celia was cycling on.

Can't believe people are falling for the Daily Fail crap!
She deserves to be where she is.

I don't get the ambiguity over whether cyclists were allowed on the pavement or not. It's a human decision over a man made structure. How can it not be possible to know this?

I don’t understand the question? The thread and people who live in the area make it clear that the council where the incident occurred don’t divide the path, they just designate it ‘shared use’. Therefore, all the pavement is designated for cycles and all the pavement is designated for pedestrians. They are just expected to act reasonably and courteously to each other.

Celia did. Auriol deliberately verbally abused, physically intercepted and (she admits) assaulted her. The assault resulted in Celia’s death.