To think Auriol Grey being jailed is not appropriate.

She did more than that as she herself has admitted.

But yes, carry on defending the poor defenceless hard done by disabled woman who is shocked that there are consequences to her actions.

‘Standing your ground’, and deliberately moving towards confrontation while acting in an aggressive manner are two VERY different things, @Freddie1964.

@Deanandthellhounds er a lady DIED. Did you miss that part???? 🙄

The more I watch that video, the more it really looks like a push to me. But even if it is gesticulating, you don't gesticulate like that at someone on a bike right by a busy road, because you could easily unbalance them and send them in front of a car.

That should be obvious.

And presumably, given the poor cyclist was run over almost immediately, there must have been a car coming that AG would have been aware of.

If your shouting and gesticulating causes someone to die, then yes, you should be punished.

And deliberately moving to block the cyclist’s path as well as flailing her arms in such a way that she came into contact with Celia Ward (by her own admission).

She’s lucky they couldn’t prove it was a shove not just ‘contact’ (although it looks like a push to me on the video). Shoving someone onto a busy road might well be enough for the jury to find intent to do GBH which, if death occurs, means a murder conviction and life imprisonment.

Frankly I think this thread - and many of the posts on it - are an insult to the real victim who lost her life, and it should be taken down. It is clear from the video what happened and I trust that the court got it right having examined all the evidence (including mitigating factors).

Posters are believing the stories being told by the tabloid press - disgusting rags like the Daily Mail - and playing on widespread hatred of cyclists to whip them up. Does this site have to be just an extension of all of that? The credulousness has got out of hand here.

Heaven knows how the victim's family and friends must feel.

She was convicted based on her shouting and gesticulating. She didn't admit there was any contact, she said their may have been. If she'd been convicted based on her physically pushing or forcing the cyclist into the road then we can be fairly certain that would have been reported.

The only people claiming a push are people like you who haven't had access to all the evidence.

I didn't say otherwise.

Cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement end of.

They shouldn't, I agree.

But the punishment for being on the pavement ought not to be death.

There simply wasn't room for the cyclist to pass the pedestrian safely and leave a considerate gap. Therefore the cyclist should have stopped. My instinct is normally to pass people on the left but Celia wanted to pass on the right. Better to stop and take care.

AG also states “if I’m a good girl I’ll be out in 18 months!” yet STILL has intention of appealing? Still no remorse, still doesn’t give a shit what she’s done and still only thinks about herself.

She said that?

That's disgusting!

I originally thought her sentence was too long for what seemed to be an unfortunate accident. Te more I read about her, the more I think it wasn't long enough.

Because it was not a shared cycleway.

It wasn't. The punishment was a woman waving and shouting at her for cycling on the pavement. The fact she then swerved suggests she was riding too fast and/or not in control. If there's an obstruction you stop, and you should be cycling at a speed where you're able to stop safely.

Then what exactly is it you are saying, because I don’t understand?

She was shouting and gesticulating at an elderly woman who was balancing on a bicycle at the very edge of a busy road.

She wasn’t convicted “based on her shouting and gesticulating” she was convicted on the basis that a reasonable person would have know that shouting and gesticulating in these circumstances would carry a risk of harm to the cyclist. Which it did, it caused her to fall into oncoming traffic.

She’s lucky they couldn’t prove it was a shove not just ‘contact’ (although it looks like a push to me on the video). Shoving someone onto a busy road might well be enough for the jury to find intent to do GBH which, if death occurs, means a murder conviction and life imprisonment.

I agree. She was very lucky indeed.

It makes no difference.

The court seemed to think it was a shared foot / cycle path.
But even it wasn't it still doesn't make it right to push someone in front of a car.

The Daily Fail mugs have arrived

Having disabilities isn’t a get out of jail free card unfortunately. The judge and jury saw all the footage involved - then contemplated her health conditions and took that into account - and decided she was guilty.

You’re making a lot of baseless posts when you’re not in receipt of the full facts. There was clearly something in the footage that was not released to the public that swayed their opinion. It could be that there was physical contact between her and the cyclist. It could be that there was clearly a vehicle approaching. It could be that once the cyclist was hit, the offender said or did something awful before going to Sainsbury’s.

Showing remorse and being of good character from her other actions at the scene may have allowed her to get a lower sentence as it could have lowered the culpability/seriousness of her offence.

For someone describes as “childlike” she managed to say “get the fuck off the pavement” ok didn’t she?

@Freddie1964 There was not room to safely pass so Celia should have stopped.

Based on what?
The path was 2.4 meters, which is more than ample space for a pedestrian and a cyclist to pass each other. By a long way.

This offender’s actions of forcing this cyclist into the road is not far from pushing someone onto the tracks at a train station. That’s why she was convicted. It’s not merely about shouting or “gesticulating”. It’s about the context; the danger from the cars approaching that were unable to stop in time to account for someone being forced into their path. It was not the right time or place for this offender to try and confront the cyclist based on the danger around them - essentially leading someone to their death.

I hate these threads. The court will have been presented with all the evidence and come to a verdict and sentence based on that.

People watch two seconds of a video, grasp on to two or three details and decide they know better.

What and children don't swear ?