- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
The Pussy Pass…
… still alive and well. Unlike this selfish c**t's victims.
Mariticide, infanticide and now killing innocent people not even related to her.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/car-crash-enfield-m25-ji...
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 15 min 47 sec ago
Tier scooters - When visiting Keynsham I found several apparently dumped (not all at once - could have been the same ones? )...
- mdavidford 20 min 20 sec ago
The answer to this is to have no friends.
- mdavidford 26 min 22 sec ago
To be fair to Attenborough, he doesn't appear to actually have any involvement in or have offered any particular support for the campaign. A child...
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 41 min ago
What's that? A mobile home for squirrels?
- Backladder 2 hours 13 min ago
While original sash windows are nice they make it very hard to keep the house warm, we eventually went for upvc double glazed sash window...
- Andrewbanshee 3 hours 37 min ago
As you said the pedals will be hidden anyway. My shoes, 3 pairs of them, have reflective strips on the heel and my winter trousers do too on the...
- Steve K 3 hours 38 min ago
Other drivers only care about disabled people when it gives them a way to object to cycling infrastructure.
- mark1a 11 hours 41 min ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- chrisonabike 17 hours 7 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
Add new comment
28 comments
Well the further info on that Metro link would indeed infer little doubt that she's defo a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
I do hope however, and I might have missed it, that this woman should not be allowed to drive a car again, regardless of how much better she's feeling.
I reckon if she'd had a choice beforehand, she'd have chosen not to have the psychotic episode regardless of the consequences. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy. Do people have to be on a bicycle to get any kind of sympathy from some here?
And I had such a cunning plan, too...
wibble.
The Metro has some more details about her behaviour in hospital:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/24/councillor-killed-driver-100mph-rush-home-deliver-message-god-10452901/
My understanding is that you have to be seriously mentally ill to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. It's not like you can stick a pair of pants on your head and a pencil up either nostril and get away with anything you feel like.
Thanks Tom, as I said earlier her behaviour was not... normal, but sadly nowadays people are far too quick to pile in on an internet forum post without checking the basic facts.
Off to the next...
https://xkcd.com/386/
It's an interesting moral dilemma - criminal psychologists are heading towards a conclusion that the person is not responsible for their behaviour. I seem to recall a Radiolab episode on the matter where someone's personality had changed as the result of a TBI or something similar and they were acquitted of murder.
There are also long-term moves to consider non-custodial sentences for mothers because locking them up unfairly punishes their child - there have been guidelines on the matter for years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48663833
We also know from research that drivers behave very differently behind the wheel in comparison to when they're not driving. People take insane risks and in general are much, much more aggressive.
Whilst driving this morning I got cut up on a two-lane on-slip by an Audi S3 doing what must have been close to 100mph. Had to slam on the brakes to avoid clipping him as he swapped from the outside to inside lane (where I was). Uphill sliproad, no armco, trees alongside with a steep drop into a small stream. If I'd clipped him he would be dead. And all that only to pull into the services at the next junction - for a Costa drive-thru no less - so clearly not an emergency. In my book that counts as completely irrational behaviour. On that basis, can any driver be responsible for their actions?
Carry on with that sort of thinking and you'll soon be a high court judge.
"Pussy Pass" refers to the tendency for women to receive lighter sentencing than men for the same crime. It is a real, observable phenomenon, but grown-ups refer to it as "sentencing disparity".
I have no problem with the lady being cleared of the offence due to mental health issues affecting her judgement at the time, but I do have a problem with her being allowed to drive again. In my opinion, her licence should be withdrawn on medical grounds. Another episode could mean another two innocent deaths.
I've no problem with her not being sent to prison as a result of a guilty verdict (though I know that option wasnt available), but I dont think she should have been cleared completely, a serious crime was committed, a person died as a result,she was culpable for those actions even if mentally,and I'm not qualified to assess that either way,she cant be held responsible.
But its another case the CPS lose for death by dangerous driving in front of a jury who almost certainly empathised strongly with the defendant, which means the CPS will be that little bit more reluctant to pursue that charge in the future in cases that should warrant it,because they just dont get the convictions.
...and what is it with the OP's anger towards women in general? It's irrational.
(Unlike my distrust of petrolsexuals of all genders...that's just a rational assessment of reality)
Oh, dear.
Lazy, immature 'thinking'.
I am absolutely in favour of equality between men and women.
Which is why I oppose feminism.
Such a cringeworthy take
From Wikipedia:
What definition of 'feminism' are you using because as it stands you're not making any sense.
I'm pretty sure that "feminism" doesn't actually mean "enslave all the men and make them work for us wimmin", you know... (Not since they stopped making 1970s sitcoms, anyway).
It appears that you don't understand feminism, then.
While we are on the subject of lazy and immature thinking, please could you elaborate on the name of this topic and what you meant by your original comment? I note you haven't attempted to explain or defend it yet. Thanks.
The fact that people can suddenly have such episodes is another reason why it should not be considered normal for people to operate deadly machinery in public places. Certainly there's no reason why motorised vehicles should be capable of such speeds.
There's not enough info in the report to judge, but I'm concerned about what steps have been taken to ensure that she can't suffer another bout of mania and cause another incident. It's not so much about extracting punishment but more about protecting the public.
Was she declared unfit to drive for a number of years in a similar fashion to other illnesses with a proper assessment before allowing her a retest?
The problem in many cases is that some form of illness is seen as an excuse. That is so wrong. If a person has been killed then the perpetrator should be punished accordingly. Any mental state should not be considered. they have still killed. Indeed anyone who has killed when not sound of mind should have a more severe punishment as they obviously don't have the "normal" state of mind that actually stops most people killing> No sympathy, just consequences.
We cannot live in a world where everybody is gievn the benefit of the doubt or compassion.
Except it is so easy to imagine a number of scenarios where the person is in no way responsible for their actions. 2 examples that spring to mind would be:
Bad reactions to pharmaceuticals, either prescription or administered illegally by a third party.
Having received a brain injury or suffering a brain tumour that causes a change of behaviour.
I'd far sooner live in a world where benefit of the doubt and compassion come before revenge. Though of course this has to be tied to appropriate treatment options and appropriate steps to protect society where risks can be identified in advance.
Had to accept something similar a few years ago when a dear work colleague was killed in horrific circumstances by her partner whilst suffering a psychotic episode. In that case a very long and possibly permanent stay at a secure institution for treatment was the correct outcome but still difficult at times to think that somehow justice was evaded.
Cannot comment on this particular "crazy whilst in charge of a motor vehicle" case, but I can absolutely sympathise with the bereaved. I'd personally find it very difficult to see that woman behind the wheel again but I'm pretty sure the ensuing charge of destruction of property by arson would have a solid defence of diminished responsibility.
The problem is that it's hard to digest that apparently at time 'X' a person can appear sane, at 'X+1hour' she goes on a rampage, kills a couple of persons, is admitted to an institution and a couple of months later, 2 psychiatrists (a discipline which I guess will be treated in 200 years with the respect currently reserved for 16th century quacks) seem to be in total agreement that at that precise time in the past, the lady was certifiably insane but that by the time the jury had to form an opinion, the traumatised soul was well enough to return home (and purchase a new car?). I guess the family of the victims completely understands. The saying goes that even in exact sciences a scientist stands on an island in a sea of ignorance. Psychiatry is anything but an exact science, yet the people active in the field present it like if it's calculus.
If you read about this you will see that she was examined in hospital after the crash and her behaviour was not... Normal.
If you have good reason to revise the DSM or ICD criteria for mental illness you should probably be in touch with the relevant authorities.
Her behaviour, driving at 127mph, was not 'normal', by definition. At what point does criminality become automatically exculpatory by reason of being 'not normal behaviour'? It's catch-22 in reverse.
At the point 2 psychiatrists a judge and jury, who are fully informed of the facts, make a decision. If you have evidence that she was not suffering from a mental illness, please present it!
Eh?
According to the article, two independent psychiatrists, one forensic, examined her and diagnosed a recognised mental illness.
What is the problem here?