Video: Pimlico Plumbers appeal to catch cycling ‘criminal’ – but get accused of faking footage

Absolutely Fake... look at the video around the 20 second mark, you can see the cyclist past the car - yet the wing mirror is still attached to the car with no damage to it at all... If a cyclist had kicked it the wing mirror would have folded forward and probably been hanging down by the wires for the electrical adjustment, and also the cyclist doesn't seem to have been jarred by the impact either.

And am I the only one who finds it strange that the wing mirror is just fractionally outside the field of view of the 2nd camera, the one that would have caught the  incident in all its glory?

Don't Bentleys have automatic folding mirrors? If so, why not folded? (Obviously if this turns out to be genuine then I retract this bit of victim blaming, but it seems to me another thing that doesn't quite add up...)

The problem they have, if it was staged, is that the suspect is so clearly identifiable. Same goes for a targeted, premeditated attack. Why would the perpetrator take no measures to hide their identity with a hoodie or balaclava?

Seems so obviously exposable if a false flag event what with Police reference number being quoted, with a potentially huge downside and possible prosecution when inevitably exposed.

My guess is this is a random attack by someone who just doesn't like that someone else flaunts their wealth by having an expensive car.

If anyone can catch the reference number of the cycle hire bike, Transport for London will know exactly who hired the bike at the time. I can't see it in the footage but I am sure one of you sleuths are better than me.

Quote:

...unacceptable legal breach...

That is such a weird use of language...

The big mistake PP have made, if indeed this is a stunt - they used the boss's Bentley. If Charlie sent word that this was to be staged, then it's that personal grievance that sinks it. If they'd gone for one of the vans, then it would have had more power. FWIW, I don't think they'd ever end up being prosecuted for this egregious waste of everyone's time, and resources - the very fact that it doesn't supply footage of impact or debris means it's all too nebulous for a real case to be brought - but again, that just shows how personal grievance has allowed PP to become lost in a time-wasting show of hubris. In short - that video is twenty-eight seconds of the longest own-goal attempt, known to man.

I struggle to believe you could hit a wing mirror with enough force to break it, coming up from behind it like that, maybe going the other direction you could cause a glancing blow damage to push it in,break the outer casing or cause the glass to pop up. But how with just dangling your leg out, hitting something pretty solid against the grain so to speak, you dont simply instantly fall off your bike completely or have a massive speed wobble as a result, as youve suddenly got this massive direction input from your right leg to deal with, and probably a good deal of pain to go with it,  how do you do that ?

A seriously unconvincing video, with several cameras but still missing the alleged impact, the cyclist kindly looks directly at one of them, and the mirror appears undamaged.  If this has been reported to the police, I hope they arrest him for wasting police time, and confiscate the car as it's been used in the commission of a crime.

If I were staging such an incident, either to elicit sympathy or provoke antagonism, I wouldn't use a Bentley.

Ok, first of all, the mirror position is changed between just before contact and just after on the video so I do believe there was real contact. (although how much because he doesn't wobble much). 

Secondly, it is controlled parking on single yellows from 830:6:30, do Pimilico have special dispensation? 

Thirdly, all Santander bikes ahave number plates.. what a shame that the CCTV resolution doesn't show it.  

Fourthly, he has pissed off cyclists, but he has also pissed off a lot of his staff by firing them for not returning and also other plumbers in London. So lots to choose from for the "crime". 

Right in front of the Secuity guard booth as well. 

This is a clearly false allegation of an offence by a dodgy company. Anyone familiar with reporting offences to the police will know that it has to come with photographic evidence in a case like this. There's no evidence of an offence here, and if none was sent to the police at the time of the report then no offence was committed excpt by the people making one up. The odd thing is that the rider is identifiable- is he some company acquaintance from out of town who they think no-one will know?

"Alternatively please contact the police and quote the crime reference no. 1222248/20."

If anyone does contact the police then police time will have been wasted by Plumbloco Plumbers. So I suggest that is exactly what we should do. The offence carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine. In England and Wales, one can be charged with the offence under Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967[1] when one "causes any wasteful employment of the police" by "knowingly making to any person a false report" which:

Shows that a criminal offence has been committed,
Creates apprehension for the safety of any persons or property, or
Indicates that they have information material to any police inquiry.

Can't the police confirm or deny a crime has been reported? Road.cc can you follow it up?

"He coasted closely past Charlie’s Bentley which was parked directly outside our HQ on Sail Street, ignoring the 1 metre rule. The man then clearly raised his foot and attacked the wing mirror, causing significant damage.

“We are on the lookout for this person, and have already reported this unacceptable legal breach to the police."

What's the 1m rule??
Claiming significant damage without providing evidence.
Unacceptable legal breach... presumably of "the 1m rule"?

As has been said it looks staged with no actual video of the wing mirror being damaged and no photos of the damaged wing mirror.

This bit caught my eye from PP;

" He coasted closely past Charlie’s Bentley which was parked directly outside our HQ on Sail Street, ignoring the 1 metre rule."

1 metre rule? Are they attempting to refer to the minimum close passing distance of 1.5m and do they think it is reciprocal, which it isn't.

I could be generous and say they're being ignorant of the Highway Code but on Pimlico Plumbers' past performance they're not only applying their Myway Code but even faking criminal acts so as to apply their own system of justice.

No evidence of any contact with the wing mirror, so obviously it didn't happen. 
 

anybody got a link for the funding campaign to buy the cyclist a beer ? 

Can anyone at pimloco plumbers rewrite their tweet so it reaches at least the level of language expected of a ten year old.  Talk about mangling the lingo.

Bentley must fit incredibly strong wing mirrors as that one didn't even move when "significant damage" was caused to it.