A&E and h*lmets

Mark

On 16 Jun 2008 14:07:35 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>First a plea:
>
>Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
>judicial review against the IPCC ?
>
>
>In article <8i45545itlfmfcsbjukubv4t2qi0ed0ma0@4ax.com>,
>Mark <i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote:
>>On 13 Jun 2008 14:49:42 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/
>>
>>I've just looked at "Tailgating by and collision with N99 JHC". Almost
>>unbelievable!!!!
>>
>>I hope you reported this idiot to the police?
>
>No. I have already tried reporting criminal motorists to the police,
>but it does no good.
>

-- snip ---

Sorry for stirring up a hornet's nest! Good Luck!

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

John Kane

On Jun 13, 2:19*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:16:38 +0100, Brendan Halpin
> <brendan.hal...@ul.ie> said in
> <87wsktyzcp....@wivenhoe.staff8.ul.ie>:
>
> >I think you mean "methodologically substandard observational
> >case-control studies". :-) The observational approach has its
> >weaknesses, but TRT made their own hash of it.
>
> Actually the TR&T study was more an example of policy-based evidence
> making than anything else.
>
> Guy

It may also be an excelent example of how peer review fails when a
paper is published in a very inappropriate journal. I have seldom
seen a decent cycling helmet research paper published in a medical
journal but I have seen a lot of junk. I suspect that the journal
editor does not know where to get good reviewers.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

JNugent

Ian Jackson wrote:

> First a plea:

> Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
> judicial review against the IPCC ?

An organisation with bottomless pockets, preferably?

[ ... ]

> In December 2006 I was run into from behind by a taxi driver who
> intended to intimidate me but misjudged. I was thrown from the bike
> at 15mph but managed to land on my feet. There were three independent
> witnesses.

> The police took a statement from the driver and one of the witnesses
> but decided that it was `not in the public interest' to prosecute. I
> only found out about this by way of the taxi licensing office, where
> the driver brought in an NFA letter to `show' that he hadn't done
> anything wrong.

> I complained to the police about all this. They pretended I had
> agreed to `local resolution' (an unappealable `track' for dealing with
> complaints) and fobbed me off. I complained to the IPCC who told the
> police that as I `hadn't signed the relevant form' the police would
> have to do it again, as if it were merely a paperwork problem.

> In the second police investigation they accepted entirely the driver's
> version of events, including the false allegation that I stopped in
> front of the driver, despite the fact that the independent witness's
> account `tends to agree with' mine (in the words of one of the
> officers I dealt with). They even said that I admitted in my
> statement that I had stopped, which I of course did not admit as it
> wasn't true. The police concluded that it wasn't sensible to
> prosecute because I was partially responsible for the crash by cycling
> in middle of the road (ie, primary position at 15mph in the 20mph
> limit zone approaching a set of rising bollards).

Look... I know you won't want to think of it in this way... but it
sounds as though they believe him and don't believe you.

It's probably as simple as that.

No-one here can know which of you is telling the truth. I certainly
don't. Any position taken up on the matter is knee-jerk, pure and simple.

> I have tried to get hold of the independent witness's statement and
> the record of the taxi driver's interview under caution, but these are
> mysteriously suddenly confidential

There's nothing "sudden" (in the sense of "unexpected") about that.
Police files are confidential. Full stop. If the police were
investigating an allegation against you, would you be happy if they
started sharing their files with Tom, Dick & Harry?

> even though they were collected for
> use in prosecution in open court

....which is not looking likely to happen.

> The police have turned down my
> Freedom of Information request. My appeal to the Information
> Commissioner's Office is outstanding and will take some months to
> complete.

I don't think the FoI Act applies to police files - and it bloomin' well
shouldn't.

> I complained to the IPCC again. The IPCC refused to help me ...

It does sound as though they don't believe you.

David Hansen

On 16 Jun 2008 17:19:58 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote this:-

>>> About a month later I got a copy of a letter sent by his office on his
>>> behalf to the Chief Constable saying that my MP was very keen to see
>>> "that the complaint against the cyclist was taken seriously".
>>
>>Oh, now you're kidding me, surely?
>
>No. It's just prejudice: in the mind of the person who is told to
>draft this letter, the space between `complaint' and `cyclist'
>naturally attracts the word `against'.

I hope you have taken this letter up with your MP. In how many other
cases has your MP produced a completely wrong letter?




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen

On 16 Jun 2008 14:07:35 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote this:-

>The police have turned down my
>Freedom of Information request. My appeal to the Information
>Commissioner's Office is outstanding and will take some months to
>complete.

They are as useless as the IPCC. I say this despite them having
reached a reasonably successful conclusion for me on a couple of
matters, taken up with their office in Scotland and the main one in
England.

In Scotland we have a far better Information Commissioner, but sadly
he only deals with Scottish public sector organisations.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Mark

On 16 Jun 2008 14:07:35 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>First a plea:
>
>Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
>judicial review against the IPCC ?

The only thing I can think of is to try to get a journalist interested
in your case. Maybe the adverse publicity would nudge the IPCC into
doing something?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Colin Reed

"Mark" <i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote in message
newsave54dqqv99l07rc26l8h8e56m3o46g7n@4ax.com...
> On 16 Jun 2008 14:07:35 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>First a plea:
>>
>>Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
>>judicial review against the IPCC ?
>
> The only thing I can think of is to try to get a journalist interested
> in your case. Maybe the adverse publicity would nudge the IPCC into
> doing something?
>

Unfortunately, I would think that most journalists would be more interested
if it had involved a "life changing" injury. You know "Paraplegic's case
dismissed by uncaring IPCC" and that sort of thing.

Colin

Mark

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:22:43 +0100, "Colin Reed"
<colin-reed@nospam-lineone.net> wrote:

>
>"Mark" <i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote in message
>newsave54dqqv99l07rc26l8h8e56m3o46g7n@4ax.com...
>> On 16 Jun 2008 14:07:35 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
>> <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>First a plea:
>>>
>>>Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
>>>judicial review against the IPCC ?
>>
>> The only thing I can think of is to try to get a journalist interested
>> in your case. Maybe the adverse publicity would nudge the IPCC into
>> doing something?
>>
>
>Unfortunately, I would think that most journalists would be more interested
>if it had involved a "life changing" injury. You know "Paraplegic's case
>dismissed by uncaring IPCC" and that sort of thing.

Probably. However, judging by some of the trivia reported in the
media, there may be a chance.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org