Wheelchair-bound peer couldn't board after driver refused to request pushchair moved

[AlterEgo]

So being part of lib dems your not sure that she would know about running to timetable and penalties meted out but she knows about a little known law about folding pushchairs yet this party want to be elected to serve us . She knows about that law because it affects her but probably not about penalties or timetabling yet even an an educated ignorant like me knows about them so seems she cares about what pertains to us and not about anything that affects the great unwashed. So would this be in the news and would we be debating it if she wasn't a baroness .

Eh?

Sal Brinton is in a wheelchair. Therefore it's hardly unexpected that she knows her rights about people in wheelchairs using buses, based on that alone.

Sal Brinton is the Lib Dems' spokesperson for disability. She is also Vice Chair of their diversity engagement group. I don't think it is surprising that she knows about this law at all - in fact, the law is not obscure in the slightest as there was a huge amount of media coverage around the Supreme Court decision which you can find for yourself. That court case was brought by an ordinary man, Doug Paulley, who was not a baroness, and who made the issue nationally known.

I don't find it surprising that you know about operator penalties at all - this is a bus forum, which is exactly the place I'd look to find people who knew about this kind of thing.

Saying that she doesn't care about "the great unwashed" is completely ridiculous. All she is saying is that she wasn't able to get on a bus, and that the driver/bus company was in the wrong. It's perfectly good for a life peer to raise awareness of this issue which affects a huge number of people in the country. Or do youbnot count disabled people in wheelchairs among the "great unwashed"?

 

[AlterEgo]

Really? How do you know? Do you really think those with an agenda against parents with buggies wouldn't be beyond such a stunt?

This is really quite silly and not deserving of a proper response - suggesting "people with an agenda against buggies" will get hold of a wheelchair and just go around in it all day until they find a driver unwilling to take them. It's just a stupid thing for you to say.

How depressing this thread is.

 

[matt_world2004]

So how is a parent with a child in a buggy using a bus for the purpose it was designed being an irresponsible parent?

because a disabled person is being forced to not use a bus because the space is occupied by someone that does not gave priority over that space. When they (as a disabled person do)

When I bring luggage /shopping on the bus I accept its a possibility that I am going to have to move it/Get off when someone with a greater need is going to need that space.Thats the conditions I accept when travelling. If I didnt want to put up with those conditions. I need to make alternative arrangements for travel.

 

[Antman]

This is really quite silly and not deserving of a proper response - suggesting "people with an agenda against buggies" will get hold of a wheelchair and just go around in it all day until they find a driver unwilling to take them. It's just a stupid thing for you to say.

How depressing this thread is.

No it isn't and I didn't suggest it was all day. On the last day of routemasters on the 159 in 2005 there were reports (admittedly unconfirmed) that a group of 'wheelchair users' who had come along to celebrate the withdrawnl of routemasters were later seen walking around.

I'll ask again, do you really think some people would be above pretending to be a wheelchair user in order to force buggy pushers off the bus if any attempt was made to enforce this unworkable law?

Just because you weren't aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure there are people who would do that, but the number would be so small that it would be irrelevant. And no buggy owner is forced off the bus, they simply have to fold their buggy, which all modern buggies are capable of so they can be carried in a typical small car. When was the last time you saw a classic Silver Cross on a bus?

 

[Antman]

because a disabled person is being forced to not use a bus because the space is occupied by someone that does not gave priority over that space. When they (as a disabled person do)

When I bring luggage /shopping on the bus I accept its a possibility that I am going to have to move it/Get off when someone with a greater need is going to need that space.Thats the conditions I accept when travelling. If I didnt want to put up with those conditions. I need to make alternative arrangements for travel.

This is just getting more and more ridiculous.

I've never heard of somebody being ordered off a bus mid journey because they've got to much shopping!

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is just getting more and more ridiculous.

I've never heard of somebody being ordered off a bus mid journey because they've got to much shopping!

No, because they can move it to another location to free up the wheelchair space.

 

[matt_world2004]

This is just getting more and more ridiculous.

I've never heard of somebody being ordered off a bus mid journey because they've got to much shopping!

The luggage racks are priority for buggys

 

[Bletchleyite]

The luggage racks are priority for buggys

Where does it say that? I have never seen a marking like that on a bus.

(Edit: of course "Excuse me please, could you maybe move those shopping bags as there's nowhere else safe for my buggy to go?" should result in them being moved - but these days people seem to prefer to bleat about their rights rather than take their responsibilities in society.)

 

[baz962]

Eh?

Sal Brinton is in a wheelchair. Therefore it's hardly unexpected that she knows her rights about people in wheelchairs using buses, based on that alone.

Sal Brinton is the Lib Dems' spokesperson for disability. She is also Vice Chair of their diversity engagement group. I don't think it is surprising that she knows about this law at all - in fact, the law is not obscure in the slightest as there was a huge amount of media coverage around the Supreme Court decision which you can find for yourself. That court case was brought by an ordinary man, Doug Paulley, who was not a baroness, and who made the issue nationally known.

I don't find it surprising that you know about operator penalties at all - this is a bus forum, which is exactly the place I'd look to find people who knew about this kind of thing.

Saying that she doesn't care about "the great unwashed" is completely ridiculous. All she is saying is that she wasn't able to get on a bus, and that the driver/bus company was in the wrong. It's perfectly good for a life peer to raise awareness of this issue which affects a huge number of people in the country. Or do youbnot count disabled people in wheelchairs among the "great unwashed"?

Which was my point she is disabled and so knows about this law but as part of a political party she should know about penalties etc and I don't know it because of here but because it seems to be general knowledge from the news I quite often read fined for this fined for that but have never read about buggy folding and as to her privelage it shouldn't matter however she has used it to get this in the news and get her complaint to the top of the list which also pushes ordinary people's down the list or should they not be taken seriously and as a judge would day to a lawyer you opened that door counsellor if she used it to get her complaint heard first and in the news then I can bring it up .

 

[AlterEgo]

No it isn't and I didn't suggest it was all day. On the last day of routemasters on the 159 in 2005 there were reports (admittedly unconfirmed) that a group of 'wheelchair users' who had come along to celebrate the withdrawnl of routemasters were later seen walking around.

I'll ask again, do you really think some people would be above pretending to be a wheelchair user in order to force buggy pushers off the bus if any attempt was made to enforce this unworkable law?

Just because you weren't aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Right, so in your fantasy scenario, a person who can walk gets into a wheelchair, and then tries to get on a bus. What if the first bus they get on doesn't have a buggy? And the next? You'd be at it for a while until you found a bus where there was a buggy which could not be folded. Please also note that the law does not require a buggy user to leave the bus, merely outline that bus operators should take reasonable steps to ensure the conflict is resolved. The clarification of the law does not suggest whatsoever that a bus operator should compel a parent with buggy to leave.

Unconfirmed reports...of course!

Your suggestion that people in wheelchairs carry a note to say they're definitely in it for real and not for a joke/protest is ridiculous and insensitive.

What next? People borrowing kids to park in parent and child spaces at Tesco? Should parents carry a child licence?

Nobody wants to force parents with buggies off the bus, in case you've not noticed. What people want is for parents to do the right thing, and fold them away, or to move the buggy so the wheelchair user can get in (quite often, both a buggy and wheelchair can share the space, if the buggy is moved so the wheelchair can access the space).

 

[AlterEgo]

No, because they can move it to another location to free up the wheelchair space.

Neil, you are wasting electrons on this thread. It's all a big conspiracy to some.

 

[Antman]

Right, so in your fantasy scenario, a person who can walk gets into a wheelchair, and then tries to get on a bus. What if the first bus they get on doesn't have a buggy? And the next? You'd be at it for a while until you found a bus where there was a buggy which could not be folded. Please also note that the law does not require a buggy user to leave the bus, merely outline that bus operators should take reasonable steps to ensure the conflict is resolved. The clarification of the law does not suggest whatsoever that a bus operator should compel a parent with buggy to leave.

Unconfirmed reports...of course!

Your suggestion that people in wheelchairs carry a note to say they're definitely in it for real and not for a joke/protest is ridiculous and insensitive.

What next? People borrowing kids to park in parent and child spaces at Tesco? Should parents carry a child licence?

Nobody wants to force parents with buggies off the bus, in case you've not noticed. What people want is for parents to do the right thing, and fold them away, or to move the buggy so the wheelchair user can get in (quite often, both a buggy and wheelchair can share the space, if the buggy is moved so the wheelchair can access the space).

Do the right thing? Do what you want them to do you mean? Most people will quite happily move to accommodate a wheelchair if possible, if it's not possible then the wheelchair user will have to wait for the next bus and most readily accept that.

 

[AlterEgo]

Which was my point she is disabled and so knows about this law but as part of a political party she should know about penalties etc and I don't know it because of here but because it seems to be general knowledge from the news I quite often read fined for this fined for that but have never read about buggy folding and as to her privelage it shouldn't matter however she has used it to get this in the news and get her complaint to the top of the list which also pushes ordinary people's down the list or should they not be taken seriously and as a judge would day to a lawyer you opened that door counsellor if she used it to get her complaint heard first and in the news then I can bring it up .

So everyone in a political party should know about bus contracts and the penalties for late running? Really, Baz? Are you for real?

Nobody's complaint is being pushed down any list. I'll remind you that originally, this became an issue because Doug Paulley, an ordinary bloke who volunteers for Oxfam and lives in a care home, took legal action.

The complaint that someone cannot board a bus because of the intransigence of a fellow citizen and the failure of the bus company's employee to do anything about it at all, is the complete essence of "an ordinary person's complaint". It is a fundamental issue of access to public transport, affecting very many people in the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your suggestion that people in wheelchairs carry a note to say they're definitely in it for real and not for a joke/protest is ridiculous and insensitive.

What next? People borrowing kids to park in parent and child spaces at Tesco? Should parents carry a child licence?

First of all, I agree this is completely unnecessary. The number of people who claim they have a disability when they don't is very small - mostly people misusing facilities for disabled people tend to come up with poor excuses like "it's only 5 minutes" rather than outright lying.

But as an aside, Germany does indeed have a "disability ID card" which can be shown in aid of resolving such conflicts. It's called the (Schwer)behindertenausweis.

 

[Antman]

The luggage racks are priority for buggys

You're just making up the rules as you go along

 

[AlterEgo]

Do the right thing? Do what you want them to do you mean? Most people will quite happily move to accommodate a wheelchair if possible, if it's not possible then the wheelchair user will have to wait for the next bus and most readily accept that.

Most, but not all, as we have seen from Sal Brinton's case. There was no reason given by anyone as to why the buggy could not be moved.

It isn't about what I want, it's about fair access to public transport.

I agree that if it is not possible to move the buggy (owner disabled, baby disabled, etc etc), the wheelchair user will have to wait for the next bus. I don't think there can be much complaint about that - same as if the space was already occupied by a wheelchair user.

The decent thing for people to do is to make space for the wheelchair user - unless there is some compelling reason why they are unable to.

 

[BestWestern]

What will happen before long, presumably, is that some of society's less cooperative parents with buggies will quickly become aware - with the help of powerful social media networks like Facebook and Mumsnet - that this law is essentially a red herring, and if they simply insist that they're unable to oblige, nothing much will actually happen and the bus will eventually continue on its way. The inevitable bit of media coverage here and there, plus drivers becoming battle hardened after a few encounters and less frightened of potential consequences, and this will become a pretty unremarkable occasional feature of bus use in most urban areas. This law is shockingly clumsy to the point of being essentially meaningless. The first few court cases to happen will outline what 'reasonable efforts' are, and from there on drivers will simply work to that standard, be that asking once, twice, three times, holding the bus for five minutes, or whatever. The golden words 'will not be asked to leave the bus' render the rest of it redundant. Bus operators will have to spend vast sums on frequent litigation, the claims industry will latch on and milk companies for out of court settlements at every opportunity, and voice recording kit at the front of buses to examine the efforts of the driver will probably become another expensive addition to the specifications list in the future.

This legislation should either have made it an offence not to vacate the wheelchair space end of, or left well alone. What we have now would seem to be complete nonsense.

 

[baz962]

So everyone in a political party should know about bus contracts and the penalties for late running? Really, Baz? Are you for real?

Nobody's complaint is being pushed down any list. I'll remind you that originally, this became an issue because Doug Paulley, an ordinary bloke who volunteers for Oxfam and lives in a care home, took legal action.

The complaint that someone cannot board a bus because of the intransigence of a fellow citizen and the failure of the bus company's employee to do anything about it at all, is the complete essence of "an ordinary person's complaint". It is a fundamental issue of access to public transport, affecting very many people in the UK.

Not everyone should know about everything but if you are going to make a complaint regarding something and being an politically affiliated should you not do your research like you say it was brought about by this other gent and a similar thing happened to her in 2015 so I'm sure it would have come up possibly in the court case it would be astounding if it hadn't.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not everyone should know about everything but if you are going to make a complaint regarding something and being an politically affiliated should you not do your research like you say it was brought about by this other gent and a similar thing happened to her in 2015 so I'm sure it would have come up possibly in the court case it would be astounding if it hadn't.

Please read the OP and the link to the story.

What Sal Brinton did was tweet about it, within 10 seconds of the bus leaving. That was her complaint, directed at TfL. https://twitter.com/SalBrinton/status/904690620085788673

She doesn't have to do a pile of research on how much the bus might get fined if the bus driver theoretically has a ten-minute argument with a passenger.

FirstGroup's defence did not hinge on penalties for delays to their buses, and so it did not come up in court, so be astounded, I guess.

As you have already admitted quite a way back in the thread,

I don't use buses...I would not know

...can you please stop making assumptions? And can you please stop blaming Sal Brinton? This isn't her fault.

 

[matt_world2004]

You're just making up the rules as you go along

Of course I am /s

 

[baz962]

Please read the OP and the link to the story.

What Sal Brinton did was tweet about it, within 10 seconds of the bus leaving. That was her complaint, directed at TfL. https://twitter.com/SalBrinton/status/904690620085788673

She doesn't have to do a pile of research on how much the bus might get fined if the bus driver theoretically has a ten-minute argument with a passenger.

FirstGroup's defence did not hinge on penalties for delays to their buses, and so it did not come up in court, so be astounded, I guess.

As you have already admitted quite a way back in the thread,



...can you please stop making assumptions? And can you please stop blaming Sal Brinton? This isn't her fault.

Again my point I didn't actually say she made a proper complaint in writing did I but she well knew tweeting would do it and anyway proves my theory because anyone with any sense would know if I tweeted that no one would of heard about it cos I'm not a Baron .

 

[matt_world2004]

An article from 2012 in the standard showed a disabled person making a log from their bus journeys out of the 360 bus journeys she made she had problems/conflict boarding on 150 of them and 50 trips she was denied boarding

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/buggies-on-buses-must-move-for-wheelchairs-8339677.html

 

[AlterEgo]

Again my point I didn't actually say she made a proper complaint in writing did I

No, she complained on Twitter...so? Are you suggesting that before she tweets, she needs to thoroughly research bus operator penalties? Or perhaps driver working conditions and training? Or are you just being obtuse again?

anyway proves my theory because anyone with any sense would know if I tweeted that no one would of heard about it cos I'm not a Baron .

This is completely unfair and untrue - Twitter is a good leveller, and the smallest cause from the smallest person can go viral.

You don't know very much about the case, or the law, or the buses, or in fact anything to do with the substance of the thread, as you have admitted. I'm surprised you're still here.

 

[baz962]

No, she complained on Twitter...so? Are you suggesting that before she tweets, she needs to thoroughly research bus operator penalties? Or perhaps driver working conditions and training? Or are you just being obtuse again?



This is completely unfair and untrue - Twitter is a good leveller, and the smallest cause from the smallest person can go viral.

You don't know very much about the case, or the law, or the buses, or in fact anything to do with the substance of the thread, as you have admitted. I'm surprised you're still here.

Which I admitted from the off but rather than help me understand your first reply was more conducive to try and embarrass me and since then you have quite often contradicted yourself. You ask me to properly read things bit do not read mine in the last post you said stop saying its sal brintons fault well really never in a single post did I say it's her fault and the person who just posted about the woman and her log proved my point as it took 360 journey's before her story was told .

 

[AlterEgo]

Which I admitted from the off but rather than help me understand your first reply was more conducive to try and embarrass me and since then you have quite often contradicted yourself. You ask me to properly read things bit do not read mine in the last post you said stop saying its sal brintons fault well really never in a single post did I say it's her fault and the person who just posted about the woman and her log proved my point as it took 360 journey's before her story was told .

It took 360 journeys before her story was told because it was after 360 journeys that she approached the newspaper. I doubt she went to the Standard after the first one! Unless you know otherwise?

Shall I dig out a whole load of viral cases of discrimination which were raised by people who were ordinary, non-Baroness-types?

Are you suggesting Sal Brinton, the Lib Dem President, their spokesperson on disability, their vice chair of their equality forum, should just suck it up and not speak about her experience of being unable to take public transport and not having her legal right protected?

You haven't explicitly said "it's her fault", but you have:

1) Suggested she could have done more to assert a right she has which the law says should be provided for her (in practice, to be done by shouting down a bus she was not on, at a person she could not see)
2) Suggested she was less than honest, by claiming it was "convenient" she could see the driver and the space but not the parent, when in fact this is exactly what she could see, being in a seated position, on the pavement, and not on the bus
3) Suggested, completely unfairly and without any foundation at all, she might have tried to get the driver sacked if he did stick up for her right to board the bus, by remonstrating with the parent
4) Said (incorrectly) that she was an MP and suggested her privilege and position were a factor in the case, and suggested that because she was a politician she should have done better to sort it out herself (see point 1).
5) Asked me if I have any evidence she was even telling the truth

...which is more than enough victim-blaming.

I have not tried to embarrass you; I have responded to your ill-informed, speculative, and insensitive comments about a disabled woman unable to get on a bus, with some of the facts and reality behind the case. Perhaps you feel embarrassed because you have been repeatedly shown to be incorrect and unreasonable, but that isn't my problem.

 

[baz962]

It took 360 journeys before her story was told because it was after 360 journeys that she approached the newspaper. I doubt she went to the Standard after the first one! Unless you know otherwise?

Shall I dig out a whole load of viral cases of discrimination which were raised by people who were ordinary, non-Baroness-types?

Are you suggesting Sal Brinton, the Lib Dem President, their spokesperson on disability, their vice chair of their equality forum, should just suck it up and not speak about her experience of being unable to take public transport and not having her legal right protected?

You haven't explicitly said "it's her fault", but you have:

1) Suggested she could have done more to assert a right she has which the law says should be provided for her (in practice, to be done by shouting down a bus she was not on, at a person she could not see)
2) Suggested she was less than honest, by claiming it was "convenient" she could see the driver and the space but not the parent, when in fact this is exactly what she could see, being in a seated position, on the pavement, and not on the bus
3) Suggested, completely unfairly and without any foundation at all, she might have tried to get the driver sacked if he did stick up for her right to board the bus, by remonstrating with the parent
4) Said (incorrectly) that she was an MP and suggested her privilege and position were a factor in the case, and suggested that because she was a politician she should have done better to sort it out herself (see point 1).
5) Asked me if I have any evidence she was even telling the truth

...which is more than enough victim-blaming.

I have not tried to embarrass you; I have responded to your ill-informed, speculative, and insensitive comments about a disabled woman unable to get on a bus, with some of the facts and reality behind the case. Perhaps you feel embarrassed because you have been repeatedly shown to be incorrect and unreasonable, but that isn't my problem.

1.asked as in wondered not actually saying she should
2.a little bit but only after your over the top first reply, however again was wondering not saying she was .
3.yes I did but not that she definitely would but possibly and not for the remonstrating as such but for making her late.
4.ok but only because she was an MP honest faux pax stood as candidate for watford was it .and being a baroness would help it be heard that's a fact .
5 I asked you for evidence as you had asked me for some . Works both ways.

Plus I was talking about seeking to embarrass me from the off I admitted I was ignorant and asked for clarity . You could of done that without trying to embarrass me in your first reply and I would be more educated and there wouldn't of been any ongoing posts with someone trying to be over clever and failing when you could of helped .

 

[AlterEgo]

1.asked as in wondered not actually saying she should
2.a little bit but only after your over the top first reply, however again was wondering not saying she was .
3.yes I did but not that she definitely would but possibly and not for the remonstrating as such but for making her late.
4.ok but only because she was an MP honest faux pax stood as candidate for watford was it .and being a baroness would help it be heard that's a fact .
5 I asked you for evidence as you had asked me for some . Works both ways.

Plus I was talking about seeking to embarrass me from the off I admitted I was ignorant and asked for clarity . You could of done that without trying to embarrass me in your first reply and I would be more educated and there wouldn't of been any ongoing posts with someone trying to be over clever and failing when you could of helped .

I've been more than helpful. I've explained the law, the Supreme Court judgement, how that came about, as well as how the baroness couldn't see what you think she should have been able to see. The baroness was able to get on the next bus and shared the wheelchair space with a cooperative buggy owner.

My reply originally did not try to embarrass you, but rather was a question as to why you immediately sought to place the onus on the baroness for not asserting her rights enough. If you felt embarrassed by that, then so you should be. She was unable to get on the bus because of the lack of cooperation from a fellow citizen and the lack of help from the bus driver, who should have, under the law, done more in this situation. That your angle is to, ahem, "wonder" what the baroness did wrong/failed to do, rather than wonder whether the bus driver or passenger behaved properly, is insensitive.

We have covered your points before, particularly around the fact that people are believed by default in modern civil society. In a dispute, I do not have to evidence that Sal Brinton was telling the truth; it is up to you, the one accusing her of being a liar/economical with the truth, to show why we should not believe her. You're the one slagging her off, and unbelievably, still requesting evidence she was being truthful, when you should have dropped it and admitted you were wrong to do so a long time ago.

In any case, I have explained how it is absolutely the case that a person, in a seated position, on the pavement, next to a double decker bus, can see a driver, and a buggy, but cannot necessarily identify the owner of that buggy or see them.

In future, if you admit you are ignorant about something, don't make assumptions about the victim at the same time, as you did in your first post. All I have done is explain the situation, the law, and explained why your repeated criticism of Sal Brinton, who has done nothing wrong, is unjust.

 

[baz962]

I've been more than helpful. I've explained the law, the Supreme Court judgement, how that came about, as well as how the baroness couldn't see what you think she should have been able to see. The baroness was able to get on the next bus and shared the wheelchair space with a cooperative buggy owner.

My reply originally did not try to embarrass you, but rather was a question as to why you immediately sought to place the onus on the baroness for not asserting her rights enough. If you felt embarrassed by that, then so you should be. She was unable to get on the bus because of the lack of cooperation from a fellow citizen and the lack of help from the bus driver, who should have, under the law, done more in this situation. That your angle is to, ahem, "wonder" what the baroness did wrong/failed to do, rather than wonder whether the bus driver or passenger behaved properly, is insensitive.

We have covered your points before, particularly around the fact that people are believed by default in modern civil society. In a dispute, I do not have to evidence that Sal Brinton was telling the truth; it is up to you, the one accusing her of being a liar/economical with the truth, to show why we should not believe her. You're the one slagging her off, and unbelievably, still requesting evidence she was being truthful, when you should have dropped it and admitted you were wrong to do so a long time ago.

In any case, I have explained how it is absolutely the case that a person, in a seated position, on the pavement, next to a double decker bus, can see a driver, and a buggy, but cannot necessarily identify the owner of that buggy or see them.

In future, if you admit you are ignorant about something, don't make assumptions about the victim at the same time, as you did in your first post. All I have done is explain the situation, the law, and explained why your repeated criticism of Sal Brinton, who has done nothing wrong, is unjust.

You didn't explain it's the law to collapse a buggy in your first reply and you could have only about her rights protected by law . You said its incredible to suggest a disabled person assert their own rights by shouting down a bus I wasn't suggesting she should have to ask the passenger etc just wondered could she have . If it was me in that first post I would have said she was seated at low level could see a buggy but not a parent as that would be a view from a wheelchair and the onus is on the driver as it is law that you fold a buggy and the driver has to take all reasonable steps and my second and final post would have been something along the lines of ok thanks for the lesson .

 

[Robertj21a]

I've been more than helpful. I've explained the law, the Supreme Court judgement, how that came about, as well as how the baroness couldn't see what you think she should have been able to see. The baroness was able to get on the next bus and shared the wheelchair space with a cooperative buggy owner.

My reply originally did not try to embarrass you, but rather was a question as to why you immediately sought to place the onus on the baroness for not asserting her rights enough. If you felt embarrassed by that, then so you should be. She was unable to get on the bus because of the lack of cooperation from a fellow citizen and the lack of help from the bus driver, who should have, under the law, done more in this situation. That your angle is to, ahem, "wonder" what the baroness did wrong/failed to do, rather than wonder whether the bus driver or passenger behaved properly, is insensitive.

We have covered your points before, particularly around the fact that people are believed by default in modern civil society. In a dispute, I do not have to evidence that Sal Brinton was telling the truth; it is up to you, the one accusing her of being a liar/economical with the truth, to show why we should not believe her. You're the one slagging her off, and unbelievably, still requesting evidence she was being truthful, when you should have dropped it and admitted you were wrong to do so a long time ago.

In any case, I have explained how it is absolutely the case that a person, in a seated position, on the pavement, next to a double decker bus, can see a driver, and a buggy, but cannot necessarily identify the owner of that buggy or see them.

In future, if you admit you are ignorant about something, don't make assumptions about the victim at the same time, as you did in your first post. All I have done is explain the situation, the law, and explained why your repeated criticism of Sal Brinton, who has done nothing wrong, is unjust.

Well said.
I was beginning to despair with some of the ridiculous comments on this thread.