Incredibly abusive road rage driver

[yorkie]

Shocking video!

[youtube]k8zqNe0ujwE[/youtube]

She is shown committing a road traffic offence, and does not like being filmed doing it. So she makes up laws that do not exist and is abusive and threatening toward the person who is recording the video. She also admits that she plans to lie to police making up a false claim of assault!

Her claims may well be familiar to some enthusiasts who have been told it is "illegal" to film at stations. Unfortunately some people think they can make up laws, but this can backfire on them.

She then spends several minutes perusing him demanding that he hands over his phone! At the end of the video (no picture, just sound) her husband attempts to assault the person.

 

[scotsman]

"...because I'm driving an Audi..." How precious! I love when people's sense of self worth gets in their way of judgement!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Oh dear. My hope for humanity dies a little for after seeing stuff like this. What she says about telling the police she was assaulted infuriates me. Is she committing any actual offence other than the obvious driving one here? Could she be charged for planning to lie to police?

 

[scotsman]

"Are you like Assad?" - just a bit, ever so slightly rich coming from her

 

[transportphoto]

Was 999 actually called? The camera man, as I shall refer to him, did nothing wrong.. It did make wonderful youtube... good find yorkie

 

[yorkie]

Oh dear. My hope for humanity dies a little for after seeing stuff like this. What she says about telling the police she was assaulted infuriates me. Is she committing any actual offence other than the obvious driving one here? Could she be charged for planning to lie to police?

The verbal abuse she comes out with has got to be a public order offence.

I don't know if it is illegal to demand someone hands over their mobile phone, but could it be seen as attempted robbery? I am not a legal expert so I do not know, but it seems to tick the right boxes for me (and if not the law needs changing IMO).

It sounded like an assault (or attempted assault at least) by her husband too.

However the chances of a conviction and appropriate sentence for her and her husband in this country are round about.... zero I'd have thought. This country is rather broken in certain aspects! I'd love to be proven wrong though, but I reckon the pair of them will get away with it.

 

[Ivo]

Ridiculous.

Bath is supposed to be a lovely place to live, work and visit. This woman does our city no justice.

I half-expect her to be out-of-business come 2013.

P.S.: I had to look up where this happened. I didn't recognise the road at all
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However the chances of a conviction and appropriate sentence for her and her husband in this country are round about.... zero I'd have thought. This country is rather broken in certain aspects! I'd love to be proven wrong though, but I reckon the pair of them will get away with it.

Unfortunately, the chances are you will be proven correct

 

[scotsman]

It sounded like an assault (or attempted assault at least) by her husband too.

However the chances of a conviction and appropriate sentence for her and her husband in this country are round about.... zero I'd have thought. This country is rather broken in certain aspects! I'd love to be proven wrong though, but I reckon the pair of them will get away with it.

Unfortunately, the only other witness is likely to deny everything, as is her husband. If there was another witness, a CCTV camera or similar in the area...a conviction is more likely.

While the video shows up the two characters for what they are, it won't convince a jury that he was assaulted - if someone else was filming, then I'd be saying the absolute opposite.

 

[jon0844]

Local CCTV, CCTV from shops? I am sure there would be many other witnesses too - but the fact is, it would require a lot of work and asking for information by the police in the local media to get people to come forward.

Ultimately, the police will do nothing. However, she's been named and her shop has now had loads of negative ratings - so I am sure business will be great. She's even had to remove everything from her website. Oh, and the nationals have picked it up.

And she's featured on my new favourite site: to find this site search Google for "A blog which will help its creator come to terms with, and learn to enjoy people who simply park like " but warning the URL contains a word that may be inappropriate at in some environments and the content contains bad language and a Facebook group.

It's a shame she's been getting abuse though, as she's now claiming to be a victim to the police. Not to get the person who filmed done (no chance of that) but to presumably gain sympathy. Like the racist tram woman, I don't think this Audi driver has had ANY positive comments!

In fact, many women have commented on how people like her are making it so hard for people to prosecute men for genuine assault, when it seems so easy to just make things up.

All in all, what a nasty woman (and her partner).

(I just checked and there's no thread on Digital Spy that I can see :eek: - the one place where you're likely to find all the trolls who will say she didn't do anything wrong and will suggest the death penalty for the person filming who breached her human rights etc)

 

[Old Timer]

Clear evidence of obstruction of the highway, as well as a stated intent to commit perjury.

Another demonstration of how standards of behaviour in the UK have been allowed to deteriorate to a state where aggression and intimidation is the normal response to any challenge to a person's unreasonable or improper behaviour.

 

[mac]

Don't no how to put linkon, but look on you tube for golden wonder scunthorpe just as good

 

[TheJRB]

Ah, lovely to know there are a fair share of egotistical paranoid maniacs out there...

What a load of rubbish about "needing permission to film somebody". That's only perhaps true if you're going out of your way to film somebody on private property, not in a public place where you might be filmed incidentally anyway (not that it even needs to be incidental!).

I might be totally wrong on this, but surely what they were doing by following him (effectively stalking) is within the realms of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and thus while she was blaming him for taking out illegal activities, she herself was borderline doing just that!

 

[GB]

While in no way condoning the woman, I suspect the situation is more complicated. In sports photography, you generally need the permission of an individual, implicit or explicit, before publishing a shot. This does not apply to general shots where, for instance, you are showing a line of competitors. Public or private location is irrelevant. In this case the "photographer" has deliberately filmed one individual, continuing to do so when requested not to. The subject of the picture is the woman, and she is not "incidental". And the photographer has published this, obviously without her consent. His defence for doing this may well be "public interest", that the public would benefit from the woman's misdemeanours being exposed. But this would be compromised unless he has made an official complaint about her based on the evidence - in which case, surely, the video would be evidence and sub judice.

How is it then all these UK police shows continue to be made when the suspect who is on camera and is the point of interest says he doesn't want to be filmed only for the police to turn round and say the camera man is on public property and can do what he wants.

On another note, the person who filmed this clip was filming the car. No one inside was identifiable untill the woman took it upon herself to get in front of the camera and act like a total biach.

She then started to harass the bloke who would be quite entitled to record it for any future legal proceedings.

 

[TheJRB]

While in no way condoning the woman, I suspect the situation is more complicated. In sports photography, you generally need the permission of an individual, implicit or explicit, before publishing a shot. This does not apply to general shots where, for instance, you are showing a line of competitors. Public or private location is irrelevant. In this case the "photographer" has deliberately filmed one individual, continuing to do so when requested not to. The subject of the picture is the woman, and she is not "incidental". And the photographer has published this, obviously without her consent. His defence for doing this may well be "public interest", that the public would benefit from the woman's misdemeanours being exposed. But this would be compromised unless he has made an official complaint about her based on the evidence - in which case, surely, the video would be evidence and sub judice.

Public vs private location is actually a very important factor. If a photograph is taken from private property, the owner of that property has the right to restrict publication. If it is not taken from private property, but is of private property, the photographer is free to publish as he/she feels appropriate.

Pictures taken of people in public do not require consent. However, if it is deemed as harassing behaviour, then of course it should be stopped.

She has no right to prevent him from uploading that video as it was taken on public property and certainly was not harassing on his part (in fact her behaviour was moreover).

 

[jon0844]

Yes, the public v private property bit is important - including filming private property FROM public property.

Had many arguments with the police over this (outcome always in my favour) and PCSOs (which were the worst, as they're like that woman and make up non-existent laws). It is getting better though.

When I went with the police on a series of raids, I was told that we would need to get permission from the property owner to film inside (so I stayed outside, filming in, as it would seem crazy to ask for permission from someone being arrested!). We were also asked as a goodwill gesture to mask out the faces of officers, even though technically I could have refused!

Many broadcasters will seek a release form to be signed, but not always. Only recently at King's Cross there were some rather well hidden posters on the wall to point out that the BBC was filming there. It said something along the lines of 'if you can see the camera, you could be on film'. I am sure you could subsequently ask for your face to be removed, as the BBC would likely comply out of goodwill than any specific rule.

The press obviously has an advantage, plus the backing of a union, but everyone has the same rights. However, it always shocks me how most people believe you need to obtain permission to take a photo or film. If they thought that, they'd presumably never have ANY photos of their own!

 

[deltic1989]

It seems that this woman is talking a load of BS, the guy was in a public place filming the traffic on the street. She was commiting an offence ( obstructing the highway) and then went on to commit more offences along with her husband, many of which would come under s5 Public order act, behaving in a manner intended to cause harrasment, alarm or, distress also as said by demanding that the phone is handed over and her husband actually makes a grab for the phone that could be seen as attempted robbery. I get this sometimes when I'm photographing truck and busses, had one guy disembark from a bus and grab my camera and proceed to rip the film out of it, he promtly got his collar felt by a nearby Constable and was arrested for, assalting a minor (I was 14 at the time) and criminal damage. The Constable said I was doing nothing wrong as I was entitled to take photographs and video footage in a public place, which Lincol n High street is. Some people just have bad attitudes and think they know more than they actually do, ten to one on that if she did call the police they would have just laughed at her.

 

[jon0844]

You'll see people like that woman every day (and more likely multiple people like here, both male and female) every day.

I don't know if people ever owned up for doing something wrong, but I am sure it did happen. Now it's a case of 'what's it to you?' as if the only reason to abide by the law is to avoid getting nicked (and even then, you ask the cops why they aren't out catching rapists or murderers because their crime doesn't actually count).

If anyone actually cares about society and stands up to people, they're likely to be told to get a life, or assaulted. And that's okay because there are plenty of others that think like them and will side with women like that and say 'well, she did wrong - but what about the loser that filmed her.. he deserves all he gets'.

As it happens, I don't think I've seen any comments like that (well, perhaps one or two but they could be from her or her family/friends) but that's what usually happens.

If more people don't stand up to these types of people, we're all doomed. The problem is that some people who do stand up to people get injured, or killed, and that obviously ensures many people will turn a blind eye.

(Rant over!)

 

[Chew Chew]

I half-expect her to be out-of-business come 2013.

I think you are probably spot on there.

She'll get a bit of notoriety then people will see her for the kind of person she is and will avoid her shop.

 

[jon0844]

Look up her shop and you'll find loads of review sites that are full with negative feedback.