Monday 11 June 2012

There's A Far Cheaper Solution, Surely?

The problem has got so bad in the area around Hockley Woods police are now threatening to take away, and crush, any bikes they get hold of.
It comes after several near-misses involving horses, dogs, and even walkers who want to use the woods in peace.
'The Problem' being inconsiderate, dangerous, chavvy little shits on off-road bikes.

Well, I believe one couple has already come up with the perfect solution:
Chris Richmond was taken to hospital with burns and bruising on his neck after hitting the leash stretched across his path by a middle-aged man and a woman.
Police are treating the attack as grievous bodily harm and are hunting the couple who left the 23-year-old unable to breathe and in shock.
And, presumably, left him less likely to ever do it again.

I'm calling that a win-win.
Mr Richmond and his mates asked for a go on the bike. He believes he was doing about 20mph when he hit the lead. He said: "I remember the woman giving me a dirty look beforehand, as if to say, 'You shouldn't be doing that'."
"Perhaps I shouldn't have been but that was no way to react. You don't expect that from middle-aged people."
No, indeed you don't.

And that's precisely why inconsiderate scum like you have felt free to do as you please in the full knowledge that there will be no consequences.

Well, sometimes there are. But hey, maybe I'm a bit too harsh here? Maybe he's not a worthless example of the human ra...

The dad-of-one, who worked for Direct Line insurance for five years, said he was desperate to get back to work support his daughter, Remme-Mae, one and her mum, Jordane, 21.

Time to deploy this again:


Anonymous said...

Dog leads are not really up to the job and tend to give way with a dull 'thwang'. Performance is vastly improved with taut middle C piano wire. This does the job effectively, resounding to a agreeable 262Hz and 'heads up' shouts.

Robert the Biker said...

Sorry Julia, but I don't want to hear the excuses for attemted murder by a couple of NIMBYS who suddenly think that only they have any rights. Yes, they probably are snotty little shits, so help them set up a track or such, the woods are for EVERYONE or they will soon be for NO-ONE, I speak as one who has seen it happen.

Anonymous said...

+1 with Robert here

SadButMadLad said...

+1 for Robert from me too.

He might be a little shit (and he did go to work the day after the attempted garrotting), but that does not mean that just because your quiet walk is destroyed by a some noisy kids riding around on bikes, that deciding to attempt to kill them is OK.

What ever the police do or don't do, you don't take the law into your own hands. If the police consistently don't do their job, then you make a fuss, but you don't go around being vigilantes.

Budvar said...

Sorry Joolz, you're way, way out of line on this one. I'm all for having kids somewhere to ride dirtbikes, A, it keeps them off the streets being a pain in the arse, as they have something to do. B, any stolen bikes, the police don't need to look too far to find them. It's a win win as far as I'm concerned.

As others have said, the land is for the use of everybody, or it ends up being for nobody. When I was a kid, we used the old tip for air rifles and dirt bikes, never hurt nor bothered anyone. Not anymore, horses are now the next target, horse crap everywhere and some horse getting a bit skittish whilst passing others and it's "It frightened little Johnny so much he had nightmares for weeks, he was nearly trampled to death, they should be banned, just think of the children that use the woods".

We have the whining cunts who complain of noise from dirtbikes, their house fronts a main arterial road about 3 miles from the M62 mind, but it's the noise from dirtbikes that bothers them...

Robert the Biker said...

Just to show I am not blowing smoke out my pant's cuff here (Hows THAT for an Americanism) when i was a wee bit younger, we used to go round Piggys (old clay and slag tip near Southall gasworks) and roar about, harming no one. Eventually, there came the usual whining and grief of how we were scaring Bonzo and Dobbin, and a lot of busybodies kept calling the Police so that we eventually went elsewhere. Result? The Bikers used to keep the paths clear and bushes trimmed back,the horsey and doggy set didn't do much but moan. Soon, there was no way of taking horses over there unless you wanted them to break a leg. Next, the council wanted to take it over for 'greenspace' and 'development' and everything was closed down to the people (because 'no-one goes there anymore'). The horsey and doggie set wanted allies for their sudden beef with the council, guess what WE said.

JuliaM said...

Some of you seem to be under the impression I'm unfairly targeting dirt biking here, yet I'm not.

Dirt biking under controlled conditions, in areas where people know it's going on, and where damage is repaired and noise kept to an acceptable level? Great! Bring it on!

Illegal and inconsiderate dirt biking where it's not allowed, where others are using the same woods? Not so much fun. Potentially dangerous, in fact.

And if those so afflicted decide, in the absence of the police, to dole out some vigilante crime prevention, well, I won't weep if they get charged for it, but I also won't weep if the police never find them either.

JuliaM said...

And as for the kudos he seem to expect to gain for having gone in to work the next day, well, in the immortal words of Chris Rock 'What, you wan' a cookie?! It's what you s'posed to do!'

Except these days, it seems what you're supposed to do if you come a cropper doing something illegal and dangerous, by someone else doing the same to you back, is go to the media and whinge about it, and expect sympathy,because you got there first.

*checks meter*

Nope! Still not budging that needle.

Mark In Mayenne said...

I confidently predict that no stone will be left unturned, and if found the perpetrators will get heavy punishment.

Jiks said...

I'm all for people taking the law into their own hands to defend themselves or their property but this just sounds like a spiteful attack.

People riding around like ****s, not good. Attempting to kill them for it is worse IMO.

Not often I disagree with you Julia but in this case I do, sorry.

Lilolgal said...

Well I am with you Julia, I'm sick of having to leap out of the way and then listen to the hysterical laughter "'cos the old dear looked dead funny on her arse in the bushes". One of my dogs suffered a broken shoulder after being hit by one of these oiks on a boik! I'm sick to death of hearing what we can't do the little darlings.....hello - news!!! That's why they do what the bleeping hell they like and laugh as they do it!!

A salt and battered said...

To the Righteous Sirs above, whom it may concern:

I am obliged to support a degree of 'citizen action' not because I am unaware of the illegality of vigilantism but because our police service, multi-tiered as it is, provides almost zero service at the level of ordinary citizen. Such incidents outlined in this topic are far too often left to citizen tolerance or citizen devices. So be it.

Woman on a Raft said...

The Mail has a picture of what is supposed to be that particular path. It looks like a service track but there is a barrier across it as they clearly only want certain vehicles to use it.

For the alleged attack to have occurred, the walkers were presumably coming towards him, one either side, while he intended to ride between them.

The attack could have been avoided, of course, by them not raising the leash (where was the dog?) or by him not riding where it is not supposed to be done, or at minimum, by not riding between people thereby putting them at risk.

Why was he riding between pedestrians at 20mph?

Chris seems to be about the boards explaining a little more. There was a dog on one end of the leash;

.Chris Richmond Am ok just in bad pain, motorbike n a 35-40 year old couple was with a dog as I got close they lifted dog lead up on purpose n it wrapped round my neck twice n tangled, then after I untangled it they said its ur own fucking fault!! Nob heads

Another commenter suggests it was more like this:

It could be entirely possible that the lead still had a dog on the other end and the dog owner was trying to lift the lead higher than the yoof on his crosser to stop his dog getting dragged down the path by the bike. Everyone always loves to blame someone else for their own cock-ups nowadays.

Or perhaps this:

If the owners attempted to lift the lead over the rider's head, they're nobbers without a doubt. I dunno about you, but when mounted on a crosser I'm sitting fairly tall. My head is easily at the same level it is when I'm standing - 5' 10" - as the saying goes, there's two sides to every story - usually the truth lies somewhere in between them.

If the dog was attached and the rider was doing 20mph (or more as others have suggested) I'd expect the dog would be injured as well.

A further speculation:

If the mutt was attached I can kinda see what might have happened, dog is walking on opposite side of path from owner on extending lead, bike comes along unexpected, owners don't want to drag dog back across path of bike, try to lift lead but can't get it high enough. Would have been better to just flatten the lead on the ground and let the bike ride over it but you don't necessarily think of that at the time.

Personally, I find it very unlikely that the dog walkers would have wanted to risk harming the dog, so if they lifted the leash it was because they mistakenly thought this would clear over the rider and thus keep the dog safe. This is quite an easy miscalculation if you are a short woman and the rider is coming fast towards you.

Other commenters point out that the injury is consistent with the extending leash being jerked out of the hand of one person, wrapping round his neck. The idea that some teenagers 'let him have a go' of their bike might be explained another way; perhaps he was riding away from them having taken the bike, therefore not paying proper attention to the chance of an accident.

There is more to the story than is being run in the MSM, who haven't challenged the story sufficiently. As "Icarus" says

A middle aged couple out walking their dog decided to take on a group of grown men on field bikes and murder one of them?
The men decided to just let it go and all rode off rather than challenge them?

I think not.

Perhaps Scooby on page 6 may have got much of it right; it doesn't seem very likely that someone who worked for an insurance company for five years would suddenly take to jumping on a bike they had no previous knowledge of.

Also, the bike was nicked in the earliest versions of the story, and now it isn't and was voluntarily given to this guy they'd just met.

JuliaM said...

"Not often I disagree with you Julia but in this case I do, sorry"

No need to apologise. It'd be a damned boring time on Earth is e all agreed 100% with each other, wouldn't it?

"I'm sick to death of hearing what we can't do the little darlings.....hello - news!!! That's why they do what the bleeping hell they like and laugh as they do it!!"

Yes! Spot on.

"There is more to the story than is being run in the MSM, who haven't challenged the story sufficiently. "

Do they ever?

KevinWard76 said...

I don't agree with people getting violent because of other people annoying them - so have to disagree with you here (I think we agree 99% of the time ;) )

It's not just vigilante justice, it's above-the-law justice. The police wouldn't be allowed to use such means to halt or punish this misdemeanour, so they shouldn't either.

Remember, the punishment should fit the crime… and in this case, notwithstanding the fact that the couple were judge, jury and executioner, it doesn't.

The Kusabi said...

@ Robert the Biker/Sadbutmadlad

The rather ugly subtext of your remarks being that umm...hmm...maybe it'd be a terrible thing if the couple or their dog got injured by the selfish shit on the motorbike, but NO WAY IN HELL SHOULD THE SELFISH SHIT HAVE BEEN INJURED!!!! I.e. serious harm is only supposed to happen to the likes of the middle-aged walkers and not to irresponsible/criminal idiot scum.

Somehow I don't think you'd have rushed to denounce the idiot/possible bike thief (read WoaR's post, if you can handle being royally embarrassed for your ignorant comments), if the situation had been reversed, with as much anger and naked hostility as you reserve for the couple who allegedly clotheslined him. So it can't be the harm caused that offends you. Your attacks don't seem rooted in morality so much as animal psychology.

You jump in there attacking the couple because you perceive them as being the weaker party – to you the weaker party should NOT be using force against their superiors in brute strength, it doesn't happen in nature so it must not happen. Lions eat zebras but zebras DO NOT so much as kick out at lions. It's important to you to bash the weaker party so as to demonstrate that you're on the side of the strong. The most you think they should do is beg for help from an 'alpha' (the police) from a decidedly submissive position. Because that's what the weak are supposed to do.

In short – what upsets you (and the police, who must find and punish this couple, if for no other reason than to maintain their dominance) is not whatever harm they might have caused the rider/possible bike thief but that they did NOT act as you expect the weak should.

Anonymous said...

I find the dogs more a hazard than the 'bikes.
The 'bikes don't leave mounds of steaming s##t in the middle of paths.
Personally, I like the attitude of the farmer when a man moaned to him about his dog being "attacked" by cows: He pointed out to the guy that it wasn't a footpath but private land. Then shot the dog dead for worrying cattle.

David Duff said...

New Year's Honours list for those two!

Anonymous said...

Cheers for the couple and Kusabi. Please visit our neck of the woods!

Coco Holmes said...

I'm left with horrendous and appalling thoughts about possibilities left open for these incidences to happen ever so suddenly. It would be the least of what I would expect to happen but still is actually possible to anyone. I feel sorry for the 23-year-old victim left unattended.

Anonymous said...


We don't care what spambots think

Anonymous said...

Dog lead around this guy's neck sounds more accidental than premeditated. I don't think we are being told the full story, it just doesn't ring true for me.

Tatty said...

-1 for Robert from me.

A motorbike can be a deadly weapon that requires responsible use. That lad deliberately rode straight towards TWO people... regardless of the consequences... and deserves everything he got.

Why he did it or how they responded is irrelevant. Fact is he did and he alone bears responsibility for anything that followed.

Some of us aren't submissive and weak and others are quite welcome to learn that the hard way... if they must...but it IS always their choice to do so.

Robert the Biker said...


Stoke Mandeville has had FAR more horse accident patients than bike accident ones
It's near every week that some toddler or old dear is savaged by a dog.

So, since they're so dangerous, why don't I put out some poisoned meat for the dogs and dig a few pits so the horses break their legs.
If there are dicks on bikes, there are equally dicks with dogs and dicks on horseback, not to mention snotty fucks wandering about who think that they should own the place. It should be possible to get on without trying to murder people.

Tatty said...

Robert - Bollocks yerself.

It should be possible to get on without trying to murder people. was nearly the only sensible thing you said there. I certainly don't think either party was trying to kill the other but to address the general gist of that...

The rider was the aggressor and could quite easily have killed one of them so has no right to whinge just because that level of aggression was met with equal...and more successful... force.

You reap what you sympathy from me whatsoever.

Robert the Biker said...

Pee Poo Willy Bum Drawers to you!

No suggestion in the story that ANY bike rider had ridden at these people at ANY time, they just seemingly decided to wipe someone out. Only "aggresion" from this couple of worthless murderous scrotes.

Anonymous said...

You're calling them worthless murderous scrotes based solely on the word of this character who might not be telling the truth?

Are you really that gullible or just incredibly dense?

Tatty said...

Oh now Robert - you're behaving like a petulant 3 year old with childish insults to match and're only winding yourself up.

We have a difference of opinion... get over yourself.

Robert the Biker said...

Should have had a smiley face after it : )

I really wont have a dog in this hunt till my leg is better, even then, neither of my Harleys have the ground clearance for it so yet more money to be spent (sigh)

Woman on a Raft said...

No suggestion in the story that ANY bike rider had ridden at these people at ANY time

That is a necessary condition of Chris Richmond's story. If he is not riding towards them with the intention of riding between them, how are they supposed to know when to raise the cord?

What we do not have is any corroborative evidence that this was what happened.

It is possible he simply failed to notice the short woman had a dog on an extending lead. As he was the one traveling at speed, this would be an easy detail to miss.

When he reached the cord, he hit it and the handle came out of her hand, flying up and whipping the cord in a spiral round his neck.

No criminal intent; just negligence on the part of the person who was injured.

Tatty said...

Robert - Ok but point remains. We differ in opinion this isn't personal.

Of all the scenarios put forward the least likely and most laughable is that this couple chased after someone on a motorbike intending to murder him.

I'm going for "very effective self-defence" least, until any real evidence proves different. :)