Video of woman and van men (new thread)

vicwatson

Woman cyclist given dogs abuse by scum in a van caught on helmet cam

Sorry it's only a link to the sun rag which has the video embedded


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2922701/female-cyclist-takes-revenge-on-disgusting-catcaller-by-ripping-off-his-wing-mirror-when-he-stops-at-red-light/

EDIT - it has come to my attention that this video was a set up - I didn't know at the time, like a lot of others, so two fingers to all the assholes that set this up and then lied about its legitimacy, hopefully this type of incident if it happens doesn't become a boy that cried wolf scenario. apologies.

inforfun

vicwatson wrote: »

Woman cyclist given dogs abuse by scum in a van caught on helmet cam

Sorry it's only a link to the sun rag which has the video embedded


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2922701/female-cyclist-takes-revenge-on-disgusting-catcaller-by-ripping-off-his-wing-mirror-when-he-stops-at-red-light/

I am far from pc, feminised, white knight on a horse, whatever you want to call it but if she had decided to set that van on fire, i would have provided the fuel and matches.

vicwatson

inforfun wrote: »

I am far from pc, feminised, white knight on a horse, whatever you want to call it but if she had decided to set that van on fire, i would have provided the fuel and matches.

+1 what a bunch of assholes in the van.

Arcade_Tryer

vicwatson wrote: »

Woman cyclist given dogs abuse by scum in a van caught on helmet cam

Sorry it's only a link to the sun rag which has the video embedded


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2922701/female-cyclist-takes-revenge-on-disgusting-catcaller-by-ripping-off-his-wing-mirror-when-he-stops-at-red-light/

Am I missing something here? All I see is some potentially offensive words said by the persons inside the van, followed by serious damage to property by the cyclist. It's pretty disgraceful behaviour by the cyclist actually. Scary that people think she had any right to rip off the wing mirror like that in response to some speech.

vicwatson

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Am I missing something here? All I see is some potentially offensive words said by the persons inside the van, followed by serious damage to property by the cyclist. It's pretty disgraceful behaviour by the cyclist actually. Scary that people think she had any right to rip off the wing mirror like that in response to some speech.

Ah here. Specsavers sell hearing aids aswell now.

Arcade_Tryer

inforfun wrote: »

I am far from pc, feminised, white knight on a horse, whatever you want to call it but if she had decided to set that van on fire, i would have provided the fuel and matches.

I'm relatively pc, a feminist, liberal, snowflake etc. and I find the behaviour of the cyclist unacceptable. And I'm shocked that others think she had some kind of right to act in that manner. You may well be more white knight on a horse than you think.

Arcade_Tryer

vicwatson wrote: »

Ah here. Specsavers sell hearing aids aswell now.

Nope. Sorry. Not an excuse for physical damage to property. This is stuff you learn in primary school, or even earlier. You do not respond to words with physical force towards persons or their property. Someone even went to the trouble of making a nursery rhyme about it. Stick and stones etc.

Falcon L

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Am I missing something here? All I see is some potentially offensive words said by the persons inside the van, followed by serious damage to property by the cyclist. It's pretty disgraceful behaviour by the cyclist actually. Scary that people think she had any right to rip off the wing mirror like that in response to some speech.

I think you're guilty of taking The Sun too seriously.

She didn't rip off the mirror, she pushed it in, much as the driver would if he was going through a tight gap. No damage. The poor girl couldn't rip off a Transit mirror any more than I could.

These sensationalist headlines are designed to reel in the people needing outrage.

d31b0y

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Am I missing something here? All I see is some potentially offensive words said by the persons inside the van, followed by serious damage to property by the cyclist. It's pretty disgraceful behaviour by the cyclist actually. Scary that people think she had any right to rip off the wing mirror like that in response to some speech.

Ah stop now. They were angled to cut her off at the light. He tried to touch her ffs.
Maybe her reaction was wrong but it certainly wasn't over the top.
Hopefully that dickhead will not abuse the next person so quickly.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

accensi0n

Falcon L wrote: »

I think you're guilty of taking The Sun too seriously.

She didn't rip off the mirror, she pushed it in, much as the driver would if he was going through a tight gap. No damage. The poor girl couldn't rip off a Transit mirror any more than I could.

These sensationalist headlines are designed to reel in the people needing outrage.

Eh.... think you need to watch it again till the end.

rameire

Falcon L wrote: »

I think you're guilty of taking The Sun too seriously.

She didn't rip off the mirror, she pushed it in, much as the driver would if he was going through a tight gap. No damage. The poor girl couldn't rip off a Transit mirror any more than I could.

These sensationalist headlines are designed to reel in the people needing outrage.

Oh dear,
me thinks you didnt watch the video or look at the pictures,
dear oh deah.
tut tut.

Falcon L

OOps, Maybe I should then.

OK Guilty of thinking it was all over when they drove off. Still think she could have done the passenger for sexual assault though.

inforfun

Falcon L wrote: »

OOps, Maybe I should then.

Here is the youtube version, subtitled.

Only one i saw, so dont know if the sun one is subtitled and same duration.

Riva10

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Am I missing something here? All I see is some potentially offensive words said by the persons inside the van, followed by serious damage to property by the cyclist. It's pretty disgraceful behaviour by the cyclist actually. Scary that people think she had any right to rip off the wing mirror like that in response to some speech.

We have a troll folks.:eek:

irishgrover

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Nope. Sorry. Not an excuse for physical damage to property. This is stuff you learn in primary school, or even earlier. You do not respond to words with physical force towards persons or their property. Someone even went to the trouble of making a nursery rhyme about it. Stick and stones etc.

you are probably "right" in relation to her behaviour not being acceptable. It's probably not acceptable from a legal point of view and it may have put her in even more danger, which is probably not the wisest more.
However there is a difference between what the correct thing to do is legally and what the appropriate thing is from a moral or Karma standpoint.
IMHO, and regardless of my disrespect for the law, I think that if she had of ripped of the wing mirror and smacked the pricks repeatedly with it, then that would have been the best out come......

GBX

The van lads got what they deserved. Fair play to her. Delighted it was captured on camera and has gone viral.

amcalester

People on here will defend the van driver and passenger simply because the woman was a cyclist.

If they did the same to a pedestrian; try to cut them off, shout at them, reach out to grab them then nobody would blame the pedestrian for doing the same.

Isambard

pulling the van into her like that was very threatening...how many times have they done that? has it gone further than that before?

Well done girl, they got what they deserve. Scum, and potentially dangerous scum at that

ozmo

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or read the article attached - its not real - they were actors.

"However a witness has told The Sun that the incident may have been staged.
A man was allegedly seen giving instructions to actors before the scene was filmed by a motorcyclist on Monday."

IrishZeus

amcalester wrote: »

People on here will defend the van driver and passenger simply because the woman was a cyclist.

I don't see anyone defending the van driver/passenger? Quite the opposite in fact?

Arcade_Tryer

Falcon L wrote: »

OOps, Maybe I should then.

OK Guilty of thinking it was all over when they drove off. Still think she could have done the passenger for sexual assault though.

Who
what why where and how?

irishgrover wrote: »

you are probably "right" in relation to her behaviour not being acceptable. It's probably not acceptable from a legal point of view and it may have put her in even more danger, which is probably not the wisest more.
However there is a difference between what the correct thing to do is legally and what the appropriate thing is from a moral or Karma standpoint.
IMHO, and regardless of my disrespect for the law, I think that if she had of ripped of the wing mirror and smacked the pricks repeatedly with it, then that would have been the best out come......

Utter nonsense. The nasty men said some nasty words. And in fact it's even debatable whether what they said was objectively nasty or not. Either way, the cyclist reacted in a completely unacceptable manner, whether from a legal or moral point of view. And the response on here is not much better. So far we've had support for arson, widespread support for damage to property, and an accusation of sexual assault. The mind truly boggles.

IrishZeus

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Who
what why where and how?

Utter nonsense. The nasty men said some nasty words. And in fact it's even debatable whether what they said was objectively nasty or not. Either way, the cyclist reacted in a completely unacceptable manner, whether from a legal or moral point of view. And the response on here is not much better. So far we've had support for arson, widespread support for damage to property, and an accusation of sexual assault. The mind truly boggles.

I wonder would you be so level-headed if you were put in that position yourself? Or if a female family member was put in it?

seagull

Please stop squabbling, and read the article. The whole thing was staged. You might as well start arguing about the car chases in movies, or whether Wylie Coyote has grounds to sue ACME. This is as real as those.

Arcade_Tryer

amcalester wrote: »

People on here will defend the van driver and passenger simply because the woman was a cyclist.

Nobody on here is defending the van driver and passenger. Defending their right to speech without someone physically damaging their property maybe. But not defending what they actually said.

What people ARE defending is the unacceptable, and illegal, behaviour of the cyclist simply because she is a woman.

amcalester

IrishZeus wrote: »

I don't see anyone defending the van driver/passenger? Quite the opposite in fact?

You're right, poor choice of words on my part. More that no one would castigate a pedestrian for doing the same.

irishgrover

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Who
what why where and how?

Utter nonsense. The nasty men said some nasty words. And in fact it's even debatable whether what they said was objectively nasty or not. Either way, the cyclist reacted in a completely unacceptable manner, whether from a legal or moral point of view. And the response on here is not much better. So far we've had support for arson, widespread support for damage to property, and an accusation of sexual assault. The mind truly boggles.

the bolded part of your response is enough for me to decide that you really are not worth engaging with....

Arcade_Tryer

IrishZeus wrote: »

I wonder would you be so level-headed if you were put in that position yourself? Or if a female family member was put in it?

Maybe I would. Maybe I wouldn't. But I'd hope to god there is still some level headed minds around to make sure that a similar reaction is not supported by the law.

seagull wrote: »

Please stop squabbling, and read the article. The whole thing was staged. You might as well start arguing about the car chases in movies. This is as real as those.

No. Whether it was staged or not, the reaction here is very real. And very worrying.

Falcon L

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Who
what why where and how?

Utter nonsense. The nasty men said some nasty words. And in fact it's even debatable whether what they said was objectively nasty or not. Either way, the cyclist reacted in a completely unacceptable manner, whether from a legal or moral point of view. And the response on here is not much better. So far we've had support for arson, widespread support for damage to property, and an accusation of sexual assault. The mind truly boggles.

At 29 seconds where she has to defend herself by batting away his hand. Picture that happening in the workplace and tell me sexual assault charges wouldn't be appropriate.

It may well have been staged, but it could happen any day, on any street.

Arcade_Tryer

irishgrover wrote: »

the bolded part of your response is enough for me to decide that you really are not worth engaging with....

The bolded part of your post below was enough for me to decide that you really are not worth engaging with...But I still did engage. Because discourse and reason are all we have. And without them, we are no better than what you wish for below, and what the cyclist exhibited at the end of the video.

irishgrover wrote:

IMHO, and regardless of my disrespect for the law, I think that if she had of ripped of the wing mirror and smacked the pricks repeatedly with it, then that would have been the best out come......

fullstop

Did anyone actually read the article with that video? It was staged.

Arcade_Tryer

Falcon L wrote: »

At 29 seconds where she has to defend herself by batting away his hand. Picture that happening in the workplace and tell me sexual assault charges wouldn't be appropriate.

It may well have been staged, but it could happen any day, on any street.

The person stretched out their hand towards the cyclist. But I'm struggling to see how it could be construed as sexual assault? Let alone even assault. I accept your point though, it was an potentially a physically aggressive act by the person in the van. The reaction of the cyclist was still highly disproportionate however imo.

Raging_Ninja

fullstop wrote: »

Did anyone actually read the article with that video? It was staged.

Now don't you come here adding your alternative facts, people here don't even read them.

Arcade_Tryer

fullstop wrote: »

Did anyone actually read the article with that video? It was staged.

Who cares? The reaction to the video is far more interesting than knowing whether it was staged or not. It could easily have been a real life scenario, hence the reaction.

inforfun

fullstop wrote: »

Did anyone actually read the article with that video? It was staged.

I can honestly say i didnt as i had seen this clip earlier today on youtube.
So i didnt bother opening the sun link

Arcade_Tryer

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Now don't you come here adding your alternative facts, people here don't even read them.

It's a dash cam thread. People watch videos and then have a chat about them. What happened in the video still happened, whether staged or not.

Caliden

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It's a dash cam thread. People watch videos and then have a chat about them. What happened in the video still happened, whether staged or not.

Nonsense.

The fact it's staged means the video itself doesn't belong in this thread.

Arcade_Tryer

Caliden wrote: »

Nonsense.

The fact it's staged means the video itself doesn't belong in this thread.

It's shot on a cam isn't it? Albeit a helmet cam. Which I think has been allowed before. It being staged takes nothing away from the realistic nature of the video, as shown by the reaction to it by those who did not know it was staged. Stop whinging and move on.

Caliden

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It's shot on a cam isn't it? Albeit a helmet cam. Which I think has been allowed before. It being staged takes nothing away from the realistic nature of the video, as shown by the reaction to it by those who did not know it was staged. Stop whinging and move on.

Go watch a movie if you want staged material fella

Arcade_Tryer

Caliden wrote: »

Go watch a movie if you want staged material fella

All the world's a stage.

CatFromHue

Falcon L wrote: »

At 29 seconds where she has to defend herself by batting away his hand. Picture that happening in the workplace and tell me sexual assault charges wouldn't be appropriate.

It may well have been staged, but it could happen any day, on any street.

I agree it could happen, it's just I've never seen it happen.

eamonnq

Looks to me like somebody was caught hook, line and sinker and just doesn't want to admit that.

vicwatson

Caliden wrote: »

Nonsense.

The fact it's staged means the video itself doesn't belong in this thread.

Didn't realise it was staged when I posted it. Apologies for that.

biko

This thread is split out from the dashcam thread for the purpose of that single video in OP.

I will keep dashcam closed a little while so people can find this thread instead

vicwatson

I've edited the original post.

biko

As far as we can tell this is a staged video so I'll close the thread