Murder inquiry under way after cyclist chased by four men in Slough

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

I saw this on the LBC Twitter feed.  They put "murdered" in the headline in speech marks, so I asked them to clarify why.

"Murder" does have a specific legal definition in the UK that requires proving intent to kill or cause GBH. My assumption would be (and I have no strong feelings about LBC one way or the other) that use of the " " at this stage, while it is under investigation, is probably a lawyers advice sort of deal. 

If it was me writing the tweet I might have just gone with killed, which would be a statement of fact.

I am wondering from the whole wording of the article whether the fact that the victim was a cyclist is relevant here. The way the article is worded suggests to me that it could have been a targeted attack where the victim is as sought out rather than a road rage type incident after a random minor collision. Targeting and seeking out a victim would of course mean intent to harm.

Either way, the perpetrators need to be caught and fast.

LeadenSkies wrote:

I am wondering from the whole wording of the article whether the fact that the victim was a cyclist is relevant here. The way the article is worded suggests to me that it could have been a targeted attack where the victim is as sought out rather than a road rage type incident after a random minor collision. Targeting and seeking out a victim would of course mean intent to harm. Either way, the perpetrators need to be caught and fast.

Absolutely. My post was aimed more at any assumption that "Murder" might be quote marked because they were a cyclist which, even at my most cynical, seems unlikely. 

LeadenSkies wrote:

I am wondering from the whole wording of the article whether the fact that the victim was a cyclist is relevant here. The way the article is worded suggests to me that it could have been a targeted attack where the victim is as sought out rather than a road rage type incident after a random minor collision. Targeting and seeking out a victim would of course mean intent to harm. Either way, the perpetrators need to be caught and fast.

This is something we have been trying to clarify with Thames Valley Police, so far without success. They have however put a section 60 order in force in part of Slough while trying to track down the perpetrators, more details here.

https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/news/thames-valley/news/2022/septembe...

Jetmans Dad wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

I saw this on the LBC Twitter feed.  They put "murdered" in the headline in speech marks, so I asked them to clarify why.

"Murder" does have a specific legal definition in the UK that requires proving intent to kill or cause GBH. My assumption would be (and I have no strong feelings about LBC one way or the other) that use of the " " at this stage, while it is under investigation, is probably a lawyers advice sort of deal. 

If it was me writing the tweet I might have just gone with killed, which would be a statement of fact.

I kind of thought that, but why then did the only use speech marks in the headline, not the actual report?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-hunt-four-suspects-in-shocking-slough-...

Isn't that because the murder inquiry is happening so is factual, whether it turns out the enquiry finds that they "murdered" the cyclist is not?