Society's Child

Psychopathy! Hit and run driver tweets about running over cyclist

Ashley Davis
Opposing Views
Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00 UTC

When Emma Way hit a cyclist and drove off, she might have gotten away with it if she had not tweeted about it soon afterward.

In the tweet, from her account which is now deleted, she said, "Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier - I have right of way he doesn't even pay road tax! #bloodycyclists"

Way, from Norwich, England, had a small circle of 100 followers on Twitter. But the tweet soon spread, and got the attention of Norwich Police.

Norwich Police tweeted back, "@emmaway20 we have had tweets ref an RTC with a bike. We suggest you report it at a police station ASAP if not done already & then dm us"

And soon after that, more people saw the tweet, eventually locating the injured person.

James Lucas tweeted that he knew the man who was hit, saying, "Police are on the case. They had already located her and were just waiting for the victim to come forward. He has contacted them ..."

The cyclist was Toby Hockley, who was interviewed later by BBC.

"A car came tearing round the blind corner and narrowly missed a cyclist in front of me," he said. "She came on my side of the road, I took the wing mirror off and I went flying off my bike into a hedge. She hit me hard, really hard. I am lucky to be alive."

"But I managed to get out of the hedge and stand up. The car was nowhere to be seen. She hit me and she was gone. All I knew is that it was a blonde girl driving."

Way faces charges, and she also faces losing her job. The people of the Internet used their power to alert her employer of what she had done.

Larking Gowen issued a statement saying, "Thank you for taking the time to email Larking Gowen regarding the tweets posted by one of our employees on their personal twitter account."

"Please be assured that this is not a view held by the firm and we most certainly do not condone this behavior. We are taking the incidents very seriously, and a full and detailed investigation will be carried out and appropriate action taken. We have already spoken to Norfolk Police."

And, as Up Roxx noted, road tax does not exist, despite Way's claims.

Sources: MNN, Up Roxx

Reader Comments

Olesya · 2013-05-22T22:58:09Z

Well Way,

it seems to me, that is no way you will get away with this. Great!

I_tell_truth · 2013-05-23T01:53:18Z

"I almost...

...killed a guy on his bike, yay me!" What an idiot. Gives blondes a bad name...

sass · 2013-05-23T04:07:28Z

Re:

Yeah, what a dumbass. What on earth is going through the head of this moron? There must be an audience appreciating this kind of thing (what should I call it??), otherwise I don't think she would've tweeted it. Possibly a clear indication that such attitudes are on the rise.

Divide By Zero · 2013-05-23T09:36:52Z

Losing her job?

What she did was horrible. Clearly, she has no empathy... and she might have tweeted this while still driving!

But, what right does her employer have to make her lose her job for something unrelated to her job or her ability to do this job?

Things like that lead to a surveillance state where employers will demand access to personal information in their decisions about raises, promotions, hiring/firing. The employer is being a psychopath too by caring ONLY about their image to the public, by making this a possible reason for firing her. But then, I am not sure of UK labor law.

I_tell_truth · 2013-05-24T01:49:14Z

The HR person might not like having sociopaths working for them...so, when they find out, they're fired? Just a thought.

Divide By Zero · 2013-05-24T15:49:39Z

Ok, that makes sense but think about this:
If it were a high level executive, they wouldn't do the same. If fired, they get generous severance based on their contracts.

If she were in a union, there is no right to fire someone based on what the HR person "thinks", but on the job actions can cause someone to be fired.

My problem is that this can lead to extending the right of employers to fire someone based on what they deem to be wrong, not on job performance. If she exhibits these issues at work, then yes. Some jobs may not even be affected by her pathology, example: if all she does is file papers all day.

What if the HR person doesn't like a Muslim who believes that the wars are unjust and the HR person sees this as a pathology? Where is the line drawn as to what companies can use to fire people?

Jean Michel · 2013-05-23T12:09:19Z

The general lack of conscience on this planet continues to blow my mind. Although I guess that it shouldn't at this point.

This is again a reaffirmation to me that all social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook should be avoided at all costs.

In my opinion they promote this attitude of narcissistic self-promotion.

Non-participation is the only thing that will put an end to the Big Brother takeover of our lives.

Olesya · 2013-05-23T12:56:38Z

Thank you, Divide by Zero, for alerting me to this issue, although I have to say that I disagree with you regarding your comments.

You wrote that her "employer is being a psychopath too by caring ONLY about their image to the public, by making this a possible reason for firing her." That's a possibility, but how can you be sure?

What if, he is a normal person, trying to protect people who work for him? Maybe, he was horrified by what she's done. Can you imagine what kind of things she might be capable of doing to the people around her, if she did, what she did and bragged about afterwards! What if she works as a teacher, or a nurse, would her employer then, and in this case, be justified for firing her knowing that she might endanger the lives of the most vulnerable? Maybe, a law that keeps a person like her on the job, no matter what, is unjust? And in this situation, if she does loses her job, it's probably would be, because she will be convicted of a crime and(or) physically unable to be present at work.

And yes, I agree with you that we live in a surveillance state and it's not pleasant, but it's not always that simple, don't you agree? Here, "people of the Internet used their power to alert her employer of what she had done." Her employer wasn't snooping around trying to find some incriminating information, so he can fire her. She posted or tweeted this information herself! And this information was used properly, osit, to uncover a person that is a psychopath or exhibits an extreme psychopathic behavior.

Remember the law of 3? There is good and there is bad, and there is a specific situation that determines which is which.

And one more thing: if she is not a psychopath and capable to recapacitate, she will learn from it and will be better person, although I doubt that. If she is a psychopath, well.. she will find a way to survive. Psychopath always do, osit.

Divide By Zero · 2013-05-23T13:13:48Z

My problem is that the article speaks of how ALREADY before things are settled, she can lose her job.

You see how they are worried about their image.

I wouldn't want her working for my company if I owned one either.

What says that they can't apply this to religion or ideas?

For example, you find that the wars are all based on lies, and Obama is a liar. One would post this information clearly and how would the legal system be able to distinguish this as protected - compared to what she wrote?

This can reinforce the idea that if the company finds this offensive, they will find a way to fire the worker, even if it doesn't affect their job performance.

Companies are quick to off workers with issues if they are working class. However, if she were an executive, you think the article would say that it could cost her job?

That's my problem with this, a double standard against the working class. Even a psychopath has a right to make a living as long as she or he doesn't infringe on other people's free will via manipulation etc.

Think of Bradley Manning... he leaked information and the "company" (US military) felt that this is a horrible offense that would risk the lives of soldiers, and now he is rotting away in a prison with torture.

Double standards mean that we have to stand strong on BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. To me that means that if someone did something wrong outside of work, it should not affect their job status. Maybe I am too pro workers rights, but seriously- if she isn't like that at the job, is that a good reason to fire her?

edit: Another good example comes to mind, Eliot Spitzer with his prostitution scandal... they deemed that this is inexcusable behavior and pretty much pushed him out. It didn't affect his job performance, yet it was something that was used to make him "not fit for the job".

I suppose the Zionazis in Israel imported a bunch of their Khazar brethren propagandists from the Ukraine, who managed to shoot down Russian...

codis

FOX NEWS and NEWSMAX TV lie about Israel, while the rest of the legacy media lie about everything else.

BobfromDodge

I witnessed CERT team member at the Georgia State Diagnostic Center in Jackson, Georgia brag about murdering inmates, though I never saw them...

BobfromDodge

'Governor Signs Climate Engineering Ban Legislation Into Law' [Link] . "Tennessee Governor Bill Lee has now signed legislation into law that bans...

parzival

It troubles me that there is a continual supply of people who consider ' brutality and purposeless sadism' a career path.

Baybars

Society's Child

Psychopathy! Hit and run driver tweets about running over cyclist

Reader Comments

Latest News

Picture of the Day

Quote of the Day

Recent Comments

Quantum Quirk