159 mph copper gets tummy tickled

[david lloyd]

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sue White <[email protected]>typed
>
> > Now that I've read those letters I find it awfully hard to believe they
> > weren't picking on him.
>
> I have to agree :-(
>
> So much for fair policing and unbiased judiciary...
>
On Sunday, I spend many miles behind a slow moving Safty Camera Team van
going at less than 30mph in unrestricted parts of the A51. Ahead of it were
a couple of scooters, one a learner, which were wobbling from side to side
across the carriage way. There were about twnety vehicles behind us by the
time I split off for Litchfield. If that was a police van, I would have
taken its number and reported them for failing to act. What is worse, there
were plenty of points where the white line wasn't solid in which the van had
time to accelerate past them.

Dave Lloyd
So open minded, my brains dribbled out.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Sue White <[email protected]> writes:
|> Adam Lea <[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
|> >
|> >Stationg that the cyclist was prosecuted for being on the road is a slight
|> >exaggeration. There is no law against cycling on the road.
|> >
|> There is now.
|> A lot of Uk law consists of judges' interpretations of what the Statutes
|> and Statutory Instruments mean.

And, even if the court was too low to set binding precedent, almost all
judges' judgements are allowable precedent (magistrates' are usually
or always not).

|> It's irrelevant that the judgement is against government policy (to
|> encourage cycling) and against government guidance (the Highway Code and
|> Cyclecraft both tell you what the government thinks the law is) because
|> the government can easily be wrong here.
|>
|> In my day job I deal with the Department for Work and Pensions, which
|> frequently passes legislation that doesn't say what the DWP meant it to
|> say (so it's against policy) or what the DWP's guidance says it says.
|> Very often, once a judge has found agains them they "restore the
|> legislative intention" by passing yet more legislation to correct their
|> mistakes.
|>
|> It's hard to imagine the current government passing a law to restore our
|> right to use the public highway at a convenient speed, so the appeal
|> against that judgement really is important.

As I said to several people when the Highway Code was changed to remove
the word 'suitable', this judgement was the intent. Enough people and
organisations pointed out the issue to them to make it clear that the
omission was deliberate.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

On 1 Sep,
[email protected] (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

>
> In article <[email protected]>, Sue White
> <[email protected]> writes: |> Adam Lea <[email protected]> whizzed
> past me shouting |> > |> >Stationg that the cyclist was prosecuted for
> being on the road is a slight |> >exaggeration. There is no law against
> cycling on the road. |> > |> There is now. |> A lot of Uk law consists of
> judges' interpretations of what the Statutes |> and Statutory Instruments
> mean.
>
> And, even if the court was too low to set binding precedent, almost all
> judges' judgements are allowable precedent (magistrates' are usually or
> always not).

This was a district judge (used to be called a stipendary magistrate) sitting
in a magistrates court, IIRC.


--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <4E5F9F461C%[email protected]>, <[email protected]> writes:
|> >
|> > And, even if the court was too low to set binding precedent, almost all
|> > judges' judgements are allowable precedent (magistrates' are usually or
|> > always not).
|>
|> This was a district judge (used to be called a stipendary magistrate) sitting
|> in a magistrates court, IIRC.

I didn't know that they had been retitled! That does change things,
rather.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.