Some clarification could be good..

[David Martin]

This might inspire some of you in light of recent events...

---
The Clerk to Bruce Morgan
Bridgnorth & Telford Magistrates Court
Telford Square
Malinsgate
Telford
Shropshire TF3 4HX



Dear Sir

R v Cadden
Heard 7 August 2006

I write with reference to the above case.

I was interested to learn through the Shropshire Star of your judgment
in this matter, namely that cycling in the road is a criminal offence
where cycle facilities are provided.

As a trainee solicitor, I am keen to avoid any criminal activity for
which I could face prosecution. Perhaps you would be kind enough to
clarify for me how close a cycle facility must be to the road in order
to avoid committing an offence. In particular, I am concerned that I
would be acting unlawfully by cycling on a road when a cycle route is
available, even if this is not actually next to the road. I would also
be keen to know whether, where using such a route involves a detour,
how much further, in your opinion, the route would need to be to render
it disproportionate, thus allowing me to use the road?

I would be most grateful for your thoughts on this issue, and await
your reply with considerable interest.

Yours faithfully

---

 

[Simon Mason]

"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Heard 7 August 2006
>
> I write with reference to the above case.
>
> I was interested to learn through the Shropshire Star of your judgment
> in this matter, namely that cycling in the road is a criminal offence
> where cycle facilities are provided.

The reply will be along the lines of
Dear Sir,
I am afraid we cannot comment on individual cases etc etc.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

[[email protected]]

On 11 Aug 2006 07:17:08 -0700, "David Martin"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>As a trainee solicitor,

As a trainee solicitor you should know that this deicison is not
binding on any other court and a better use of you time would offering
your services to Mr Cadden to help him appeal this decision.

More likely to be useful than a pompous letter that is unlikely to get
anything other than a brush off reply

 

[Brian G]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2006 07:17:08 -0700, "David Martin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> As a trainee solicitor,
>
> As a trainee solicitor you should know that this deicison is not
> binding on any other court and a better use of you time would offering
> your services to Mr Cadden to help him appeal this decision.
>
> More likely to be useful than a pompous letter that is unlikely to get
> anything other than a brush off reply

If Mr Cadden appeals, as I hope he feels able to do, I greatly hope he
has more than a trainee solicitor to assist him.

--
Brian G

 

[John]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On 11 Aug 2006 07:17:08 -0700, "David Martin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>As a trainee solicitor,
>
> As a trainee solicitor you should know that this deicison is not
> binding on any other court and a better use of you time would offering
> your services to Mr Cadden to help him appeal this decision.
>
> More likely to be useful than a pompous letter that is unlikely to get
> anything other than a brush off reply

Why do you think the letter is pompous. Is claiming the exalted position of
trainee solicitor pompous? Or is it pompous to be able to write clearly.

I too think he will receive a brush off but that will just be because people
don't like being shown the negative consequences of their decisions.

 

[Al C-F]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2006 07:17:08 -0700, "David Martin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>As a trainee solicitor,
>
>
> As a trainee solicitor you should know that this deicison is not
> binding on any other court and a better use of you time would offering
> your services to Mr Cadden to help him appeal this decision.
>
> More likely to be useful than a pompous letter that is unlikely to get
> anything other than a brush off reply

What an unutterably stupid reply.

Whether the decision is binding or not, the OP is seeking guidance on
avoiding a criminal record, which would affect his future career. This
is a perfectly valid line of questioning.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:16:37 +0100, Al C-F
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>What an unutterably stupid reply.
>
>Whether the decision is binding or not, the OP is seeking guidance on
>avoiding a criminal record, which would affect his future career. This
>is a perfectly valid line of questioning.

which just goes to show how ignorant you are of the English legal
system.

Magistrates, like judges, do not respond to letters questioning their
decisions otherwise they would not have time to make any other
decisions. That's why we have an appeal system.

If the OP wants to seek guidance then he needs to look higher than a
district judge (who admittedly is off his rocker over this one from
what I have seen)

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 09:30:10 +0100, "John" <[email protected]> wrote:


>
>Why do you think the letter is pompous. Is claiming the exalted position of
>trainee solicitor pompous? Or is it pompous to be able to write clearly.
>

It's pompous because he knows (or should know) that it will be of no
effect and all he wants to do is show off in this forum

>I too think he will receive a brush off but that will just be because people
>don't like being shown the negative consequences of their decisions.
>
No - because the judiciary don't answer questions about their
decisions, they leave to appeal courts to decide if they were right or
wrong.

I too think the district judge got this one 100% wrong but I don't
thinkm he is going to lose any sleep over it

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:28:47 +0100 someone who may be [email protected]
wrote this:-

>I too think the district judge got this one 100% wrong but I don't
>thinkm he is going to lose any sleep over it

He certainly isn't going to if he is not challenged.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Nick Kew]

[email protected] wrote:

> No - because the judiciary don't answer questions about their
> decisions, they leave to appeal courts to decide if they were right or
> wrong.
>
> I too think the district judge got this one 100% wrong but I don't
> thinkm he is going to lose any sleep over it

You don't become a judge - even the lowest form (a district judge) -
without having "the right attitude". That doesn't mean they all
have similar views or reach the same decisions. But it *does* mean
they must have left far behind any idealistic notions that their
profession has anything to do with justice, other than in name.
Or any inclination to care about ruining an innocent person's life.
And you know very well that your word is (literally) law, and that
(unlike a politician or bureaucrat), your decision *absolutely*
cannot be challenged - or even criticised[1] - except through the
same corrupt system - more individuals with "the right attitude".

[1] OK, you can criticise a judges decision. But try and do so
in a publication with anything to lose, like a newspaper, and
most editors value their freedom and jobs too much to publish.
Even Private Eye knows the difference between a mere libel suit
(money) and contempt of court (criminal record, possible prison).

--
not me guv

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, [email protected]
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:16:37 +0100, Al C-F
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>What an unutterably stupid reply.
>>
>>Whether the decision is binding or not, the OP is seeking guidance on
>>avoiding a criminal record, which would affect his future career. This
>>is a perfectly valid line of questioning.
>
> which just goes to show how ignorant you are of the English legal
> system.
>
> Magistrates, like judges, do not respond to letters questioning their
> decisions otherwise they would not have time to make any other
> decisions. That's why we have an appeal system.
>
> If the OP wants to seek guidance then he needs to look higher than a
> district judge (who admittedly is off his rocker over this one from
> what I have seen)

[why am I bothering to reply to a twit who hides behind a pseudonym?]

It doesn't actually matter if the judge replies. It doesn't, actually,
matter that much whether or not he reads it. Case law is a process of
negotiating what is socially acceptable, which is why the law changes
over time. If the judge knows that a he's got a larger than usual
negative postbag, he knows he's failed to administer what people
perceive as justice. Which is the first step towards thinking about why.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; better than your average performing pineapple

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 09:30:10 +0100, "John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Why do you think the letter is pompous. Is claiming the exalted position of
> >trainee solicitor pompous? Or is it pompous to be able to write clearly.
> >
>
> It's pompous because he knows (or should know) that it will be of no
> effect and all he wants to do is show off in this forum
>
And there was me thinking he was just winding up the Judge's office (and
possibly encouraging others to do the same). It's a good job we have
champions like you to ward off the threat that showoffs pose to this
forum.