Adrian wrote:

JNugent :

What is so ****ing difficult to comprehend about that?

Well, for one thing, that is not case-law. Case-law is established by
judges, usually on appeal.

So please feel free to set such legal precedent.

???
How could I do that?

Ah, sorry. I read your post to imply a certain degree of familiarity with
basic legal concepts.
It's relatively simple.
Case law is established by a case setting a legal precedent. There's a
clue in the name. In this kind of instance, it'll probably be because
it's been taken to a higher court, which probably implies an appeal of a
conviction, in order to set a precedent going against the obvious
implications of the wording of the law - which is what you seem to be
trying to do, if I'm not mistaken?

You *are* mistaken.

See if you can work out why.

I look forward to reading the transcript of your appeal against a £60
FPN when you take it all the way to the Law Lords. Don't forget to let
us know how much the final bill is, including the costs awarded against
you as well as all your legal fees and incidental costs.

What's all that about?

Exactly what it says.

But since none of it has any basis in reality, what's it all about?

You think case law's required to clarify the law. Fine. So please regard
it as your duty to use the first opportunity you get to set it. Next
lights you see that are in the process of changing, whilst you've got a
police car following you, feel free to just blat through as they're very
nicely orange. Don't forget to ask the nice officers to make sure they
charge you, because you want to clarify the law. Calling them a bunch of
"jumped-up fascist bullyboys" should help persuade them, especially if
you crap in their hats whilst doing so.

We'd like to know what the final bill is purely so we can compare it to
the cost of paying the FPN, in order to ensure good value has been
obtained from your laudably principled stand.

Alternatively, you could regard it as a ****-take of your arrogant
pedantry.

Bad day at the office?