UTLer in the news
 

In article , magwitch wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote:

I'm glad I phoned and emailed you beforehand to say I wasn't going to be
able to make it then, though I was sorry for the short notice, but fixing
the heating had to take priority.

No Alan in your last email on Saturday 24/11/07 at 18:02, you say,
"It's not looking good for an early start - I'll try and call you in the
morning.

You didn't bother to call the next morning.

I tried phoning, and when I didn't get an answer I sent another email
as well. I'm sorry if it ended up in your spam filter or something.
(Maybe this would be more appropriate taken to email, but since it
appears that isn't as reliable as it might be.....)

UTLer in the news
 

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , magwitch wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote:
I'm glad I phoned and emailed you beforehand to say I wasn't going to be
able to make it then, though I was sorry for the short notice, but fixing
the heating had to take priority.
No Alan in your last email on Saturday 24/11/07 at 18:02, you say,
"It's not looking good for an early start - I'll try and call you in the
morning.

You didn't bother to call the next morning.

I tried phoning, and when I didn't get an answer I sent another email
as well. I'm sorry if it ended up in your spam filter or something.
(Maybe this would be more appropriate taken to email, but since it
appears that isn't as reliable as it might be.....)

Must have been well on for midday as that's when we went out to start
felling. It was an irritation as I had to ok it with the farmer as they
were to come down on his track.

My spam filter always gives me the option to 'mark as junk' before it
goes in there, I've got a mac so don't get that much.

No hard feelings mate. Looking out the window I'm really rather glad we
didn't give any away, they've seasoned up beautifully and it looks like
we'll need them for the next few weeks - got some weather coming that
makes today look like a picnic.

UTLer in the news
 

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:06:01 +0000,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message op.uoxkwnwjhaghkf@lucy, at 12:56:37 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
In other words (and ignoring people with illegally fitted lights) you
cannot use the presence of blue lights to tell whether or not the
vehicle has a statutory right not to be obstructed.

Yes, they completely muffed that Act.

Well only inasmuch as if people are intent on obstructing them then
they might not be commiting a criminal offense.

It's been suggested that people might rely upon the Emergency Workers
Act as a defence for running a red light.

This is clearly a very poor strategy, when you can't be sure that the
vehicle you are giving way to is actually covered by that Act.

Surely all you need is an "honest belief" that it was an emergency
vehicle (could even be an unmarked, unlit car behind you) and the police
wouldn't even bother to charge, let alone it going to court even if your
belief was completely wrong and it was difficult for others to
understand how you might have come into your "honest belief".

Tim.


--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/

UTLer in the news
 

In message , at
14:39:19 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Tim Woodall
remarked:
It's been suggested that people might rely upon the Emergency Workers
Act as a defence for running a red light.

This is clearly a very poor strategy, when you can't be sure that the
vehicle you are giving way to is actually covered by that Act.

Surely all you need is an "honest belief" that it was an emergency
vehicle (could even be an unmarked, unlit car behind you) and the police
wouldn't even bother to charge, let alone it going to court even if your
belief was completely wrong and it was difficult for others to
understand how you might have come into your "honest belief".

No, that's the problem. It's too great of an assumption to make that
this defence will work.
--
Roland Perry

UTLer in the news
 

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:51:20 +0000,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
14:39:19 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Tim Woodall
remarked:
It's been suggested that people might rely upon the Emergency Workers
Act as a defence for running a red light.

This is clearly a very poor strategy, when you can't be sure that the
vehicle you are giving way to is actually covered by that Act.

Surely all you need is an "honest belief" that it was an emergency
vehicle (could even be an unmarked, unlit car behind you) and the police
wouldn't even bother to charge, let alone it going to court even if your
belief was completely wrong and it was difficult for others to
understand how you might have come into your "honest belief".

No, that's the problem. It's too great of an assumption to make that
this defence will work.

I'll remember to include sarcasm tags next time.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/

UTLer in the news
 

In article op.uoxgyh0w0v1caa@dell,
"Brian L Johnson" wrote:

People with firm convictions do often stick with them when they
shouldn't. I guess that's why they're called, y'know... 'firm'. g

There seems to have been a belief in the former US administration that
'firm' trumps 'wrong'; it doesn't.

But you can be 'firm' and 'wrong' or 'firm' and 'right': they're not
mutually exclusive attributes.

There a many possible permutations and nuances, but sticking to your
guns on something which has been proven wrong to merely "prove that you
are firm" is foolish, if not delusional.

UTLer in the news
 

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:51:20 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
14:39:19 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Tim Woodall
remarked:
It's been suggested that people might rely upon the Emergency Workers
Act as a defence for running a red light.

This is clearly a very poor strategy, when you can't be sure that the
vehicle you are giving way to is actually covered by that Act.

Surely all you need is an "honest belief" that it was an emergency
vehicle (could even be an unmarked, unlit car behind you) and the police
wouldn't even bother to charge, let alone it going to court even if your
belief was completely wrong and it was difficult for others to
understand how you might have come into your "honest belief".

No, that's the problem. It's too great of an assumption to make that
this defence will work.


Why? Duress is accepted as a defence even for drink driving. If you're
operating under the reasonable belief tht failing to do something may be
life threatening then you're allowed to use that as a defense. If tyou
then follow the emergency vehicle through the lights then you're going to
have more difficulty convincing anyone that that was your belief.

UTLer in the news
 

In message op.uoxv0jxthaghkf@lucy, at 16:56:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
If you're operating under the reasonable belief tht failing to do
something may be life threatening then you're allowed to use that as a
defense.

That's a new angle. Any precedents for that wrt red traffic lights?

If tyou then follow the emergency vehicle through the lights then
you're going to have more difficulty convincing anyone that that was
your belief.

The emergency vehicle will be following you through, actually.
--
Roland Perry

UTLer in the news
 

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:15:22 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message op.uoxv0jxthaghkf@lucy, at 16:56:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
If you're operating under the reasonable belief tht failing to do
something may be life threatening then you're allowed to use that as a
defense.

That's a new angle. Any precedents for that wrt red traffic lights?


Well it's worked for reckless, dangerous & drink driving & driving whilst
disqualified. Whether or not you'd be believed is a different question

If tyou then follow the emergency vehicle through the lights then
you're going to have more difficulty convincing anyone that that was
your belief.

The emergency vehicle will be following you through, actually.


Well normally you'd pull over to let it past, isn't that the point of
pulling forward?

UTLer in the news
 

In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
Roland Perry wrote:
In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1]

[1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that
photo, but seems unlikely.

So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it?

Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you
wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you
to believe it was OK).

Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence,
including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal*
situation.

No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without
considering other users.

I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by
comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*,
seem to be a bit more careful.


*I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that
overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could
go. Single lane road of course.


Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a
bit of bovver?..
--
Tony Sayer