JNugent gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Approaching a set of lights which turn amber just before we reach them
is a very common experience. It is remarkable that there is no ready
case-law on the topic.

There is.

Passing through the lights once they've gone red is an absolute offence.
Passing through the lights at amber is not an offence, but is strongly
discouraged by "best practice", as codified in the Highway Code.

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

Ttoommy wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Ah, OK. *******s.

I do find it mildly amusing that cyclists whine on (and on and on) about
*their* safety but are such aggressive ****s when it comes to their
interaction with pedestrians.

Good Point

OK which one of you tw4ts is pretending to be Filth today ;-)



You tell us, or is it me?

--
Tony the Dragon

Adrian wrote:

JNugent :

Approaching a set of lights which turn amber just before we reach them
is a very common experience. It is remarkable that there is no ready
case-law on the topic.

There is.

Passing through the lights once they've gone red is an absolute offence.
Passing through the lights at amber is not an offence, but is strongly
discouraged by "best practice", as codified in the Highway Code.

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.

The other problem is that you did not re-phrase the "amber phase" part of the
law in full. It contains a legal caveat to the effect that one may pass at
amber, but only if it would be dangerous to stop. I don't believe that the
full meaning of that has ever been properly explained.

If it really means that you can treat amber like green, fair enough. But what
if it doesn't?

Adrian wrote:

Nice try.

Indeed. Nice tries often do introduce facts to the debate.

Beign pedantic about this, the meaning of "nice try" is actually "exact
shot" as in "hit the target dead centre".

Hansen seems to be a Humpty Dumpty in his use of language in this
respect as he is when it comes to "Hansen gets to define how the
European parliament works."

JNugent gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

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.

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.

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?

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?

JNugent gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

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?

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.

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.

Adrian writes:

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.

If, as you claimed earlier, going through the lights on amber is not an
offence, what exactly do you expect them to charge him with?

Calling them a bunch of
"jumped-up fascist bullyboys" should help persuade them, especially if
you crap in their hats whilst doing so.

Except maybe a public order offence, but I can't see that being
particularly relevant


-dan

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?

Daniel Barlow gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.

If, as you claimed earlier, going through the lights on amber is not an
offence, what exactly do you expect them to charge him with?

I'm not the one trying to legally clarify whether it is or not.