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

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.

Adrian wrote:

Daniel Barlow :

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.

And neither are any of us.

I asked whether there was any legal definition of:

"You may go on [at amber] only if ... you ... are so close to [the stop line]
that to pull up might cause an accident".

Daniel Barlow wrote:
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?

Carless cycling. As opposed to failure to obey a traffic sign, which
would apply to going through the lights on red.

Nick Finnigan wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:
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?

Carless cycling.

One would hope he was. :-)

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?

JNugent gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

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

Bad day at the office?

Not at all. A little light entertainment at your expense.