Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Government targets Doug
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Jacob Von Hogflume
Nov 14, 2012, 9:50:00 AM11/14/12
to
On 14/11/2012 14:10, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Today's Highway code reminder: -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Driving Standards Agency <http://www.dft.gov.uk/dsa>
>
>
> The Highway Code: rules for cyclists
>
> The Driving Standards Agency sent this bulletin at 14-11-2012 12:00 PM GMT
> DRIVING STANDARDS AGENCY
> The Highway Code THE OFFICIAL HIGHWAY CODE
> Rules for cyclists
>
> The Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. It's essential
> reading for everyone. Here's a reminder about rules for cyclists.
>
> You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
>
> *Rule 64*
>
Not strictly true. A bike with certain size wheels can be ridden on the
pavement. It used to be 20" wheels but might have changed.
> Today's Highway code reminder: -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Driving Standards Agency <http://www.dft.gov.uk/dsa>
>
>
> The Highway Code: rules for cyclists
>
> The Driving Standards Agency sent this bulletin at 14-11-2012 12:00 PM GMT
> DRIVING STANDARDS AGENCY
> The Highway Code THE OFFICIAL HIGHWAY CODE
> Rules for cyclists
>
> The Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. It's essential
> reading for everyone. Here's a reminder about rules for cyclists.
>
> You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
>
> *Rule 64*
>
Not strictly true. A bike with certain size wheels can be ridden on the
pavement. It used to be 20" wheels but might have changed.
Steve Firth
Nov 14, 2012, 10:14:35 AM11/14/12
to
Jacob Von Hogflume <time...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Not strictly true. A bike with certain size wheels can be ridden on the
> pavement. It used to be 20" wheels but might have changed.
In that case I'm sure you can cite the appropriate statute.
> Not strictly true. A bike with certain size wheels can be ridden on the
> pavement. It used to be 20" wheels but might have changed.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Paul Cummins
Nov 14, 2012, 10:16:00 AM11/14/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when time...@btinternet.com (Jacob
Von Hogflume) came up to me and whispered:
> Not strictly true. A bike with certain size wheels can be
> ridden on the pavement. It used to be 20" wheels but might have
> changed.
More accurate to say a person under 10 can ride on the pavement, and
their wheels are unlikely to be bigger than 20 inches.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
Von Hogflume) came up to me and whispered:
> Not strictly true. A bike with certain size wheels can be
> ridden on the pavement. It used to be 20" wheels but might have
> changed.
their wheels are unlikely to be bigger than 20 inches.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
R. Mark Clayton
Nov 14, 2012, 10:23:16 AM11/14/12
to
"Jacob Von Hogflume" <time...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:50a3af98$0$2085$7120d902@karibu...
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
IIRC bicycles had not been invented in 1835, although I suppose a that
"carriage of any description" might cover bicycles and the latter refers
only to Scotland.
AlanG
Nov 14, 2012, 10:34:18 AM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:16 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when time...@btinternet.com (Jacob
>Von Hogflume) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> Not strictly true. A bike with certain size wheels can be
>> ridden on the pavement. It used to be 20" wheels but might have
>> changed.
>
>More accurate to say a person under 10 can ride on the pavement, and
>their wheels are unlikely to be bigger than 20 inches.
When was that rule introduced?
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when time...@btinternet.com (Jacob
>Von Hogflume) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> Not strictly true. A bike with certain size wheels can be
>> ridden on the pavement. It used to be 20" wheels but might have
>> changed.
>
>More accurate to say a person under 10 can ride on the pavement, and
>their wheels are unlikely to be bigger than 20 inches.
Cos in 1956 I got my first bike, a green CWS two wheeler without
stabilisers. I was okay riding around the local streets but to get to
the shops I rode on the pavement. A cop stopped me and made me ride on
the dual carriageway. I was 9 years old.
Jacob Von Hogflume
Nov 14, 2012, 11:34:56 AM11/14/12
to
On 14/11/2012 15:16, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when time...@btinternet.com (Jacob
> Von Hogflume) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> Not strictly true. A bike with certain size wheels can be
>> ridden on the pavement. It used to be 20" wheels but might have
>> changed.
>
> More accurate to say a person under 10 can ride on the pavement, and
> their wheels are unlikely to be bigger than 20 inches.
>
There are also shared use pavements which cyclists can ride on
> We were about to embark at Dover, when time...@btinternet.com (Jacob
> Von Hogflume) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> Not strictly true. A bike with certain size wheels can be
>> ridden on the pavement. It used to be 20" wheels but might have
>> changed.
>
> More accurate to say a person under 10 can ride on the pavement, and
> their wheels are unlikely to be bigger than 20 inches.
>
perfectly legally.
Paul Cummins
Nov 14, 2012, 12:02:00 PM11/14/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
A child under ten is irrebuttably presumed as a matter of law to be
incapable of committing a crime.
up to me and whispered:
> When was that rule introduced?
The copper was in the wrong.
A child under ten is irrebuttably presumed as a matter of law to be
incapable of committing a crime.
AlanG
Nov 14, 2012, 12:17:35 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:02 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> When was that rule introduced?
>
>The copper was in the wrong.
In 1956?
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> When was that rule introduced?
>
>The copper was in the wrong.
>
>A child under ten is irrebuttably presumed as a matter of law to be
>incapable of committing a crime.
Thats why he didn't arrest me then
>A child under ten is irrebuttably presumed as a matter of law to be
>incapable of committing a crime.
Mrcheerful
Nov 14, 2012, 4:37:38 PM11/14/12
to
DocInsanity
Nov 14, 2012, 4:52:00 PM11/14/12
to
On Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:05:35 UTC, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>
> up to me and whispered:
>
>
>
> > When was that rule introduced?
>
>
>
> The copper was in the wrong.
>
>
>
> A child under ten is irrebuttably presumed as a matter of law to be
>
> incapable of committing a crime.
>
>
But that doesn't mean they're incapable of committing illegal acts which the police have an obligation to prevent.
> We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>
> up to me and whispered:
>
>
>
> > When was that rule introduced?
>
>
>
> The copper was in the wrong.
>
>
>
> A child under ten is irrebuttably presumed as a matter of law to be
>
> incapable of committing a crime.
>
>
Paul Cummins
Nov 14, 2012, 5:17:00 PM11/14/12
to
> >The copper was in the wrong.
>
> In 1956?
No, in 1956 the copper would have needed to prove you knew you were
>
> In 1956?
breaking the law.
Section 50, Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended by the
Children and Young Persons Act 1963.
Paul Cummins
Nov 14, 2012, 5:19:00 PM11/14/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when docin...@googlemail.com
(DocInsanity) came up to me and whispered:
> >
> But that doesn't mean they're incapable of committing illegal
> acts which the police have an obligation to prevent.
Of course it does.
(DocInsanity) came up to me and whispered:
> >
> But that doesn't mean they're incapable of committing illegal
> acts which the police have an obligation to prevent.
Mrcheerful
Nov 14, 2012, 5:55:33 PM11/14/12
to
Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when docin...@googlemail.com
> (DocInsanity) came up to me and whispered:
>
>>>
>> But that doesn't mean they're incapable of committing illegal
>> acts which the police have an obligation to prevent.
>
> Of course it does.
so if a policeman sees an 8 year old hacking someone to death with an
> We were about to embark at Dover, when docin...@googlemail.com
> (DocInsanity) came up to me and whispered:
>
>>>
>> But that doesn't mean they're incapable of committing illegal
>> acts which the police have an obligation to prevent.
>
> Of course it does.
hatchet, the policeman will do nothing? Do not be so silly.
Paul Cummins
Nov 14, 2012, 7:35:00 PM11/14/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
(Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
> so if a policeman sees an 8 year old hacking someone to death
> with an hatchet, the policeman will do nothing?
Of course not. He will act to protect life and limb. But no crime is
being committed.
(Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
> so if a policeman sees an 8 year old hacking someone to death
> with an hatchet, the policeman will do nothing?
being committed.
Mrcheerful
Nov 15, 2012, 2:12:13 AM11/15/12
to
Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
> (Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> so if a policeman sees an 8 year old hacking someone to death
>> with an hatchet, the policeman will do nothing?
>
> Of course not. He will act to protect life and limb. But no crime is
> being committed.
yes it is, whether anyone is charged with that crime is a different matter.
> We were about to embark at Dover, when g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
> (Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> so if a policeman sees an 8 year old hacking someone to death
>> with an hatchet, the policeman will do nothing?
>
> Of course not. He will act to protect life and limb. But no crime is
> being committed.
AlanG
Nov 15, 2012, 3:50:52 AM11/15/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:17 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> >The copper was in the wrong.
>>
>> In 1956?
>
>No, in 1956 the copper would have needed to prove you knew you were
>breaking the law.
>
>Section 50, Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended by the
>Children and Young Persons Act 1963.
That has little to do with ordering me to cycle on a dual carriageway
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> >The copper was in the wrong.
>>
>> In 1956?
>
>No, in 1956 the copper would have needed to prove you knew you were
>breaking the law.
>
>Section 50, Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended by the
>Children and Young Persons Act 1963.
instead of the pavement
Paul Cummins
Nov 15, 2012, 5:51:00 AM11/15/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
(Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
(Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
> yes it is, whether anyone is charged with that crime is a
> different matter.
If a child is incapable, as a matter of law, of committing a crime, it
> different matter.
follows that anything the child does cannot be a crime.
Rob
Nov 15, 2012, 6:22:47 AM11/15/12
to
committing a crime has committed a crime. However if those same actions were
carried out by someone over the age of criminal responsibility, that WOULD
be a crime.
--
Rob
Jeff
Nov 15, 2012, 6:41:16 AM11/15/12
to
On 15/11/2012 10:51, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
> (Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> yes it is, whether anyone is charged with that crime is a
>> different matter.
>
> If a child is incapable, as a matter of law, of committing a crime, it
> follows that anything the child does cannot be a crime.
>
Not so the actual wording is:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
> (Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> yes it is, whether anyone is charged with that crime is a
>> different matter.
>
> If a child is incapable, as a matter of law, of committing a crime, it
> follows that anything the child does cannot be a crime.
>
"It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten
years can be guilty of any offence. "
So it is clear that an offence has been committed, just that a person
under ten cannot be guilty of it.
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 as amended by Children and Young
Persons Act 1963
Jeff
Mrcheerful
Nov 15, 2012, 8:04:38 AM11/15/12
to
case a child did it?
Cynic
Nov 15, 2012, 9:04:12 AM11/15/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when docin...@googlemail.com
>(DocInsanity) came up to me and whispered:
>> But that doesn't mean they're incapable of committing illegal
>> acts which the police have an obligation to prevent.
>Of course it does.
That would mean that if a policeman came across a 9 year old stabbing
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when docin...@googlemail.com
>(DocInsanity) came up to me and whispered:
>> But that doesn't mean they're incapable of committing illegal
>> acts which the police have an obligation to prevent.
>Of course it does.
someone, they would not be permitted to make the 9 year old stop.
--
Cynic
Paul Cummins
Nov 15, 2012, 9:59:00 AM11/15/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
(Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
(Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
> so a dead body lying in the street is not investigated as a
> crime, just in case a child did it?
It depends on how they died.
> crime, just in case a child did it?
Clearly if they had a massive heart attack, then no further investigation
is needed since no crime has been committed.
If, however, they died due to a chisel being inserted between their 2nd
and 3rd cervical vertebrae, that is so high up in the body that clearly
it was done by someone over 10.
A child (FSVO child) cannot commit a crime. Thus no police time need be
wasted on investigating a "crime" perpetrated by a "child".
Police time would be better invested actually investigating real crime in
any case, as against a cyclist on a footpath or a noisy exhaust.
Paul Cummins
Nov 15, 2012, 10:42:00 AM11/15/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) came
They could take him into protective custody.
up to me and whispered:
> That would mean that if a policeman came across a 9 year old
> stabbing someone, they would not be permitted to make the 9 year
> old stop.
They would, but could not arrest the 9 year old.
> stabbing someone, they would not be permitted to make the 9 year
> old stop.
They could take him into protective custody.
Mrcheerful
Nov 15, 2012, 12:46:25 PM11/15/12
to
Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
> (Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> so a dead body lying in the street is not investigated as a
>> crime, just in case a child did it?
>
> It depends on how they died.
>
> Clearly if they had a massive heart attack, then no further
> investigation is needed since no crime has been committed.
>
> If, however, they died due to a chisel being inserted between their
> 2nd and 3rd cervical vertebrae, that is so high up in the body that
> clearly it was done by someone over 10.
>
> A child (FSVO child) cannot commit a crime. Thus no police time need
> be wasted on investigating a "crime" perpetrated by a "child".
>
> Police time would be better invested actually investigating real
> crime in any case, as against a cyclist on a footpath or a noisy
> exhaust.
why can't a tiny child stab someone while they lie on the floor?
> We were about to embark at Dover, when g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
> (Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> so a dead body lying in the street is not investigated as a
>> crime, just in case a child did it?
>
> It depends on how they died.
>
> Clearly if they had a massive heart attack, then no further
> investigation is needed since no crime has been committed.
>
> If, however, they died due to a chisel being inserted between their
> 2nd and 3rd cervical vertebrae, that is so high up in the body that
> clearly it was done by someone over 10.
>
> A child (FSVO child) cannot commit a crime. Thus no police time need
> be wasted on investigating a "crime" perpetrated by a "child".
>
> Police time would be better invested actually investigating real
> crime in any case, as against a cyclist on a footpath or a noisy
> exhaust.
Cynic
Nov 15, 2012, 1:29:43 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>If, however, they died due to a chisel being inserted between their 2nd
>and 3rd cervical vertebrae, that is so high up in the body that clearly
>it was done by someone over 10.
I'm not sure whether that is a failure of logic or imagination.
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>If, however, they died due to a chisel being inserted between their 2nd
>and 3rd cervical vertebrae, that is so high up in the body that clearly
>it was done by someone over 10.
Most 10 year olds could easily reach my 2nd and 3rd cervical vertebrae
unless I was standing up.
--
Cynic
Cynic
Nov 15, 2012, 1:30:58 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:42 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> That would mean that if a policeman came across a 9 year old
>> stabbing someone, they would not be permitted to make the 9 year
>> old stop.
>
>They would, but could not arrest the 9 year old.
So why is that different to a policeman who can stop a 9 year old
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> That would mean that if a policeman came across a 9 year old
>> stabbing someone, they would not be permitted to make the 9 year
>> old stop.
>
>They would, but could not arrest the 9 year old.
riding a bicycle on the pavement even if they cannot arrest the 9 year
old for doing so?
--
Cynic
Steve Firth
Nov 15, 2012, 1:58:40 PM11/15/12
to
"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> why can't a tiny child stab someone while they lie on the floor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Look_Now
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
[snip]
> why can't a tiny child stab someone while they lie on the floor?
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Paul Cummins
Nov 15, 2012, 3:36:00 PM11/15/12
to
> So why is that different to a policeman who can stop a 9 year
> old riding a bicycle on the pavement even if they cannot arrest the
> 9 year old for doing so?
Threat to life and limb from a 9 year old cycling on the pavement.
> old riding a bicycle on the pavement even if they cannot arrest the
> 9 year old for doing so?
AlanG
Nov 16, 2012, 3:37:36 AM11/16/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> So why is that different to a policeman who can stop a 9 year
>> old riding a bicycle on the pavement even if they cannot arrest the
>> 9 year old for doing so?
>
>Threat to life and limb from a 9 year old cycling on the pavement.
But you said the plod acted illegally in stopping me riding a bike on
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> So why is that different to a policeman who can stop a 9 year
>> old riding a bicycle on the pavement even if they cannot arrest the
>> 9 year old for doing so?
>
>Threat to life and limb from a 9 year old cycling on the pavement.
the public footpath
Mrcheerful
Nov 16, 2012, 4:31:06 AM11/16/12
to
perpetrator is?
Nightjar
Nov 16, 2012, 9:14:26 AM11/16/12
to
Colin Bignell
Paul Cummins
Nov 17, 2012, 6:43:00 PM11/17/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
I stated the copper was in the wrong. That didn't mean it was illegal.
up to me and whispered:
>
>
> But you said the plod acted illegally in stopping me riding a
> bike on the public footpath
I don't believe that was my wording, at all.
> bike on the public footpath
I stated the copper was in the wrong. That didn't mean it was illegal.
AlanG
Nov 18, 2012, 4:06:34 AM11/18/12
to
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> But you said the plod acted illegally in stopping me riding a
>> bike on the public footpath
>
>I don't believe that was my wording, at all.
>
>I stated the copper was in the wrong. That didn't mean it was illegal.
How was he in the wrong?
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> But you said the plod acted illegally in stopping me riding a
>> bike on the public footpath
>
>I don't believe that was my wording, at all.
>
>I stated the copper was in the wrong. That didn't mean it was illegal.
Paul Cummins
Nov 18, 2012, 11:33:00 AM11/18/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
up to me and whispered:
> >
up to me and whispered:
> >
> > I stated the copper was in the wrong. That didn't mean it was
> > illegal.
>
> How was he in the wrong?
By instucting a nine-year-old child to rinde on te road at a time when
> > illegal.
>
> How was he in the wrong?
his riding on the road would likely have been more dangerous (to anyone)
than his riding on the pavement.
AlanG
Nov 18, 2012, 12:24:42 PM11/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:33 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> >
>> > I stated the copper was in the wrong. That didn't mean it was
>> > illegal.
>>
>> How was he in the wrong?
>
>By instucting a nine-year-old child to rinde on te road at a time when
>his riding on the road would likely have been more dangerous (to anyone)
>than his riding on the pavement.
But at the time he was legally correct in what he did. Even a child
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> >
>> > I stated the copper was in the wrong. That didn't mean it was
>> > illegal.
>>
>> How was he in the wrong?
>
>By instucting a nine-year-old child to rinde on te road at a time when
>his riding on the road would likely have been more dangerous (to anyone)
>than his riding on the pavement.
wasn't permitted to ride a bicycle on the pavement. I recall even
children on tricycles could only ride them on private property unless
they had a control rod held by an adult
Paul Cummins
Nov 18, 2012, 12:57:00 PM11/18/12
to
> But at the time he was legally correct in what he did. Even a
> child wasn't permitted to ride a bicycle on the pavement.
Cite please.
> child wasn't permitted to ride a bicycle on the pavement.
Keep doli incapax in mind in your reply.
AlanG
Nov 18, 2012, 1:07:50 PM11/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:57 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> But at the time he was legally correct in what he did. Even a
>> child wasn't permitted to ride a bicycle on the pavement.
>
>Cite please.
1835 highways act. Amended over the years but still making it illegal
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> But at the time he was legally correct in what he did. Even a
>> child wasn't permitted to ride a bicycle on the pavement.
>
>Cite please.
to ride a bicycle on the footpath
>
>Keep doli incapax in mind in your reply.
irrelevant.
>Keep doli incapax in mind in your reply.
not being able to prosecute someons doesn't mean the law is not
infringed.
And I agree the plod was an ignorant twat but that seems to be how
they come out of the box
Paul Cummins
Nov 18, 2012, 5:04:00 PM11/18/12
to
> not being able to prosecute someons doesn't mean the law is not
> infringed.
Again - if a child is incapable of committing a crime, then whatever the
> infringed.
child does cannot be criminal, no matter what the law says about it.
AlanG
Nov 19, 2012, 3:32:13 AM11/19/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 22:04 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> not being able to prosecute someons doesn't mean the law is not
>> infringed.
>
>Again - if a child is incapable of committing a crime, then whatever the
>child does cannot be criminal, no matter what the law says about it.
The issue is not whether a child can commit a crime but whether the
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> not being able to prosecute someons doesn't mean the law is not
>> infringed.
>
>Again - if a child is incapable of committing a crime, then whatever the
>child does cannot be criminal, no matter what the law says about it.
police were correct in law to order a nine year old off the footpath
onto a dual carriageway
Paul Cummins
Nov 19, 2012, 7:40:00 AM11/19/12
to
> The issue is not whether a child can commit a crime but whether
> the police were correct in law to order a nine year old off the
> footpath onto a dual carriageway
And, given the duty of care, he clearly was not.
> the police were correct in law to order a nine year old off the
> footpath onto a dual carriageway
AlanG
Nov 19, 2012, 9:06:46 AM11/19/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> The issue is not whether a child can commit a crime but whether
>> the police were correct in law to order a nine year old off the
>> footpath onto a dual carriageway
>
>And, given the duty of care, he clearly was not.
That would be for a court to decide but I don't know how far a duty of
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> The issue is not whether a child can commit a crime but whether
>> the police were correct in law to order a nine year old off the
>> footpath onto a dual carriageway
>
>And, given the duty of care, he clearly was not.
care existed in the early 1950s
Paul Cummins
Nov 19, 2012, 6:30:00 PM11/19/12
to
> That would be for a court to decide but I don't know how far a
> duty of care existed in the early 1950s
In respect of a constable - approximately as far as it does now.
> duty of care existed in the early 1950s
AlanG
Nov 20, 2012, 4:14:18 AM11/20/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> That would be for a court to decide but I don't know how far a
>> duty of care existed in the early 1950s
>
>In respect of a constable - approximately as far as it does now.
So balance that against the law.
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> That would be for a court to decide but I don't know how far a
>> duty of care existed in the early 1950s
>
>In respect of a constable - approximately as far as it does now.
If parliamant wanted an exception to the laws on riding on the
pavement they would have made one
Paul Cummins
Nov 20, 2012, 5:42:00 AM11/20/12
to
> If parliamant wanted an exception to the laws on riding on the
> pavement they would have made one
They did.
> pavement they would have made one
It's called Doli Incapax.
AlanG
Nov 20, 2012, 6:13:17 AM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:42 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> If parliamant wanted an exception to the laws on riding on the
>> pavement they would have made one
>
>They did.
They didn't
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> If parliamant wanted an exception to the laws on riding on the
>> pavement they would have made one
>
>They did.
>
>It's called Doli Incapax.
That just means they can't take a 9 yr old to court for riding a bike
>It's called Doli Incapax.
on the pavement
Paul Cummins
Nov 20, 2012, 6:36:00 AM11/20/12
to
> >It's called Doli Incapax.
>
> That just means they can't take a 9 yr old to court for riding
> a bike on the pavement
Have you read the legislation in question? The pointers are in this
>
> That just means they can't take a 9 yr old to court for riding
> a bike on the pavement
thread.
AlanG
Nov 20, 2012, 8:33:55 AM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> >It's called Doli Incapax.
>>
>> That just means they can't take a 9 yr old to court for riding
>> a bike on the pavement
>
>Have you read the legislation in question?
no, Perhaps you could explain the point
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> >It's called Doli Incapax.
>>
>> That just means they can't take a 9 yr old to court for riding
>> a bike on the pavement
>
>Have you read the legislation in question?
>The pointers are in this
>thread.
Paul Cummins
Nov 20, 2012, 12:29:00 PM11/20/12
to
> no, Perhaps you could explain the point
Parliament has made law that no act of a 9 year old child an be a crime.
Thus Parliament have made an exception to the 1835 act banning cycling on
pavements.
AlanG
Nov 20, 2012, 12:54:57 PM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:29 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> no, Perhaps you could explain the point
>
>Parliament has made law that no act of a 9 year old child an be a crime.
>
>Thus Parliament have made an exception to the 1835 act banning cycling on
>pavements.
In that case it would be okay for a 9 yr old to shoot you dead
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> no, Perhaps you could explain the point
>
>Parliament has made law that no act of a 9 year old child an be a crime.
>
>Thus Parliament have made an exception to the 1835 act banning cycling on
>pavements.
Paul Cummins
Nov 20, 2012, 3:48:00 PM11/20/12
to
> In that case it would be okay for a 9 yr old to shoot you dead
As a matter of law, yes it would.
I imagine I'd not be very happy with it.
Jeff
Nov 21, 2012, 2:34:23 AM11/21/12
to
On 20/11/2012 17:29, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>> no, Perhaps you could explain the point
>
> Parliament has made law that no act of a 9 year old child an be a crime.
>
> Thus Parliament have made an exception to the 1835 act banning cycling on
> pavements.
>
Totally incorrect, there are no age restrictions on virtually all laws
> We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>> no, Perhaps you could explain the point
>
> Parliament has made law that no act of a 9 year old child an be a crime.
>
> Thus Parliament have made an exception to the 1835 act banning cycling on
> pavements.
>
that are enacted. What parliament did do however, is pass laws stating
that under 10's may not be found guilty of breaching such laws.
A subtle difference but one that shows that due to the wording in most
acts 'an offence' will have been committed, but an under age child may
not be convicted of it.
Jeff
Jeff
Nov 21, 2012, 2:36:05 AM11/21/12
to
On 20/11/2012 20:48, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>> In that case it would be okay for a 9 yr old to shoot you dead
>
> As a matter of law, yes it would.
>
> I imagine I'd not be very happy with it.
>
No, in law and offence would have been committed by the child, however,
> We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>> In that case it would be okay for a 9 yr old to shoot you dead
>
> As a matter of law, yes it would.
>
> I imagine I'd not be very happy with it.
>
it would not be possible to find them guilty of it in court.
Jeff
AlanG
Nov 21, 2012, 3:02:03 AM11/21/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> In that case it would be okay for a 9 yr old to shoot you dead
>
>As a matter of law, yes it would.
So you would object if a police officer stopped her?
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> In that case it would be okay for a 9 yr old to shoot you dead
>
>As a matter of law, yes it would.
0 new messages