"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: soup on 5 Mar 2010 09:25 On 04/03/2010 12:04, Ret. wrote: > And if the pilot had used the best care he could - he would have simply > stopped his machine... Assuming he could . Stop in time I mean. Maybe wet grass so the non rotating wheels just sketed over it, maybe the brakes failed at the instant of application, maybe the throttle stuck open and the thrust from the proppelor could overcome the brakes, maybe....
From: Cynic on 5 Mar 2010 10:59 On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:37:23 -0000, "Steve Walker" <spam-trap(a)beeb.net> wrote: >> I should think that the police would consult an official body such as >> the CAA or the AAIB, and those bodies would then identify and consult >> with manufacturers and users in order to compile an expert report that >> is submitted to the police or CPS as evidence. >You do sound a little territorial there, Ret.... :o) >AIUI, CAA have independent investigation & prosecution capability and they >have already advised they consider there is no case to answer. This would >be significant if true, and I suppose it will all come out in the end. The CAA do indeed investigate and prosecute breaches of aviation rules, but using an aircraft as a deadly weapon probably goes beyond their normal remit. I believe that cases of commercial pilots being drunk in charge of an aircraft are prosecuted by the police & CPS as well, BICBW. -- Cynic
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 5 Mar 2010 14:58 Phil W Lee wrote: > "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> considered Fri, 05 Mar > 2010 08:14:19 +0000 the perfect time to write: >... >> One of the few posters on uk.legal who actually seems to be a lawyer has >> given you the circumstances under which it would. > > Would that be where THE OWNER is allowed to use reasonable force to > eject a trespasser? No. It is the one where a person tries to prevent the free passage of someone else on a highway. .... >> Correct, but someone who is standing in the road is not a cyclist for >> the purposes of that rule, simply because they happen to have a bicycle >> with them. There would be no requirement for those travelling along a >> major road to give way to anyone wishing to join it. That is not the >> same as intentionally preventing someone from having the opportunity to >> join the road. >> > It is used to ensure that drivers do not break the law by pulling out > into a moving stream of cyclists from a minor road... Breaking the law to prevent someone else breaking the law is not a defence. Colin Bignell
From: Steve Walker on 5 Mar 2010 15:06 Ret. wrote: > Steve Walker wrote: >> Ret. wrote: >>> Do you have a cite for this repeated claim that the CAA have stated >>> there was no case to answer? I have read no such thing anywhere. >> >> I have always said that this was the info stated by others, I cannot >> testify to it - the source exchange is in Mike Ross's post to this >> thread - 04 March 2010 16:03. Mike seems a sensible & knowledgable >> chap to me, but you'll have to take your own view. > > IMO - the moment it appeared that there might have been a serious > criminal offence committed, the CAA handed the investigation and > prosecution over to the police. They may well have both worked hand in > hand, with the CAA offering their expertise where required - but the > criminal investigation will have been down to the police. I'm afraid I don't know. Some posters have presented CAA as a very powerful expert body with strong jurisdiction 'airside', others see it as a lightweight who police would brush aside. Apart from the odd tourist flight to Torremelinos I wouldn't have a clue! That's perhaps one of the many things we'll learn in the next few weeks.... :o)
From: Ret. on 5 Mar 2010 15:33
Steve Walker wrote: > Ret. wrote: >> Steve Walker wrote: >>> Ret. wrote: > >>>> Do you have a cite for this repeated claim that the CAA have stated >>>> there was no case to answer? I have read no such thing anywhere. >>> >>> I have always said that this was the info stated by others, I cannot >>> testify to it - the source exchange is in Mike Ross's post to this >>> thread - 04 March 2010 16:03. Mike seems a sensible & >>> knowledgable chap to me, but you'll have to take your own view. >> >> IMO - the moment it appeared that there might have been a serious >> criminal offence committed, the CAA handed the investigation and >> prosecution over to the police. They may well have both worked hand >> in hand, with the CAA offering their expertise where required - but >> the criminal investigation will have been down to the police. > > I'm afraid I don't know. Some posters have presented CAA as a very > powerful expert body with strong jurisdiction 'airside', others see > it as a lightweight who police would brush aside. Apart from the > odd tourist flight to Torremelinos I wouldn't have a clue! > > That's perhaps one of the many things we'll learn in the next few > weeks.... >> o) I'm with you here. Until I did some Googling I didn't really know the extent of their remit. It certainly involves licensing and regulating and prosecuting where breaches of regulations have occurred. Kev |