"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Alex Potter on 5 Mar 2010 16:01 On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:33:40 +0000, Ret. wrote: > 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. I think you're perhaps confusing the CAA with the AIB. Information here: <http://www.aaib.gov.uk/guidance_and_regulations/index.cfm> Memorandum of Understanding between The Crown Prosecution Service and the Accident Investigation Branches : <http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/MOU%20AIB%2DCPS%2Epdf> -- Alex Reply-To: is valid ----------------------------------------------------------------- How the Internet is supposed to work: <http://www.rfc-editor.org>
From: Steve Walker on 5 Mar 2010 17:35 Ret. wrote: > Mike Ross wrote: >> On a point of order, for any honest lawyers within range, is there >> any reason why jurors should not be told that the charge was >> originally murder, but the prosecution changed their minds? > > Is there any reason why they should? If the defence want to introduce it they will do so. Let the jury decide
From: Ret. on 6 Mar 2010 03:50 Steve Walker wrote: > Ret. wrote: >> Mike Ross wrote: >>> On a point of order, for any honest lawyers within range, is there >>> any reason why jurors should not be told that the charge was >>> originally murder, but the prosecution changed their minds? >> >> Is there any reason why they should? > > If the defence want to introduce it they will do so. Let the jury > decide I cannot see that it would have any relevance. It is a fairly common practice to charge with a greater offence whilst retaining the option to downgrade to a lesser offence. Most common example is charging someone with GBH but then dropping it to ABH prior to trial. Kev
From: Steve Walker on 6 Mar 2010 04:09 Ret. wrote: > Steve Walker wrote: >> Ret. wrote: >>> Mike Ross wrote: >>>> On a point of order, for any honest lawyers within range, is there >>>> any reason why jurors should not be told that the charge was >>>> originally murder, but the prosecution changed their minds? >>> >>> Is there any reason why they should? >> >> If the defence want to introduce it they will do so. Let the jury >> decide > > I cannot see that it would have any relevance. It is a fairly common > practice to charge with a greater offence whilst retaining the option to > downgrade to a lesser offence. Yes, it is. The jury will no doubt reach an appropriate view.
From: NM on 8 Mar 2010 14:35
On 8 Mar, 19:02, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > "Bryan is a vegetarian and member of a local group which monitors > > > several hunts around the Midlands, collecting evidence of hunts when > > > they breach the ban on hunting with hounds." > > > > Satisfied? > > > That's exactly what I said, He was a member of a group that monitered > > hunts and reported, a flying group having thier costs split in > > exchange for spotting hunts, in line with CAA rules. There is no > > evidence he supported either side. > > Can't you read? He is a MEMBER of a group which collects evidence > AGAINST hunts. No his group monitors hunts and report on their findings, he takes no action against hunts, or is active in any group who's agenda is anti or pro hunting, merely he reports in exchange for his cheaper flying. At least that is what I glean from what has been posted, got any proof otherwise. |