From: Brimstone on


"Jethro" <krazykara0(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1ee1b7fa-0e27-4217-82d3-f4857f470c73(a)k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Apr, 13:41, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> PhilO <goo18...(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were
>> saying:
>>
>> > They told him he was committing an offence because he was stationary on
>> > the zigzag markings of the crossing and told him to move on. But when
>> > they returned after driving a mile up the road he was still there,
>> > waiting for his chance to reverse into the house"
>>
>> He was warned.
>> He ignored the warning.
>> He got nicked.
>>
>> Any sympathy just evaporated.
>
> indeed.
>
> It's amazing how many of these "POLICE HARASS INNOCENT BRITS" Daily-
> Heil type headlines turn out on deeper inspection to be down to the
> "inncoent brit" rather than police malice.

Not police malice. More individual police officers sticking to the letter of
the law rather than the spirit and using some common sense.


From: Brimstone on


"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:83qs4lFm8uU21(a)mid.individual.net...
> ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>> so if he drove in forwards, how does he get out?
>
> He won't be obstructing traffic flow whilst he waits for a gap...

But he risks a collision.


From: Ian Jackson on
In message <ojegt5dfsbpsfnj54nrq9pjr031kas1e7k(a)4ax.com>,
ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:31:23 +0100, "loopy livernose"
><ifyouwanttoemailme(a)askfor.my.address> wrote:
>
>>rather than "book another one"..
>
>he only booked him because he ignored the authority of the police

"The authority of the police" to do what? He was not fined for not
obeying the police. You only have to do this if their orders are lawful.

Was the order effectively 'not to have lawful access to his driveway'
lawful?
--
Ian
From: JNugent on
Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <ojegt5dfsbpsfnj54nrq9pjr031kas1e7k(a)4ax.com>,
> ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> writes
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:31:23 +0100, "loopy livernose"
>> <ifyouwanttoemailme(a)askfor.my.address> wrote:
>>
>>> rather than "book another one"..
>>
>> he only booked him because he ignored the authority of the police
>
> "The authority of the police" to do what? He was not fined for not
> obeying the police. You only have to do this if their orders are lawful.
>
> Was the order effectively 'not to have lawful access to his driveway'
> lawful?

I suppose that depends on what "lawful access" (as opposed to "unlawful
access") is.

But in general, I'm sypmathetic to your view. I still think he should have
just driven in forward.
From: Adrian on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>> so if he drove in forwards, how does he get out?

>> He won't be obstructing traffic flow whilst he waits for a gap...

> But he risks a collision.

If he doesn't wait for a suitable gap, yes. Just as he would driving out
for'ard into a gap that's not sufficiently large.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Prev: The horrors of biofuels.
Next: Start/Stop "ECO" cars