Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Nick Finnigan on 21 Dec 2007 08:03 JNugent wrote: > Nick Finnigan wrote: > >>> What ARE you going on about? >>> Cycling along the footway is an offence. It doesn't stop being an >>> offence just because a Chief Constable can't be bothered to enforce >>> that bit of the law (or reminds himself that his own children >>> possibly break > > >> The CCs haven't said that they can't be bothered to enforce the law. >> They have said that the use of a Fixed Penalty is not always sensible >> (and I don't think you will disagree with that). The fact the use of a >> fixed penalty is not possible for children under 16 should be >> completely understandable after a little thought. > > > You fail to distinguish ACPO's "Sometimes it's not a good idea to issue > a FPN when the law has been broken" as being the same as Crispin's > interpretation of that: "It's acceptable to break the law and we're > going to treat the offence as not being an offence". > > Can you really not see the very obvious difference between those two > positions? Of course I can, although I am not claiming to understand TCs view of someone else's statements. I was distinguishing between "can't be bothered to enforce" and "won't enforce in a particular fashion".
From: Clive George on 21 Dec 2007 08:18 "raisethe" <raisethe(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:13mnbfpo685gl17(a)corp.supernews.com... > x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote: > >>> >> Hence I prefaced it with "the main thrust is". It was also in the context >> of someone putting themselves into a potentially hazardous situation. >> >> Most other people understood that it was a starting point for action, why >> didn't you? > > You are being disingenuous. :( > > As you do not seem to have read my previous post, I repeat it here: > > "Not to me, because we were also treated to this a wee bittie earlier in > the thread: > > 'If someone is crushed by a lorry after pulling away from traffic lights > then they are the architect of their own misfortune' > > Soon after that we got: > > 'But the general thrust is quite simple. The lorry is bigger than the > cyclist. Keep clear.' > > In other words, keep clear from lorries, if you get crushed its your own > fault. The perfectly reasonable response to that is that you cannot always > keep clear of them." > > You, bitsy and a few others keep repeating the same nonsense. Do you not > read the replies to your emails? I'm not familiar with urd. Are you two > their resident trolls? Brimstone certainly is. Not as bad as eg Matt B, but he does get engaged in pointless arguments.
From: raisethe on 21 Dec 2007 08:38 x-no-archive:Clive George wrote: >> >> You, bitsy and a few others keep repeating the same nonsense. Do you >> not read the replies to your emails? I'm not familiar with urd. Are >> you two their resident trolls? > > Brimstone certainly is. Not as bad as eg Matt B, but he does get engaged > in pointless arguments. Yes, perhaps I shouldn't allow myself to take the bait.
From: Steve Firth on 21 Dec 2007 08:51 raisethe <raisethe(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Are you two their resident trolls? Oh, the irony.
From: raisethe on 21 Dec 2007 09:28
x-no-archive:Steve Firth wrote: > raisethe <raisethe(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Are you two their resident trolls? > > Oh, the irony. Meaning? |