From: Nick Finnigan on 21 Dec 2007 08:03
> 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
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
> 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
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.