Disabled woman fined for permit slip-up: DISGUSTING

[Nuxx Bar]

DISGUSTING. It may be "just one incident", but it is a DIRECT result
of the greedy, anti-motorist, "decriminalised" parking enforcement
that we have now been lumbered with in so many areas. This would
never happen under police enforcement, which is a decent, honest
system where keeping traffic moving is the main aim and discretion is
applied in cases like this. But under the "decriminalised" system,
where revenue and motorist persecution are the aims, and ticket
targets are set, we have a constant torrent of DISGUSTING incidents
like this one.

That poor woman. Think about how difficult things must be for her
already, without this sort of nonsense. Something tells me that the
trolls, who were so keen to have a go at Paul Smith for supposedly
discriminating against disabled people, won't be so sympathetic to
this woman. "The nerve of her," think the trolls, "choosing to drive
when she should be cycling and using buses. She, like every other
motorist, deserves to get huge fines for effectively nothing, as a
punishment for daring to drive at all." Callous, hateful, ridiculous
*******s.

For most people, the myriad of anti-motorist measures that we are
subjected to are simply inconvenient (albeit very inconvenient in some
cases), not that that makes it remotely OK. For some, they are
financially ruinous, which is pretty bad. But for this poor, helpless
woman, they are nothing short of criminally inhumane. It's
DISGUSTING, and those trolls who support the systematic persecution of
motorists (whether old or young, disabled or fit) are DISGUSTING as
well.

It's all very well saying or thinking "The anti-motorist stuff should
only apply to able-bodied people", but while we have this automated,
conveyer belt, uncaring, unforgiving, heartless, motorist-persecuting,
revenue-raising system which is deliberately designed to catch people
out for the tiniest mistakes (and often not even that), disabled
people, old people, vulnerable people and everyone else (except those
with unregistered cars...that's fair) will ALWAYS get caught up in
it. The only way to stop it is to stop treating motorists like ****.
Because the way that this defenceless, hapless woman (who has quite
enough problems to deal with already, and who society should be
helping rather than punishing) was bullied is DISGUSTING.

And even when they appealed to the council, their appeal was rejected,
so the trolls can't even make the excuse that it was a "mistake" or an
"overzealous parking attendant". Either the council automatically
rejects appeals without looking at them, or they looked at the case
and still rejected the appeal. Either way, I don't see how anyone can
say decriminalised parking is not an anti-motorist system, and I don't
see how anyone can say it's anything but DISGUSTING. It's cases like
this which show that those trolls who claim that there are no anti-
motorist measures are not only preposterous liars, but are also
utterly heartless. As long as motorists are being ****ed over, they
couldn't care less about people like this poor, frail woman.

I think it's DISGUSTING.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1921639/Disabled-woman-fined-for-permit-slip-up.html

A traffic warden issued a £35 ticket to an 82-year-old sufferer of
Parkinson's disease, who was asleep in a car, because her disabled
parking badge was upside down.

The car was legally parked in a disabled parking bay when Jean Raine
felt unwell and took a rest.

While she was sleeping a parking warden noticed that her disabled
parking disc was the wrong way up but rather than wake her to explain
he simply stuck the penalty notice on her windscreen.

"I cannot understand why the parking attendant didn't wake me up. I
wouldn't have got a ticket then," said Miss Raine, of Burton-in-
Kendal, who was on a shopping trip in Kendal, Cumbria.
Article continues
advertisement

"He must have been on tip toes – so quiet that he didn't disturb me."

Miss Raine, a retired nurse, and Martin Westgarth, 88, her companion
of 30 years, had been driven to Kendal by a neighbour, Pauline Gibson,
to do their weekly shop.

Mr Westgarth and Mrs Gibson went shopping for 45 minutes and when they
came back they found that a traffic warden for South Lakeland council
had issued the ticket.

Mr Westgarth said: "Why did she get a ticket while she was sitting in
the car? Because the card in the window that shows she was disabled,
it turns out, was upside down.

"The person who put the ticket on the window didn't talk to Jean. You
would have thought that he would have said something to her. This is
intolerable.

"She was legally entitled to park the car where she was. Why should
her right be taken away from her just because the card was upside
down?

"We were in a disabled space. The disabled badge was valid. If this
idiot, who pinched her, had spoken to her and said that the card was
the wrong way round that could have been it."

Mrs Gibson agreed to drive them into town because Miss Raine and Mr
Westgarth were both too poorly to drive.

The couple appealed to South Lakeland council but their appeal was
rejected. In the end they paid the fine but are considering whether to
take the case to an independent tribunal.

A council spokesman said: "We do not comment on individual cases. If
anyone feels they have reason to challenge a penalty charge notice
then they can appeal to the council in the first instance, followed by
an appeal to an independent tribunal if they choose.

"Guidance notes issued with the badge and parking disc clearly state
that it should be clearly and correctly displayed at all times."

A South Lakeland council parking warden was soaked with two buckets of
water recently when he put a ticket on a fishmonger's van while it was
being loaded outside a store in Kendal town centre.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Oh the irony. A disciple of Smith coming here to rant about a
disabled person /not/ receiving preferential parking treatment.

I wonder how the Smithites would feel if parking were
recriminalised? A pound says they would be waffling on about the
"criminalising" of "law-abiding" folks who have done nothing wrong
other than to park on a double yellow line that was /obviously/ not
intended to apply to their /really important/ stop at the
tobacconist for 20 B&H and a copy of the Daily Mail wrapped up in
Spank Me Senseless to avoid the shame of being seen with it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Martin Dann]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> DISGUSTING.

Yes it is.

> A South Lakeland council parking warden was soaked with two buckets of
> water recently when he put a ticket on a fishmonger's van while it was
> being loaded outside a store in Kendal town centre.

So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.

Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1314694,00.html

I dare you to defend that.

[JNugent[_4_]]

Martin Dann wrote:
>
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>> DISGUSTING.
>
> Yes it is.
>
>> A South Lakeland council parking warden was soaked with two buckets of
>> water recently when he put a ticket on a fishmonger's van while it was
>> being loaded outside a store in Kendal town centre.
>
> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>
> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1314694,00.html
>
> I dare you to defend that.

"No charge will be brought against the driver as no driving offence was
committed."

What's to defend?

[Simon D]

on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
> Martin Dann wrote:
>>
>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>
>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>
>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1314694,00.html
>>
>> I dare you to defend that.
>
> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving offence was
> committed."
>
> What's to defend?

The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)

--
Simon

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 05 May 2008 08:40:19 +0100, Simon D > wrote:
> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
> >
> > "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
> > offence was committed."
> > What's to defend?
>
> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)

It's a rather odd quote, implying as it does that no laws other than
driving laws apply to a driver. I suppose, drivers have so much
difficulty obeying the traffic laws that the assumption is they have
no chance of obeying any other laws - if you can't manage a simple
think like a speed limit, how are you going to comprehend the laws
relating to, say, fraud or tax evasion?

Or, to respond to the question - the committing of public order
offences.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JNugent[_4_]]

Simon D wrote:
> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>>
>>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>>
>>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>>
>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1314694,00.html
>>>
>>> I dare you to defend that.
>>
>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving offence
>> was committed."
>>
>> What's to defend?
>
> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)

The passenger would have to be identified first.

If you were the sriver, would you grass up your friend (bearing in mind
that there is no law requiring you to incriminate him)?

[JNugent[_4_]]

Ian Smith wrote:

> Simon D > wrote:
>> JNugent supposed :

>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
>>> offence was committed."
>>> What's to defend?

>> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)

> It's a rather odd quote, implying as it does that no laws other than
> driving laws apply to a driver. I suppose, drivers have so much
> difficulty obeying the traffic laws that the assumption is they have
> no chance of obeying any other laws - if you can't manage a simple
> think like a speed limit, how are you going to comprehend the laws
> relating to, say, fraud or tax evasion?

> Or, to respond to the question - the committing of public order
> offences.

But there is no suggestion that the driver (the only person in the
vehicle who can be forcibly identified - and that only for certain sorts
of motoring "offences") has committed any "public order offences".

Therefore, unless the registered keeper - the only one who can be
forcibly identified, AFAICS - splits on his mate (or on the driver's
mate if the keeper is not the driver), no action is possible. And why
should it be?

What a storm in a teacup.

Every adolescent male does something as "bad" as that - if they're
normal. The incident quoted seems particularly harmless and best-forgotten.

[Simon D]

JNugent formulated on Monday :
> Simon D wrote:
>> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
>>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>>>
>>>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>>>
>>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1314694,00.html
>>>>
>>>> I dare you to defend that.
>>>
>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving offence was
>>> committed."
>>>
>>> What's to defend?
>>
>> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)
>
> The passenger would have to be identified first.
>
> If you were the sriver, would you grass up your friend (bearing in mind that
> there is no law requiring you to incriminate him)?

If I were the driver I wouldn't be keen to have that moron in my
passenger seat, and he certainly wouldn't be a friend. ;o)

You asked what there was to defend, not the chances of successful
prosecution; I've pointed out that at least one offence was being
committed. Unless he has his seat belt in a very unusual place, of
course...

--
Simon

[JNugent[_4_]]

Simon D wrote:

> JNugent formulated on Monday :
>> Simon D wrote:
>>> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
>>>> Martin Dann wrote:

>>>>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>>>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1314694,00.html

>>>>> I dare you to defend that.

>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
>>>> offence was committed."
>>>> What's to defend?

>>> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)

>> The passenger would have to be identified first.
>> If you were the sriver, would you grass up your friend (bearing in
>> mind that there is no law requiring you to incriminate him)?

> If I were the driver I wouldn't be keen to have that moron in my
> passenger seat, and he certainly wouldn't be a friend. ;o)

How would you know, before the event (I discount the possibility of your
not having any friends)?

> You asked what there was to defend, not the chances of successful
> prosecution; I've pointed out that at least one offence was being
> committed. Unless he has his seat belt in a very unusual place, of
> course...

A prank.

So what?

Are *you* "offended" by it?

I'm certainly not.

And assuming you don't think it's the most shocking thing that's
happened in the UK over the last few weeks, what makes you think that
anyone else - with a modicum of common sense, that is - is "offended" by it?

[Simon D]

JNugent brought next idea :
> Simon D wrote:
>
>> JNugent formulated on Monday :
>>> Simon D wrote:
>>>> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
>>>>> Martin Dann wrote:
>
>>>>>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>>>>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>>>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1314694,00.html
>
>>>>>> I dare you to defend that.
>
>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving offence
>>>>> was committed."
>>>>> What's to defend?
>
>>>> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)
>
>>> The passenger would have to be identified first.
>>> If you were the sriver, would you grass up your friend (bearing in mind
>>> that there is no law requiring you to incriminate him)?
>
>> If I were the driver I wouldn't be keen to have that moron in my passenger
>> seat, and he certainly wouldn't be a friend. ;o)
>
> How would you know, before the event (I discount the possibility of your not
> having any friends)?

It's called character judgement - you assess a person's character by
his actions. Many are probably judging me in a similar way at this
very minute for replying to a troll.

>> You asked what there was to defend, not the chances of successful
>> prosecution; I've pointed out that at least one offence was being
>> committed. Unless he has his seat belt in a very unusual place, of
>> course...
>
> A prank.
>
> So what?
>
> Are *you* "offended" by it?
>
> I'm certainly not.
>
> And assuming you don't think it's the most shocking thing that's happened in
> the UK over the last few weeks, what makes you think that anyone else - with
> a modicum of common sense, that is - is "offended" by it?

I repeat - you asked "What's to defend?" I've pointed out that an
offence (or possibly two) was being committed. Not heinous, no, but
I've answered your question.

--
Simon

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:25:22 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > Simon D > wrote:
> >> JNugent supposed :
>
> >>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
> >>> offence was committed."
> >>> What's to defend?
>
> >> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)
>
> > Or, to respond to the question - the committing of public order
> > offences.
>
> But there is no suggestion that the driver (the only person in the
> vehicle who can be forcibly identified - and that only for certain sorts
> of motoring "offences") has committed any "public order offences".

Correct. No-one has suggested that. Only you have chosen to latch
onto the assumption that it's only the driver's behaviour that is
suitable for discussion. I have no idea why you have decided that,
but it is readily apparent that everyone (yourself included) would be
happier if you confined yourself to arguing with yourself.

> Therefore, unless the registered keeper - the only one who can be
> forcibly identified, AFAICS - splits on his mate (or on the driver's
> mate if the keeper is not the driver), no action is possible. And why
> should it be?
>
> What a storm in a teacup.
>
> Every adolescent male does something as "bad" as that - if they're
> normal. The incident quoted seems particularly harmless and best-forgotten.

Two further observations:

1: JNugent has adopted one of his favourite evasions here - changing
the topic. First, he suggested (implicitly, admittedly) that there
was nothing to be defensive about. However, when this was challenged
and shown to be a silly comment, he changes his observations to be
relating to what stands a reasonable chance of being successfully
prosecuted.

2: JNugent implied that there was nothing that needed defending. Then
he felt the need to defend the actions - "Every adolescent male does
something as "bad" as that". Thus demonstrating that he recognises
something that needs defending. So why the implication that nothing
needed defending? Very odd.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JNugent[_4_]]

Simon D wrote:
> JNugent brought next idea :
>> Simon D wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent formulated on Monday :
>>>> Simon D wrote:
>>>>> on 05/05/2008, JNugent supposed :
>>>>>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> So was this, a parking warden assaulted for upholding the law.
>>>>>>> Do you also object to being fined for this idiotic behaviour?
>>>>>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1314694,00.html
>>
>>>>>>> I dare you to defend that.
>>
>>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
>>>>>> offence was committed."
>>>>>> What's to defend?
>>
>>>>> The passenger? (Bold text added to your post.)
>>
>>>> The passenger would have to be identified first.
>>>> If you were the sriver, would you grass up your friend (bearing in
>>>> mind that there is no law requiring you to incriminate him)?
>>
>>> If I were the driver I wouldn't be keen to have that moron in my
>>> passenger seat, and he certainly wouldn't be a friend. ;o)
>>
>> How would you know, before the event (I discount the possibility of
>> your not having any friends)?
>
> It's called character judgement - you assess a person's character by
> his actions. Many are probably judging me in a similar way at this very
> minute for replying to a troll.

There's nothing remotely troll-like in asking what people are talking about.

I know some in here like to strike certain public poses and attitudes
almost as a knee-jerk, but being automatically against anyone travelling
as a passenger in a car is either going a bit too far or a symptom of
something a bit deeper than I'd suspected.

>>> You asked what there was to defend, not the chances of successful
>>> prosecution; I've pointed out that at least one offence was being
>>> committed. Unless he has his seat belt in a very unusual place, of
>>> course...

>> A prank.
>> So what?
>> Are *you* "offended" by it?
>> I'm certainly not.
>> And assuming you don't think it's the most shocking thing that's
>> happened in the UK over the last few weeks, what makes you think that
>> anyone else - with a modicum of common sense, that is - is "offended"
>> by it?

> I repeat - you asked "What's to defend?" I've pointed out that an
> offence (or possibly two) was being committed. Not heinous, no, but I've
> answered your question.

It's only an "offence" is someone (someone reasonable, that is) is
justifiably and credibly shocked and offended.

There isn't any evidence that anyone was or is. Or if there is,it hasn't
been produced here.

So what's to defend?

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:01:32 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:

> >>>> JNugent supposed :
> >>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
> >>>>> offence was committed."
> >>>>> What's to defend?
>
> > 2: JNugent implied that there was nothing that needed defending.
>
> I think I said that, rather than implying it.

You think wrong.

The entirety of your comment is quoted - you quoted part of the
article and said "What's to defend?".

That is not a statement that there was nothing that needed defending.
In the context, and recognising your predilection for disagreeing with
anything, it is most easily read as indicating (implying) that you
thought nothing needed defending, but it is not the clear statement
you now pretend it was.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JNugent[_4_]]

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:

>>>>>> JNugent supposed :
>>>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
>>>>>>> offence was committed."
>>>>>>> What's to defend?
>>> 2: JNugent implied that there was nothing that needed defending.
>> I think I said that, rather than implying it.
>
> You think wrong.

> The entirety of your comment is quoted - you quoted part of the
> article and said "What's to defend?".

That's the entirety of that comment.

There have been others.

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:30:31 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > JNugent > wrote:
> >> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> >>>>>> JNugent supposed :
> >>>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
> >>>>>>> offence was committed."
> >>>>>>> What's to defend?
> >>> 2: JNugent implied that there was nothing that needed defending.
> >> I think I said that, rather than implying it.
> >
> > You think wrong.
>
> > The entirety of your comment is quoted - you quoted part of the
> > article and said "What's to defend?".
>
> That's the entirety of that comment.
> There have been others.

I see. I was supposed to take into consideration things you were
going to say at some time in the future, when composing my response.

As I said, I think you really ought to be arguing with yourself - the
rest of us just can't keep up. Cheerio.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JNugent[_4_]]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:30:31 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>> JNugent supposed :
>>>>>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
>>>>>>>>> offence was committed."
>>>>>>>>> What's to defend?
>>>>> 2: JNugent implied that there was nothing that needed defending.
>>>> I think I said that, rather than implying it.
>>> You think wrong.
>>> The entirety of your comment is quoted - you quoted part of the
>>> article and said "What's to defend?".
>> That's the entirety of that comment.
>> There have been others.
>
> I see. I was supposed to take into consideration things you were
> going to say at some time in the future, when composing my response.

No. You could have read them. They were posted prior to your response.

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:13:27 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:30:31 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
> >> Ian Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>> JNugent > wrote:
> >>>> Ian Smith wrote:

> >>>>>>>> JNugent supposed :
> >>>>>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
> >>>>>>>>> offence was committed."
> >>>>>>>>> What's to defend?

> >>>>> 2: JNugent implied that there was nothing that needed defending.

> >>>> I think I said that, rather than implying it.

> >>> You think wrong.
> >>> The entirety of your comment is quoted - you quoted part of the
> >>> article and said "What's to defend?".

> >> That's the entirety of that comment.
> >> There have been others.

> > I see. I was supposed to take into consideration things you were
> > going to say at some time in the future, when composing my response.

> No. You could have read them. They were posted prior to your response.

I think, actually, your statement above is factually incorrect, but
I'll look at any evidence you have to the contrary.

In this newsgroup, you posted your comment at 01:25 on 5/5.

At 18:20 you made another posting which noted that the passenger would
have to be identified to be prosecuted, and implied (note, not stated)
that you would not assist the police in identifying the passenger had
you been driving.

Your next posting to this newsgroup, at 18:25, went on about whether
the driver committed any offences and again implied you would not
assist the police.

My posting was at 18:47. So, where is this posting you made before
mine? It apparently wasn't in this newsgroup. It seems increasingly
likely that you are arguing with yourself after all...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Dave]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
SNIP
> Therefore, unless the registered keeper - the only one who can be forcibly
> identified, AFAICS - splits on his mate (or on the driver's mate if the
> keeper is not the driver), no action is possible. And why should it be?

So if you are walking down the street and the passengers jump out of a car
and kick your head in and only the driver is identifiable but committed no
crime it is OK for him not to split on his mates?

Dave

[JNugent[_4_]]

Dave wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:

> SNIP

>> Therefore, unless the registered keeper - the only one who can be forcibly
>> identified, AFAICS - splits on his mate (or on the driver's mate if the
>> keeper is not the driver), no action is possible. And why should it be?

> So if you are walking down the street and the passengers jump out of a car
> and kick your head in and only the driver is identifiable but committed no
> crime it is OK for him not to split on his mates?

It depends what you mean by "OK".

First of all, it's a completely and utterly different type of
circumstance. In such a case, an offence has *definitely* been committed
- there's no need for the police to find a repressed prude to profess
themself "outraged" in order for the offence to subsist (in case you
forget, you are seeking to make a moral equivalence between assault and
battery and someone momentarily baring their backside to a traffic camera).

I would think that while there is no direct legal requirement for the
driver (as a driver) to identify the assailant (at least, not as part of
any traffic law of which I'm aware), on being identified, there's a
chance that the driver would be arrested for the assault (or as an
accessory to it) and would feel under pressure to identify the actual
assailant and to thereby distance himself from the offence. But that
would apply equally if both of them were on foot and on (the
non-assailant) was simply identified from CCTV footage or was personally
known to a witness, without any motor vehicle being involved.

The car is a red herring. The fact that the non-assailant was driving a
motor vehicle would have no legal bearing on the issue. Everything would
hinge on identification and on whether a charge could be made to stick
on the (in your scenario, innocent) driver. I'm pretty sure that you
would not argue that innocent people should be prosecuted for, or
convicted of, things they hadn't done.

As to the moral side of things... well, that's a more difficult one.

If I were the driver in such a circumstance, I would be horrified by the
incident (I dare say you would be, in the same circumstances). If you,
as my passenger - say, as a casual acquaintance or work colleague - were
the unprovoked assailant of an innocent passer-by, I'd have no
compunction about grassing you up at the first practical opportunity. It
would be my immediate intention (and, I'm sure, vice-versa).

But if it was a lifelong schoolfriend to whom I was giving a lift during
a trip back to my home town, or if it was a relative, the moral ground
would start to shift. I would at least want to know the reasons why it
had happened (my friends and relations don't do that sort of thing, you
see, and I'd want to assume some sort of prior provocation, if not
justification). In the end, identifying them might be something I'd do
only if the consequences of not doing so were sufficiently serious (like
my being held to blame for the assault).

In other words, the concept of expediency might make me act differently
in different circumstances, just as it would for everyone else
(including, I have no doubt, your good self).

I'm assuming liberal democracy and the presumption of innocence, of course.

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 07 May 2008 10:20:08 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
>
> The car is a red herring. The fact that the non-assailant was driving a
> motor vehicle would have no legal bearing on the issue.

Absolutely. A red herring brought up solely by you - no-one suggested
the driver should be prosecuted for the actions of the passenger. (In
this case - I note that there are offences for which drivers can be
prosecuted for passenger behaviour).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JNugent[_4_]]

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:

>> The car is a red herring. The fact that the non-assailant was driving a
>> motor vehicle would have no legal bearing on the issue.

> Absolutely. A red herring brought up solely by you - no-one suggested
> the driver should be prosecuted for the actions of the passenger. (In
> this case - I note that there are offences for which drivers can be
> prosecuted for passenger behaviour).

You are indeed correct that no-one has suggested that the driver could
be prosecuted, especially since the police (or other authority) had
already confirmed that.

The rest of the exchange has centred upon whether *anyone* would be
prosecuted (meaning the passenger with the bare backside which has got
you so excited). That could only happen if an offence had been
committed. And an offence would only have been committed if some member
of the public had been been (credibly) outraged by the sight.

Well, perhaps you would have been outraged by it, but I don't think
there's any mention of your having been there to witness it (or of
anyone else having witnessed it, come to that).

As I posted (in response to another poster, at 20:48 on 5th May:

"It's only an "offence" is someone (someone reasonable, that is) is
justifiably and credibly shocked and offended.

"There isn't any evidence that anyone was or is. Or if there is,it
hasn't been produced here.

"So what's to defend?".



Now... for Gawd's sake don't look at that thread below: "World Naked
Bike Ride", else you'll be depraved and corrupted.