On 02/06/2013 12:02, thirty-six wrote:
On 2 June, 11:46, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 2 June, 09:03, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 1 June, 16:10, "Partac" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in ...

On 31/05/2013 11:32, Partac wrote:

http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/News...ist-arrested-f...

QUOTE:
...the woman told an employee at the estate agent she was in a rush
to
get a train to work when she cycled up the street and had not
realised
it was one-way.
ENDQUOTE

What, it's on her way to the station where she catches the train to
work every day and she "had not realised it was one-way"?

Yeah, right.

For the avoidance of doubt, I've taken the liberty of posting the
Google Earth street view of the road in question. I'll leave it up
to the panel to decide whether she was genuinely mistaken, or if
she was just lying through her teeth:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/96800572@N02/8912745605/

Excellent. The signage is not legally binding, even to a person
driving a licensed vehicle. Any "notice" or "order" which may or
may not exist in the scrolls of office can not awfully be enforced
or penalty made. The signage does not comply with the prescribed
format as recorded in the legislaughter. As I said, thick as ...

Signage looks good to me, what do you think is wrong with it? No
entry signs apply to all vehicular traffic, and a bicycle is a
vehicle.

I obviously have greater awareness of UK-law than your deluded
understanding.

If you wish to engage your mind, please do it for the good and not be
so willing to voice your misunderstanding. The signage does not
comply with that prescribed under UK-law. It will be for the
prosecution to find the legislation and present it to court.
Examination of the legislation which was current at the time will show
that signage not to be proper and any penalties unenforceable. When
this is said to the arresting officer, great damages can later be
brought due to the injury made by false arrest, loss of liberty, blah
de blah.

So what is wrong with it?

apart from everything?

Is it because it is not mentioned in the magna carta?


So tell us what is wrong then.