159 mph copper gets tummy tickled

Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/5284962.stm

Budstaff wrote:
Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/5284962.stm

Complete crap really. Though I hope that if such a situation arises
again TPTB get an ass kicking for failing to apply appropriate
procedures.

...d

Complete crap really. Though I hope that if such a situation arises
again TPTB get an ass kicking for failing to apply appropriate
procedures.

If policemen and michael schumaker can do then so can I.How could it
be dangerous for anyone to do 100mph anywhere if it's not for this
idiot to do 160 in public roads where he likes?If he wants to test let
him do it on a track.The only difference would be less likelihood of
involving innocent road users.
As for his excuse that he was on a serious mission to test his new
equipment, and that we should all accept the risk his heroic action
poses to our families, well now pull the other one please.
If they cannot get him and his instructor apologist off the force the
reputation of the police goes down another notch.
TerryJ

"Budstaff" wrote in message
...
Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/5284962.stm

Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a cyclist
guilty of riding on the road?

Stephen Clark wrote:
"Budstaff" wrote in message
...
Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/5284962.stm

Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a cyclist
guilty of riding on the road?


Yes & the banana judge & the one who "tickled the tummy" of a
paeodophile ...
:-((

"Stephen Clark" wrote in message
...
"Budstaff" wrote in message
...
Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/5284962.stm

Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a cyclist
guilty of riding on the road?



No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.

Adam Lea wrote:
"Stephen Clark" wrote in message
...
"Budstaff" wrote in message
...
Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/5284962.stm

Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a cyclist
guilty of riding on the road?



No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.

No he wasn't. He was found guilty of riding without due consideration
for other road users because he was on the road instead of a slow,
glass and dog turd strewn cycle path that would have required 6 A road
carriageway crossings at rush hour to negotiate.

...d

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Clark" wrote in message
...
"Budstaff" wrote in message
...
Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/5284962.stm

Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a cyclist
guilty of riding on the road?



No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.

And you would consider 30mph in a 40 limit approaching a roundabout to be
obstructive? The prosecution was preposterous and strikes to the heart of
the cyclists _right_ to use the road (as opposed to the motorist, who only
has _permission_, not the right that cyclists, horses, columns of marching
troops and animals being driven enjoy).

Given the facts of the case the cyclist _was_ effectively found guilty of
riding on the road, as no credible case for obstruction was made. The fact
that he was found guilty of inconsiderate cycling, a vague offence if ever
there was one, highlights only the judge and police's prejudice against
cyclists, their ignorance of the law, and their complete disregard of the
DfT's manual of best practice, Cyclecraft (?), which was being followed.

"David Martin" wrote in message
ups.com...

Adam Lea wrote:
"Stephen Clark" wrote in message
...
"Budstaff" wrote in message
...
Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/5284962.stm

Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a
cyclist
guilty of riding on the road?



No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.

No he wasn't. He was found guilty of riding without due consideration
for other road users because he was on the road instead of a slow,
glass and dog turd strewn cycle path that would have required 6 A road
carriageway crossings at rush hour to negotiate.

..d


Really? I thought he was prosecuted because he was holding up a queue of
traffic which couldn't get past because of double white lines. If the
cyclist had oppportunities to pull in safely and let the traffic past but
didn't then the cyclist can be prosecuted for causing an obstruction (which
is one form of riding without due consideration).

I find it hard to believe that the cyclist was prosecuted because he was on
the road instead of the cycle path. There is no such law as far as I know.

"Budstaff" wrote in message
...

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Clark" wrote in message
...
"Budstaff" wrote in message
...
Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/5284962.stm

Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a
cyclist guilty of riding on the road?



No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.

And you would consider 30mph in a 40 limit approaching a roundabout to be
obstructive? The prosecution was preposterous and strikes to the heart of
the cyclists _right_ to use the road (as opposed to the motorist, who only
has _permission_, not the right that cyclists, horses, columns of marching
troops and animals being driven enjoy).


I merely stated what I thought the cyclist was prosecuted for. It doesn't
follow that I agree with the prosecution. In my opinion the verdict was a
pile of toss.

Stationg that the cyclist was prosecuted for being on the road is a slight
exaggeration. There is no law against cycling on the road.