“I was just playing on my phone�: driver’s excuse when cyclist asked why he’d stopped

On Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 11:45:42 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It's about a driver using a handheld phone.

Correct.

QUOTE:
"She said to the driver “I thought you were letting me past�, to which he cheerfully replied: “No, I was just playing on my phone."
ENDS

A clear admission of guilt by the driver. There is also video evidence of the crime taken by the cyclist along with a photo of the number plate.

On 14/06/2020 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2020 23:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2020 16:05, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2020 14:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2020 13:08, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2020 22:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2020 22:04, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 9:50:38 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

Evidence is for a court. Something way above your station in life.

The court would hear of a driver admitting to "playing with his
mobile" whilst driving along a country lane. Open and shut case.

Indeed. That was certainly the essence of the story. Nugent's
attempt to turn it to "parking" is rather desperate.

Still trying to get any sense (from you or anyone else) ofÂ* what
the alleged "offence" would be.

You have not yet been able to provide any.

Who are you to make demands?

Who is *anyone* to "make demands"?

That's not the answer to my question. Try again.

Still no answer.

But one might well take the view that if someone like you is accusing
a third party (whom you have never met) of an offence, you might have
a clue as to what the "offence" might be and of any evidence there
might be for the accusation.

This isn't a court and legal procedures do not have to be followed.

So you confirm that you don't have a clue (quellle surprise!).

Whereas you have fantasies that it is a court. It's not a requirement to
know about legal procedures any more than about plumbing or astronomy.
If I want legal advice I pay somebody with letters after their name.

But to some limited extent, that is correct. You can "find" people
guilty even when they're not guilty.

It's good of you to allow this. That puts us evens when you take any
story about a cyclist at face value, no matter how trivial, unlikely or
irrelevant and fight tooth and nail against anything that proves it wrong.
Have you thought of writing editorials for the Guardian?

That'd be right up your alley.

But you don't have a clue about it, do you?

Whereas you came up with double yellow lines...

It's about a driver using a handheld phone.

So *you*say.

I didn't. It's in the article.

On 14/06/2020 14:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2020 23:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2020 16:05, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2020 14:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2020 13:08, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2020 22:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2020 22:04, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 9:50:38 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

Evidence is for a court. Something way above your station in life.

The court would hear of a driver admitting to "playing with his
mobile" whilst driving along a country lane. Open and shut case.

Indeed. That was certainly the essence of the story. Nugent's
attempt to turn it to "parking" is rather desperate.

Still trying to get any sense (from you or anyone else) ofÂ* what
the alleged "offence" would be.

You have not yet been able to provide any.

Who are you to make demands?

Who is *anyone* to "make demands"?

That's not the answer to my question. Try again.

Still no answer.

You got a perfectly straightforward answer.

What you haven't done is to justify your claim that "demands" had been made.

But perhaps you "think" that when you are asked a question, that is a
demand whereas when you ask a question it somehow isn't a demand.

That's not an invitation to debate, by the way. It's an observation.

But one might well take the view that if someone like you is
accusing a third party (whom you have never met) of an offence, you
might have a clue as to what the "offence" might be and of any
evidence there might be for the accusation.

This isn't a court and legal procedures do not have to be followed.

So you confirm that you don't have a clue (quellle surprise!).

Whereas you have fantasies that it is a court. It's not a requirement to
know about legal procedures any more than about plumbing or astronomy.
If I want legal advice I pay somebody with letters after their name.

But to some limited extent, that is correct. You can "find" people
guilty even when they're not guilty.

It's good of you to allow this.

I don't. I am ridiculing you for that approach.

That puts us evens when you take any
story about a cyclist at face value, no matter how trivial, unlikely or
irrelevant and fight tooth and nail against anything that proves it wrong.

You aren't sure, even now, what you are talking about, are you?

Have you thought of writing editorials for the Guardian?
That'd be right up your alley.

But you don't have a clue about it, do you?

Whereas you came up with double yellow lines...

....as one possible, even if rather unlikely, reason for stopping to be
an "offence" in that location. I expected the answer to be that there
were no waiting or stopping restrictions. Didn't you?

It's about a driver using a handheld phone.

So *you*say.

I didn't. It's in the article.

No-one is quoted as using a handheld phone.

The word "played with" could have meant anything or nothing, from
recovering a fallen phone from the footwell to plugging it in to
recharge. Without making calls, sending texts or checking email, I've
done those and other things, having first stopped the car. Haven't you?

On 14/06/2020 14:39, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2020 23:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2020 16:05, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2020 14:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2020 13:08, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2020 22:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2020 22:04, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 9:50:38 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

Evidence is for a court. Something way above your station in
life.

The court would hear of a driver admitting to "playing with his
mobile" whilst driving along a country lane. Open and shut case.

Indeed. That was certainly the essence of the story. Nugent's
attempt to turn it to "parking" is rather desperate.

Still trying to get any sense (from you or anyone else) ofÂ* what
the alleged "offence" would be.

You have not yet been able to provide any.

Who are you to make demands?

Who is *anyone* to "make demands"?

That's not the answer to my question. Try again.

Still no answer.

You got a perfectly straightforward answer.

What you haven't done is to justify your claim that "demands" had been
made.

It's not necessary to justify it. It is what you regularly do.

But perhaps you "think" that when you are asked a question, that is a
demand whereas when you ask a question it somehow isn't a demand.

That's not an invitation to debate, by the way. It's an observation.

It's my observation.

But one might well take the view that if someone like you is
accusing a third party (whom you have never met) of an offence, you
might have a clue as to what the "offence" might be and of any
evidence there might be for the accusation.

This isn't a court and legal procedures do not have to be followed.

So you confirm that you don't have a clue (quellle surprise!).

Whereas you have fantasies that it is a court. It's not a requirement
to know about legal procedures any more than about plumbing or
astronomy. If I want legal advice I pay somebody with letters after
their name.

But to some limited extent, that is correct. You can "find" people
guilty even when they're not guilty.

It's good of you to allow this.

I don't. I am ridiculing you for that approach.

I know that. I was mocking your sloppy language.
That puts us evens when you take any story about a cyclist at face
value, no matter how trivial, unlikely or irrelevant and fight tooth
and nail against anything that proves it wrong.

You aren't sure, even now, what you are talking about, are you?

I definitely do know what I'm talking about.

Have you thought of writing editorials for the Guardian?
That'd be right up your alley.

But you don't have a clue about it, do you?

Whereas you came up with double yellow lines...

...as one possible, even if rather unlikely, reason for stopping to be
an "offence" in that location. I expected the answer to be that there
were no waiting or stopping restrictions. Didn't you?

It's so unlikely that it would not have registered as a possibility.

It's about a driver using a handheld phone.

So *you*say.

I didn't. It's in the article.

No-one is quoted as using a handheld phone.

The word "played with" could have meant anything or nothing, from
recoveringÂ* a fallen phone from the footwell to plugging it in to
recharge. Without making calls, sending texts or checking email, I've
done those and other things, having first stopped the car. Haven't you?
Wriggle.

On 14/06/2020 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:39, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2020 23:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2020 16:05, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2020 14:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2020 13:08, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2020 22:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2020 22:04, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 9:50:38 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

Evidence is for a court. Something way above your station in
life.

The court would hear of a driver admitting to "playing with his
mobile" whilst driving along a country lane. Open and shut case.

Indeed. That was certainly the essence of the story. Nugent's
attempt to turn it to "parking" is rather desperate.

Still trying to get any sense (from you or anyone else) ofÂ* what
the alleged "offence" would be.

You have not yet been able to provide any.

Who are you to make demands?

Who is *anyone* to "make demands"?

That's not the answer to my question. Try again.

Still no answer.

You got a perfectly straightforward answer.

What you haven't done is to justify your claim that "demands" had been
made.

It's not necessary to justify it. It is what you regularly do.

Whatever that means. shrug

But perhaps you "think" that when you are asked a question, that is a
demand whereas when you ask a question it somehow isn't a demand.

That's not an invitation to debate, by the way. It's an observation.

It's my observation.

No; it was mine.

But one might well take the view that if someone like you is
accusing a third party (whom you have never met) of an offence,
you might have a clue as to what the "offence" might be and of any
evidence there might be for the accusation.

This isn't a court and legal procedures do not have to be followed.

So you confirm that you don't have a clue (quellle surprise!).

Whereas you have fantasies that it is a court. It's not a requirement
to know about legal procedures any more than about plumbing or
astronomy. If I want legal advice I pay somebody with letters after
their name.

But to some limited extent, that is correct. You can "find" people
guilty even when they're not guilty.

It's good of you to allow this.

I don't. I am ridiculing you for that approach.

I know that. I was mocking your sloppy language.

Oh dear...

That puts us evens when you take any story about a cyclist at face
value, no matter how trivial, unlikely or irrelevant and fight tooth
and nail against anything that proves it wrong.

You aren't sure, even now, what you are talking about, are you?

I definitely do know what I'm talking about.

You display no signs of it.

Have you thought of writing editorials for the Guardian?
That'd be right up your alley.

But you don't have a clue about it, do you?

Whereas you came up with double yellow lines...

...as one possible, even if rather unlikely, reason for stopping to be
an "offence" in that location. I expected the answer to be that there
were no waiting or stopping restrictions. Didn't you?

It's so unlikely that it would not have registered as a possibility.

Quite so. That was the point. Not that you were astute enough to realise
it before it was explained to you.

It's about a driver using a handheld phone.

So *you*say.

I didn't. It's in the article.

No-one is quoted as using a handheld phone.

The word "played with" could have meant anything or nothing, from
recoveringÂ* a fallen phone from the footwell to plugging it in to
recharge. Without making calls, sending texts or checking email, I've
done those and other things, having first stopped the car. Haven't you?
Wriggle.

Prove that "played with" means the same as "used".

On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 10:13:11 PM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 21:04:42 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 9:50:38 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

Evidence is for a court. Something way above your station in life.

The court would hear of a driver admitting to "playing with his
mobile" whilst driving along a country lane. Open and shut case.

I see Nugent is less keen on The Law in this case.


I wouldn't know - he has been in my killfile for 10 years.

I will keep an eye on this story to see if the driver gets prosecuted for "playing" with a mobile whilst the car engine is running/moving forward.

On 14/06/2020 23:27, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2020 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:39, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 01:32, JNugent wrote:

Whatever that means. shrug

Oh good, it got through.

But to some limited extent, that is correct. You can "find" people
guilty even when they're not guilty.

It's good of you to allow this.

I don't. I am ridiculing you for that approach.

I know that. I was mocking your sloppy language.

Oh dear...

Oh, you wanted it to be taken in context and not literally? Well,
whatever next?

The word "played with" could have meant anything or nothing, from
recoveringÂ* a fallen phone from the footwell to plugging it in to
recharge. Without making calls, sending texts or checking email, I've
done those and other things, having first stopped the car. Haven't you?

Wriggle.

Prove that "played with" means the same as "used".

No need. For all your fantasies, this is not a court of law.

On 15/06/2020 09:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 23:27, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2020 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:39, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 01:32, JNugent wrote:

Whatever that means. shrug

Oh good, it got through.

But to some limited extent, that is correct. You can "find" people
guilty even when they're not guilty.

It's good of you to allow this.

I don't. I am ridiculing you for that approach.

I know that. I was mocking your sloppy language.

Oh dear...

Oh, you wanted it to be taken in context and not literally? Well,
whatever next?

The word "played with" could have meant anything or nothing, from
recoveringÂ* a fallen phone from the footwell to plugging it in to
recharge. Without making calls, sending texts or checking email,
I've done those and other things, having first stopped the car.
Haven't you?

Wriggle.

Prove that "played with" means the same as "used".

No need. For all your fantasies, this is not a court of law.

Good... you've woken up to that at last.

So how, where, when and by whom do you reckon that the alleged "offence"
will be taken into account?

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 9:57:30 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

No need. For all your fantasies, this is not a court of law.

QUOTE: Not the sharpest tool in the box and one that hopefully can be prosecuted with a number plate clearly visible...
ENDS

"Hopefully" he will take it to court to contest the spot fine he will get.

On 15/06/2020 13:20, Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 9:57:30 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

No need. For all your fantasies, this is not a court of law.

QUOTE: Not the sharpest tool in the box and one that hopefully can be prosecuted with a number plate clearly visible...
ENDS

"Hopefully" he will take it to court to contest the spot fine he will get.

We shall see.