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

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.

On 10/06/2020 21:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2020 15:44, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2020 09:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2020 00:26, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2020 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/06/2020 11:12, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2020 08:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/06/2020 00:11, JNugent wrote:

Was the driver perrmitted to stop, or prohibited from stopping?
That seems an important question, wouldn't you say?

No.

Really?

Really.

You can't see the relevance of whether the driver was prohibited
from stopping.

Because it's irrelevant.

Why am I not surprised? :-)

Why am I not surprised you can't recognise the real offence that took
place?

Go on, genius...

What was it?

Sigh.

Don't forget the little matter of evidence, whatever you "think" the
offence was.

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

No evidence of an offence. No offence.

Stopping a vehicle is an offence in certain (very limited) specific
places. Even then, there are exceptions. Knowing that, but not wanting
to admit it, you cannot say more.

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.

Not necessarily.

See whether you can work out why. There are several distinct reasons.

On 10/06/2020 22:13, 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.

Applying the law adversely to a particular citizen needs evidence of an
alleged offence at a particular time in a particular place.

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) of what the
alleged "offence" would be.

You have not yet been able to provide any.

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?

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"?

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.

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

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 9:11:10 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

The unlawful act is not the driver's stopping and waiting, it's the
use of his hand-held device while driving.

Is the correct answer!
Obviously.

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.

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.

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

It's about a driver using a handheld phone.

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.

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!).

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

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?

It's about a driver using a handheld phone.

So *you*say.