Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrong sideof road is jailed - LONG

On 14/09/2020 16:17, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 14:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/09/2020 12:54, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 11:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/09/2020 15:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 12 September 2020 15:04:55 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:
On 12/09/2020 14:52, Mike Collins wrote:

Finally you grasp the difference between law and legislative intent.

I really doubt it.

When the law against the use of carriages on footways was introduced,

That would be the 1835 Highways Act.

I expect the legal gods that Nugent worships knew all about future
inventions.

there was no legislative intent to allow cyclists to cycle along
them.

I have a copy of the first Highway Code. Nowhere does it mention
pavements except to tell pedestrians to "never walk on the
carriageway where there is a pavement".
https://swarb.co.uk/taylor-v-goodwin-qbd-1879/

When traffic lights were introduced

Their purpose was to manage traffic flow and had nothing to do with
safety.

No-one has commented below on that bit.

No doubt you will claim that your sentence is proper English.

Well, no-one important.

But we did get this change of subject:

[TMS320:]
The same Highway Code says that section 49 of the Road Traffic Act
1930 made it an offence to disobey the indications given by traffic
lights. Since the first traffic light was installed in London in
1868 (non-lit signals have a much longer history), I expect it took
a good number of careful, law abiding motorists to kill people
before the law caught up.

Are you not familiar with the process of legislation and its rolling
programme of amendment and consolidation?

We are discussing the intention of laws.

Not at this stage, we aren't.

Obviously, *you* don't want to.

TMS320 seemed to think that because a Road Traffic Act of 1930 contained
a Section making non-compliance with traffic lights an offence, that it
wasn't an offence before that.

I quoted the information I have. If you know better, tell us.

If it were, for instance, pointed out to you that dangerous driving
is an offence under Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (which it
is), would you conclude that prior to the coming into force of that
Act, dangerous driving was not an offence under English law?

If it were further pointed out to you that driving whilst intoxicated
is dealt with under Sections 4 to 11 of the same Act (1988,
remember), would you insist that the Breathalyser therefore was not
in use from as early as late 1967?

I would conclude that the intention behind these laws was to try to
reduce a public safety problem.

You might well conclude that. But it wasn't what I asked.

You moved the subject away from intention of the law.

I asked whether an Act containing a prohibition on something means that
it wasn't already prohibited (TMS320 seemed to be under that impression).

(Though as we know, it is almost impossible to be convicted of
dangerous driving.)

It SHOULD be impossible, or very nearly impossible, to be convicted of
an offence one has not committed.

You're making the mistake in thinking that certain acts of driving
aren't dangerous until agreed by a jury.

Even you would support that as a general principle, I expect.

I doubt that even you dare to put pavement cycling in the same
category. Particularly as any argument falls flat in light of the many
places where the mix of cyclist and pedestrian is allowed.

Where did that come from? What does it have to do with the rolling
review, amendment and consolidation of statute law?

Pavement cycling has been mentioned by you in this thread.

On Monday, 14 September 2020 19:25:37 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 6:50:49 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 18:31:17 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:52:35 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

Tell that to Barry George.

Stefan Kiszko, Barry George, Birmingham Six, Timothy Evans, George Kelly, Mahmood Hussein Mattan, Derek Bentley, George Thatcher, Andrew Evans, Liam Holden, Stephen Downing, Judith Ward, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, Terry Pinfold, Harry MacKenney, Robert Brown, Paul Blackburn, Bridgewater Four, Sean Hodgson, Winston Silcott, Michael Shirley, Danny McNamee, Cardiff Newsagent Three, Cardiff Three, M25 Three, Christy Walsh, Eddie Gilfoyle, Sally Clark, Donna Anthony, Victor Nealon, Siôn Jenkins, Angela Cannings, Barri White, Suzanne Holdsworth, Sam Hallam, Ched Evans, Oval Four - all were wrongly convicted and some were hanged, despite being innocent.

The above examples are why I changed my mind about the death penalty.
Barry George would certainly have been sentenced to death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIsovWTejRc

An eye for an eye makes us all blind.

Ah but DNA is 100% certain.
Apart from:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17324912

I assume Nugents hasn't carried a Salmon suspiciously recently, or worn armour in parliament.

On 14/09/2020 17:52, Mike Collins wrote:

On Monday, 14 September 2020 16:15:57 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

It SHOULD be impossible, or very nearly impossible, to be convicted of
an offence one has not committed.

Tell that to Barry George.

Why?

Does he not already share that view?

On 14/09/2020 20:44, TMS320 wrote:

On 14/09/2020 16:17, JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

TMS320 seemed to think that because a Road Traffic Act of 1930
contained a Section making non-compliance with traffic lights an
offence, that it wasn't an offence before that.

I quoted the information I have. If you know better, tell us.

Please make your view clear.

Are you claiming, saying or asserting that because a Road Traffic Act
which was enacted in 1930 contained an offence of failing to comply with
traffic lights that it wasn't an offence before that?

That is the only reasonable construction that may be put upon your
previous statement on the subject.

But of you didn't mean it, please say so now. You could usefully reflect
upon the indisputable fact that driving with excess alcohol in the blood
was an offence from 1967 onward, even if it was also mentioned as an
offence within a 1988 Act.

If it were, for instance, pointed out to you that dangerous driving
is an offence under Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (which it
is), would you conclude that prior to the coming into force of that
Act, dangerous driving was not an offence under English law?

If it were further pointed out to you that driving whilst
intoxicated is dealt with under Sections 4 to 11 of the same Act
(1988, remember), would you insist that the Breathalyser therefore
was not in use from as early as late 1967?

I would conclude that the intention behind these laws was to try to
reduce a public safety problem.

You might well conclude that. But it wasn't what I asked.

You moved the subject away from intention of the law.

Au contraire, *you* did that!

You said that before 1930, it wasn't an offence to fail to comply with
traffic signals / lights / whatever you want to call them.

Are you sticking to that?

I asked whether an Act containing a prohibition on something means
that it wasn't already prohibited (TMS320 seemed to be under that
impression).

(Though as we know, it is almost impossible to be convicted of
dangerous driving.)

It SHOULD be impossible, or very nearly impossible, to be convicted of
an offence one has not committed.

You're making the mistake in thinking that certain acts of driving
aren't dangerous until agreed by a jury.

The courts *are* the ultimate arbiters as to fact. Not police officers
and certainly not passing cyclists scooting along footways and through
red traffic lights.

Even you would support that as a general principle, I expect.

I doubt that even you dare to put pavement cycling in the same
category. Particularly as any argument falls flat in light of the
many places where the mix of cyclist and pedestrian is allowed.

Where did that come from? What does it have to do with the rolling
review, amendment and consolidation of statute law?

Pavement cycling has been mentioned by you in this thread.

But not within this topic.

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 00:08:21 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 17:52, Mike Collins wrote:

On Monday, 14 September 2020 16:15:57 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

It SHOULD be impossible, or very nearly impossible, to be convicted of
an offence one has not committed.

Tell that to Barry George.

Why?


Because he was wrongly convicted of a murder he did not commit.

On Monday, 14 September 2020 16:15:57 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 14:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/09/2020 12:54, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 11:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/09/2020 15:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 12 September 2020 15:04:55 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:
On 12/09/2020 14:52, Mike Collins wrote:

Finally you grasp the difference between law and legislative intent.

On 15/09/2020 00:19, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 20:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/09/2020 16:17, JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

TMS320 seemed to think that because a Road Traffic Act of 1930
contained a Section making non-compliance with traffic lights an
offence, that it wasn't an offence before that.

I quoted the information I have. If you know better, tell us.

Please make your view clear.

Does this help?

Ay quoted de information ay 'uv. If ye nah scutty, tell us.

Are you claiming,

I am reporting not claiming. Look these two words up to see if you can
find a difference.

...

I asked whether an Act containing a prohibition on something means
that it wasn't already prohibited (TMS320 seemed to be under that
impression).

(Though as we know, it is almost impossible to be convicted of
dangerous driving.)

It SHOULD be impossible, or very nearly impossible, to be convicted
of an offence one has not committed.

You're making the mistake in thinking that certain acts of driving
aren't dangerous until agreed by a jury.

The courts *are* the ultimate arbiters as to fact. Not police officers
and certainly not passing cyclists scooting along footways and through
red traffic lights.

All court does is to decide whether Her Majesty gives the driver a
smacked botty.

Even you would support that as a general principle, I expect.

I doubt that even you dare to put pavement cycling in the same
category. Particularly as any argument falls flat in light of the
many places where the mix of cyclist and pedestrian is allowed.

Where did that come from? What does it have to do with the rolling
review, amendment and consolidation of statute law?

Pavement cycling has been mentioned by you in this thread.

But not within this topic.

If you were to read your posts back you would notice how the matter
frequently and randomly pops up.

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

To remind you, the topic had moved into intention of law and issues of
safety.

On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 00:18:04 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

After the council has been along with the Magic White Paint most motorists think it is compulsory.

On 15/09/2020 03:12, Mike Collins wrote:

On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 00:08:21 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 17:52, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 16:15:57 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

It SHOULD be impossible, or very nearly impossible, to be convicted of
an offence one has not committed.

Tell that to Barry George.

Why?

Because he was wrongly convicted of a murder he did not commit.

As I had already told you (but you chose to snip), it is highly likely
that he would agree with the thesis that it SHOULD be impossible, or
very nearly impossible, to be convicted of an offence one has not committed.

So why would he need to be told something he already knows?

Please be clear in your response.

On 15/09/2020 04:23, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 16:15:57 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 14:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/09/2020 12:54, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 11:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/09/2020 15:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 12 September 2020 15:04:55 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:
On 12/09/2020 14:52, Mike Collins wrote:

Finally you grasp the difference between law and legislative intent.

I really doubt it.

When the law against the use of carriages on footways was introduced,

That would be the 1835 Highways Act.

I expect the legal gods that Nugent worships knew all about future
inventions.

there was no legislative intent to allow cyclists to cycle along them.

I have a copy of the first Highway Code. Nowhere does it mention
pavements except to tell pedestrians to "never walk on the
carriageway where there is a pavement".
https://swarb.co.uk/taylor-v-goodwin-qbd-1879/

When traffic lights were introduced

Their purpose was to manage traffic flow and had nothing to do with
safety.

No-one has commented below on that bit.

Well, no-one important.

Once again you fail to grasp the simple concept that traffic lights were only introduced to manage motor traffic flow on roads paid for by cyclists.

Do traffic lights not apply to cyclists?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.