Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?
Discussion
singlecoil said:
Orillion said:
singlecoil said:
Who said you did? What you've quoted there was addressed to the OP, not you
As to your later points, whether the car is 'legal' or not has nothing to do with it. He hasn't been accused of driving an illegal car, he's been accused, AIUI, of careless driving.
Has he not been charged with this?As to your later points, whether the car is 'legal' or not has nothing to do with it. He hasn't been accused of driving an illegal car, he's been accused, AIUI, of careless driving.
"On 19/09/2011 at HAXBY, YORK, NORTH YORKSHIRE, with intent to cause (horse riders names omitted for obvious reasons) harassment, alarm or distress, used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, thereby causing that person or another harassment, alarm or distress.
- LEGISLATION: 'Contrary to Section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986.'
- CCCJS CODE: PU86116'
- ACPO: '7.6.17.1'
- PNLD CODE: 'H350'
Contrary to Section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986."
It appears to be a public order offence.
This is Piston Heads isn't it? A forum for people with an interest in cars and all that goes with that?
The OP mentioned TVR (more than once I believe). He believes that there is relevance there.
Nobody else that I recall, (and certainly I didn't), mentioned illegal cars, just you.
Honestly; is this person (singlecoil) a known troll or have I just been 'lucky'?
Goaty Bill said:
You really are hung up on the 'TVR thing' aren't you?
This is Piston Heads isn't it? A forum for people with an interest in cars and all that goes with that?
The OP mentioned TVR (more than once I believe). He believes that there is relevance there.
Nobody else that I recall, (and certainly I didn't), mentioned illegal cars, just you.
Honestly; is this person (singlecoil) a known troll or have I just been 'lucky'?
Try not to be a burke. My post showed that there was no relevance, whatever the OP might believe. And this particular thread is not about TVRs, it's about the interpretation of a person's behaviour. What we think of cars in general or any particular make is also irrelevant. This is Piston Heads isn't it? A forum for people with an interest in cars and all that goes with that?
The OP mentioned TVR (more than once I believe). He believes that there is relevance there.
Nobody else that I recall, (and certainly I didn't), mentioned illegal cars, just you.
Honestly; is this person (singlecoil) a known troll or have I just been 'lucky'?
Personally, from what I gather from what the OP has said, I think his son is going to come off worse if this gets to court.
singlecoil said:
Try not to be a burke. My post showed that there was no relevance, whatever the OP might believe. And this particular thread is not about TVRs, it's about the interpretation of a person's behaviour. What we think of cars in general or any particular make is also irrelevant.
Personally, from what I gather from what the OP has said, I think his son is going to come off worse if this gets to court.
You have been of no assistance whatsoever to the OP, and have simply targeted my posts and his in a most unfriendly manner from the beginning, all apparently without due consideration of his previous posts and the information contained therein.Personally, from what I gather from what the OP has said, I think his son is going to come off worse if this gets to court.
I leave you to your personal misery.
King Fisher said:
Now chaps, let's stay on topic and be nice to each other!
Tell goatybill, he's the one that started it, he quoted me when I hadn't said anything to him, then called me a troll and, well, you can read the rest for yourself. I always stand up to bullies, especially anonymous internet bullies.King Fisher said:
Now chaps, let's stay on topic and be nice to each other!
Having read through this, I can't help but feel that you've got completely the wrong end of the stick here, not least because you are emotionally involved with this case and believe everything your son is telling you. Believe it or not he may be omitting some facts!!However the main issue is this. The car was no more than the reason that the horse riders pulled him over. It was his (alleged) subsequent actions that have landed him with a court date.
You won't win any points by saying "They shouldn't have pulled him over, because his car is noisier than most other cars. So we believe he was well within his rights to tell them to go f
k themselves, whilst beating one of them to death with the soggy end of one of their horses legs, then fishtailing off and bhslapping the remaining ones into the nearest field."I used to defend horse riders when I was married to one of them, now I can't stand them, but you need to focus on the issue at hand, not a minor technicality and think this will get your son off the charge.
STHi said:
but you need to focus on the issue at hand, not a minor technicality and think this will get your son off the charge.
I think you are being optimistic with that. AIUI it's three people's words against one. Admittedly all three are presumably friends and likely to support eachother, and maybe the magistrates will take that into account. Or maybe they won't. And there's apparently some corroboration from an 'independant withness'.Is there any way at all this can be prevented from coming to court? Plead guilty to a lesser charge, maybe?
singlecoil said:
STHi said:
but you need to focus on the issue at hand, not a minor technicality and think this will get your son off the charge.
I think you are being optimistic with that. AIUI it's three people's words against one. Admittedly all three are presumably friends and likely to support eachother, and maybe the magistrates will take that into account. Or maybe they won't. And there's apparently some corroboration from an 'independant withness'.Is there any way at all this can be prevented from coming to court? Plead guilty to a lesser charge, maybe?
I believe the OP is too obsessed with the car being "loud" and missing the point completely about why his son has been charged.
The witness evidence will screw his son, so he needs to find out what his son really did and not what he's simply telling him he did.
STHi said:
singlecoil said:
STHi said:
but you need to focus on the issue at hand, not a minor technicality and think this will get your son off the charge.
I think you are being optimistic with that. AIUI it's three people's words against one. Admittedly all three are presumably friends and likely to support eachother, and maybe the magistrates will take that into account. Or maybe they won't. And there's apparently some corroboration from an 'independant withness'.Is there any way at all this can be prevented from coming to court? Plead guilty to a lesser charge, maybe?
I believe the OP is too obsessed with the car being "loud" and missing the point completely about why his son has been charged.
The witness evidence will screw his son, so he needs to find out what his son really did and not what he's simply telling him he did.
grahamw48 said:
Strange how drunken idiots are sent on their way every night of the week for 'disagreements' on the Queen's highway...often telling the cops to 'f'off while they're about it. 
Where both sides are usually drunk in the "disagreements". Although have you seen the cells in a police station on a Fri / Sat night. They're usually fit to burst.On the other hand if one person decides to (allegedly) verbally abuse a group of people on the street and this is backed up by independent witnesses, then 99 times out of 100 it will be followed up.
STHi said:
Eh? I was agreeing with you.
I believe the OP is too obsessed with the car being "loud" and missing the point completely about why his son has been charged.
The witness evidence will screw his son, so he needs to find out what his son really did and not what he's simply telling him he did.
Well, I can only go on what he's told me, and from my experiences with horse riders in the area, I can well believe they have abused him, as they have me (which I will also be stating in court). How do you think we should put up our defence against this charge? He admits he told them to 'pI believe the OP is too obsessed with the car being "loud" and missing the point completely about why his son has been charged.
The witness evidence will screw his son, so he needs to find out what his son really did and not what he's simply telling him he did.
s off', after they had already abused him. He then admits moving at a reasonable pace to avoid the horse that came near his car. Surely the magistrates will realise that if he felt threatened, he had a right to move at a faster pace than he normally would have done near a horse? King Fisher said:
Well, I can only go on what he's told me, and from my experiences with horse riders in the area, I can well believe they have abused him, as they have me (which I will also be stating in court). How do you think we should put up our defence against this charge? He admits he told them to 'ps off', after they had already abused him. He then admits moving at a reasonable pace to avoid the horse that came near his car. Surely the magistrates will realise that if he felt threatened, he had a right to move at a faster pace than he normally would have done near a horse?
I think that anybody who makes a habit of riding horses on roads (not just in your area) is likely to have a poor attitude towards other road users, as they 'exercise their rights' and spare themselves the expense of finding somewhere more suitable to ride them.s off', after they had already abused him. He then admits moving at a reasonable pace to avoid the horse that came near his car. Surely the magistrates will realise that if he felt threatened, he had a right to move at a faster pace than he normally would have done near a horse? However, from what you have said about the case it seems to me very unlikely that the court will find for him. To do so they would need to be convinced that three people started an argument with your son for no particular reason, then lied about it, and then went to the trouble of attending court as witnesses in order that their lies would get your son convicted. Now it may well be that that is indeed what is happenening here, and with what I feel about such horse riders I am prepared to believe that. But the chances of finding magistrates to agree are small, and I still think that finding another solution, if there is one, would be a very good idea indeed.
I would add that saying anything about the car at all in court would be a mistake, because whatever the legal status of the car, and indeed whether or not it is possible to pull away briskly (to avoid a dangerous situation for instance) without spinning the wheels, the fact remains that he never-the-less chose to drive it in an area where he was likely to come across horses being ridden on the road. Less said about the car the better.
Edited by singlecoil on Friday 11th November 06:40
King Fisher said:
Well, I can only go on what he's told me, and from my experiences with horse riders in the area, I can well believe they have abused him, as they have me (which I will also be stating in court).
Looking at this rationally (ie without the emotional attachment you have with your son), I'd say that your opinion as a biased representative will make no difference whatsoever. You can't make a sweeping statement that all horse riders are the same and expect a Court to believe that.King Fisher said:
How do you think we should put up our defence against this charge? He admits he told them to 'ps off', after they had already abused him.
I've no idea how you defend a charge that you admit in the next sentence. Telling someone to "ps off', after they had already abused him. s off" is effectively a Public Order offence, whether they've abused him or not then both are in the wrong, but that doesn't make his actions right. It may be a mititgating factor in getting a reduced penalty, but it certainly wouldn't get him off.King Fisher said:
He then admits moving at a reasonable pace to avoid the horse that came near his car.
Again, hardly the sign of a responsible citizen. A horse coming near his car is not a threat to him, as he's encased in a nice metal box (or whatever a TVR is made of). Does he react te same way if a pedestrian or other car comes as close?King Fisher said:
Surely the magistrates will realise that if he felt threatened, he had a right to move at a faster pace than he normally would have done near a horse?
Why should they realise that? He told someone to ps off, those people then reported him to the Police. The police have investigated and believe there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Bear in mind that the independent witness is key here. They have no axe to grind, so their evidence will be the thing that sways a Court.Put simply the Magistrate wasn't there. He / she have to try to paint a picture of what happened. The Defendant will always deny they did anything wrong, the Accuser (whatever their official title is) will always overply what happened, but an independent witness will give a more balaced view. the Court then look at tall aspects of ehta was claimed and decide if there is sufficient evidence to find your son guilty beyonf all reasonable doubt.
Your solicitor's is to create "doubt". Simply saying all horse riders are a PITA is more likely to make the Court feel your son is biased against them and likely to act like a prat, as his Dad brought him up that way.
STHi said:
Why should they realise that? He told someone to ps off, those people then reported him to the Police. The police have investigated and believe there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Bear in mind that the independent witness is key here. They have no axe to grind, so their evidence will be the thing that sways a Court.
Put simply the Magistrate wasn't there. He / she have to try to paint a picture of what happened. The Defendant will always deny they did anything wrong, the Accuser (whatever their official title is) will always overply what happened, but an independent witness will give a more balaced view. the Court then look at tall aspects of ehta was claimed and decide if there is sufficient evidence to find your son guilty beyonf all reasonable doubt.
Your solicitor's is to create "doubt". Simply saying all horse riders are a PITA is more likely to make the Court feel your son is biased against them and likely to act like a prat, as his Dad brought him up that way.
A TVR is made of fibreglass; have you seen what a horse can do to a fibreglass car? And yes, if a pedestrian came near his car in a threatening way, he would drive himself away from danger; his car is his pride and joy. Finally, the witness states she was 18 feet away from the incident. Evidence we have compiled shows her residence as being 60 metres from where the incident took place. She also keeps horses and is a well known member of the horse riding community. s off, those people then reported him to the Police. The police have investigated and believe there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Bear in mind that the independent witness is key here. They have no axe to grind, so their evidence will be the thing that sways a Court.Put simply the Magistrate wasn't there. He / she have to try to paint a picture of what happened. The Defendant will always deny they did anything wrong, the Accuser (whatever their official title is) will always overply what happened, but an independent witness will give a more balaced view. the Court then look at tall aspects of ehta was claimed and decide if there is sufficient evidence to find your son guilty beyonf all reasonable doubt.
Your solicitor's is to create "doubt". Simply saying all horse riders are a PITA is more likely to make the Court feel your son is biased against them and likely to act like a prat, as his Dad brought him up that way.
King Fisher said:
STHi said:
Why should they realise that? He told someone to ps off, those people then reported him to the Police. The police have investigated and believe there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Bear in mind that the independent witness is key here. They have no axe to grind, so their evidence will be the thing that sways a Court.
Put simply the Magistrate wasn't there. He / she have to try to paint a picture of what happened. The Defendant will always deny they did anything wrong, the Accuser (whatever their official title is) will always overply what happened, but an independent witness will give a more balaced view. the Court then look at tall aspects of ehta was claimed and decide if there is sufficient evidence to find your son guilty beyonf all reasonable doubt.
Your solicitor's is to create "doubt". Simply saying all horse riders are a PITA is more likely to make the Court feel your son is biased against them and likely to act like a prat, as his Dad brought him up that way.
A TVR is made of fibreglass; have you seen what a horse can do to a fibreglass car? And yes, if a pedestrian came near his car in a threatening way, he would drive himself away from danger; his car is his pride and joy. Finally, the witness states she was 18 feet away from the incident. Evidence we have compiled shows her residence as being 60 metres from where the incident took place. She also keeps horses and is a well known member of the horse riding community. s off, those people then reported him to the Police. The police have investigated and believe there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Bear in mind that the independent witness is key here. They have no axe to grind, so their evidence will be the thing that sways a Court.Put simply the Magistrate wasn't there. He / she have to try to paint a picture of what happened. The Defendant will always deny they did anything wrong, the Accuser (whatever their official title is) will always overply what happened, but an independent witness will give a more balaced view. the Court then look at tall aspects of ehta was claimed and decide if there is sufficient evidence to find your son guilty beyonf all reasonable doubt.
Your solicitor's is to create "doubt". Simply saying all horse riders are a PITA is more likely to make the Court feel your son is biased against them and likely to act like a prat, as his Dad brought him up that way.
King Fisher said:
A TVR is made of fibreglass; have you seen what a horse can do to a fibreglass car
No.King Fisher said:
And yes, if a pedestrian came near his car in a threatening way, he would drive himself away from danger; his car is his pride and joy.
OK, but that's really going to mess up his defence. As he can't claim that his car is more important than another person, no matter what the circumstances.King Fisher said:
Finally, the witness states she was 18 feet away from the incident. Evidence we have compiled shows her residence as being 60 metres from where the incident took place. She also keeps horses and is a well known member of the horse riding community.
Too much Perry Mason. Does she state she was in her house? Maybe she was in the front garden. As for the fact she rides horses Does she drive a car too? Jesus wept.singlecoil said:
I would add that saying anything about the car at all in court would be a mistake, because whatever the legal status of the car, and indeed whether or not it is possible to pull away briskly (to avoid a dangerous situation for instance) without spinning the wheels, the fact remains that he never-the-less chose to drive it in an area where he was likely to come across horses being ridden on the road. Less said about the car the better.
But it should be borne in mind that wherever he 'chose' to drive, he was there perfectly legally until he was "pulled over" by these horse nazis. Edited by singlecoil on Friday 11th November 06:40
I asked my missus about this and she replied;
"A TVR - Jesus, they should have heard that coming a mile off and GOT OUT OF THE WAY"
I would question just whose right have been impinged on here? He was pulled over by these horse riding fascists, one would assume so they could 'give him a pice of their (clealry amoeba like) collective minds'?
Question 1 - What right have they got to do this?
Question 2 - (this might seem a bit childish but...) Who started the verbals?
Nuff said
simer553 said:
singlecoil said:
I would add that saying anything about the car at all in court would be a mistake, because whatever the legal status of the car, and indeed whether or not it is possible to pull away briskly (to avoid a dangerous situation for instance) without spinning the wheels, the fact remains that he never-the-less chose to drive it in an area where he was likely to come across horses being ridden on the road. Less said about the car the better.
But it should be borne in mind that wherever he 'chose' to drive, he was there perfectly legally until he was "pulled over" by these horse nazis. Edited by singlecoil on Friday 11th November 06:40
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff