Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?
Discussion
singlecoil said:
Show me where I said that. If you can't, it would suggest that you are making this argument up, both your and my sides, as you go along.
I'll go back when I've got a decent laptop in front of me. You may not have said it explicitly. The vigour with which you are pursuing this one case would definitely imply it though. After all there are many threads where people are claiming "miscarriage of justice" that you haven't pursued like this one. Can I ask that you avoid editing any historic posts too as it does leave a footprint.
LoonR1 said:
singlecoil said:
Show me where I said that. If you can't, it would suggest that you are making this argument up, both your and my sides, as you go along.
I'll go back when I've got a decent laptop in front of me. You may not have said it explicitly. The vigour with which you are pursuing this one case would definitely imply it though. After all there are many threads where people are claiming "miscarriage of justice" that you haven't pursued like this one. Can I ask that you avoid editing any historic posts too as it does leave a footprint.
singlecoil said:
Breadvan72 said:
It's not impossible, but it's far more likely that the verdict was the right verdict.
Pretty much what I said. I've never claimed he was innocent. If I had been there I would know one way or the other, but I wasn't, so I don't. Neither does anybody else who wasn't there.Round and round it goes.
martinalex said:
singlecoil said:
Breadvan72 said:
It's not impossible, but it's far more likely that the verdict was the right verdict.
Pretty much what I said. I've never claimed he was innocent. If I had been there I would know one way or the other, but I wasn't, so I don't. Neither does anybody else who wasn't there.Round and round it goes.
singlecoil said:
martinalex said:
singlecoil said:
Breadvan72 said:
It's not impossible, but it's far more likely that the verdict was the right verdict.
Pretty much what I said. I've never claimed he was innocent. If I had been there I would know one way or the other, but I wasn't, so I don't. Neither does anybody else who wasn't there.Round and round it goes.
Your argument rests on nobody (us or magistrates) being able to discern the absolute truth.
Only those that were there know the truth and each person will have a subjective interpretation of the truth.
So, because there is no objective 'truth', it is impossible for us to say with absolute certainty whether the boy is guilty or not - unlike say, drink driving which is an absolute offence.
Is that what you're arguing? Because you could do it a lot more clearly and effectively if you stopped going round in circles.
martinalex said:
I can't decide whether you're pursuing some version of the 'locked room mystery' and you're simply arguing pedantically, perversely and contrarily that nobody (other than the parties involved) will ever know the ultimate, absolute truth of the events that happened on that day - because they were not there.
Your argument rests on nobody (us or magistrates) being able to discern the absolute truth.
Only those that were there know the truth and each person will have a subjective interpretation of the truth.
So, because there is no objective 'truth', it is impossible for us to say with absolute certainty whether the boy is guilty or not - unlike say, drink driving which is an absolute offence.
Is that what you're arguing? Because you could do it a lot more clearly and effectively if you stopped going round in circles.
If you want to know what I am arguing, all you have to do is read it. It may appear to you that I am going around in circles, but I'm not. I am having to repeat myself, though. It would be a more interesting discussion if we could move it along instead of having to go over the same ground again and again.Your argument rests on nobody (us or magistrates) being able to discern the absolute truth.
Only those that were there know the truth and each person will have a subjective interpretation of the truth.
So, because there is no objective 'truth', it is impossible for us to say with absolute certainty whether the boy is guilty or not - unlike say, drink driving which is an absolute offence.
Is that what you're arguing? Because you could do it a lot more clearly and effectively if you stopped going round in circles.
As to the certainty of what happened? Well, as I have already said, if you are happy to accept that the court has established with absolute certainty then that must be very reassuring for you. I really can't see why my opinion on the subject is upsetting you so much (unless I've touched a nerve, perhaps?).
I am aware, thus far, of three long threads about this absurd and deeply unimportant incident. There may have been others. In each thread, the OP starts by presenting his son as the victim of a terrible injustice. Various people cheer him on, making silly comments about horse riders and the use of roads by horses, and ill informed comments about the court system, funny business behind the scenes and so forth. Then a few other people join in and point out that it is easy for cars and horses to share roads so long as people behave sensibly, and pointing out that a court has heard the evidence and convicted the OP's son of being, in short, a yob (that is not the technical description of the public order offence in question, but that's what it amounted to in Planet Earth terms).
None of us knows if the OP's son was or was not a yob on the occasion in question. Even the OP cannot know, as he was no more at the scene of the incident than any of us were.
Many of us are prepared to accept that, as the OP's son has been found by a court to have committed yobbage, he probably did the blag. Some seem to wish for a standard of perfect proof unobtainable in the real world, and some still make suggestions of some sort of put up job, or fix, or funny business, rather than a plain old fashioned case of a court hearing some witnesses, noting all the arguments as to bias, collusion, error, etc, and deciding that version X of the story is preferable to version Y, applying the criminal standard of proof.
At least one of the threads was pulled for mysterious reasons. The OP talked on that thread of his son appealing the decision, but seems reluctant to answer when asked if his son is indeed pursuing an appeal . I know nothing of the OP or his son save that they appear from the threads to have thick skins and a strong sense of being right about everything.
These threads do exert a certain weird fascination, despite the utter triviality of the underlying subject matter. I think that I'll wander off and play in another forum for a while, and pop back in here when this thread has reached 99 pages and has gone around a few more circles. Perhaps by then the OP will have told us more about the appeal, but somehow I rather doubt this.
It has occurred to me more than once that the whole shebang might be an epic troll-fest, but, if it is, it ought to be funnier.
None of us knows if the OP's son was or was not a yob on the occasion in question. Even the OP cannot know, as he was no more at the scene of the incident than any of us were.
Many of us are prepared to accept that, as the OP's son has been found by a court to have committed yobbage, he probably did the blag. Some seem to wish for a standard of perfect proof unobtainable in the real world, and some still make suggestions of some sort of put up job, or fix, or funny business, rather than a plain old fashioned case of a court hearing some witnesses, noting all the arguments as to bias, collusion, error, etc, and deciding that version X of the story is preferable to version Y, applying the criminal standard of proof.
At least one of the threads was pulled for mysterious reasons. The OP talked on that thread of his son appealing the decision, but seems reluctant to answer when asked if his son is indeed pursuing an appeal . I know nothing of the OP or his son save that they appear from the threads to have thick skins and a strong sense of being right about everything.
These threads do exert a certain weird fascination, despite the utter triviality of the underlying subject matter. I think that I'll wander off and play in another forum for a while, and pop back in here when this thread has reached 99 pages and has gone around a few more circles. Perhaps by then the OP will have told us more about the appeal, but somehow I rather doubt this.
It has occurred to me more than once that the whole shebang might be an epic troll-fest, but, if it is, it ought to be funnier.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 April 17:18
Hands up anyone on this thread who isn't actually KF or his son. I am pretty sure that I'm both of them, and also the horse riders, and their horses*, and the dodgy masonic Illuminati invisible alien lizard overlord conspirator chief constable/magistrate/vicar/little old lady/everyone else, but I'm not certain, and there's no proof, drat it. Never mind, so long as I wear my special tinfoil TVR-driving hat, I should be OK.
- It's actually a pity that the horses haven't posted their views on one of these threads, as they would probably make a lot more sense than most of the stuff here.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 April 17:39
RV8 said:
singlecoil said:
Thanks for that, but I'm not going to need any.
Well good for you, but you'll never get the time back that you spend arguing on here. You are like a child who wants some attention sometimes, just a friendly observation and no harm meant.
k off and hide in the corner.Just a friendly response, and no harm meant either.
singlecoil said:
It's not meant as a friendly observation at all, it's meant as a nasty dig. Either have the bottle to insult me properly, if you think that will contribute to the thread, or fk off and hide in the corner.
Just a friendly response, and no harm meant either.
with all due respect k off and hide in the corner.Just a friendly response, and no harm meant either.
Just to take bit of a step back - remember that Nick was found guilty of a public order offence, not a driving related one. Section 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act to be specific. Section 5:
Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
He's admitted swearing at the horse riders, so there really isn't any other verdict than a guilty one. Forget driving at 100mph, or clouds of tyre smoke in front of the horse riders, forget the car and the horses even - all you need to do is insult someone and you've committed an offence. I guess that means that most if not all of us have fallen foul of this law at some point or other, although in this case the manner of driving was an aggravating factor. It also seems that the horse riders themselves are equally as guilty of this offence (more so if they have admitted to starting the verbal exchange with a load of foul language, as claimed).
Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
He's admitted swearing at the horse riders, so there really isn't any other verdict than a guilty one. Forget driving at 100mph, or clouds of tyre smoke in front of the horse riders, forget the car and the horses even - all you need to do is insult someone and you've committed an offence. I guess that means that most if not all of us have fallen foul of this law at some point or other, although in this case the manner of driving was an aggravating factor. It also seems that the horse riders themselves are equally as guilty of this offence (more so if they have admitted to starting the verbal exchange with a load of foul language, as claimed).
It may have been conduct, not speech, which landed the noble boy in bother.
The comparisons with Mr Toad seem too obvious to miss. See below, from "The Wind in the Willows", Chapter VI:
'To my mind,' observed the Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates cheerfully, 'the ONLY difficulty that presents itself in this otherwise very clear case is, how we can possibly make it sufficiently hot for the incorrigible rogue and hardened ruffian whom we see cowering in the dock before us. Let me see: he has been found guilty, on the clearest evidence, first, of stealing a valuable motor-car; secondly, of driving to the public danger; and, thirdly, of gross impertinence to the rural police. Mr. Clerk, will you tell us, please, what is the very stiffest penalty we can impose for each of these offences? Without, of course, giving the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, because there isn't any.'
The Clerk scratched his nose with his pen. 'Some people would consider,' he observed, 'that stealing the motor-car was the worst offence; and so it is. But cheeking the police undoubtedly carries the severest penalty; and so it ought. Supposing you were to say twelve months for the theft, which is mild; and three years for the furious driving, which is lenient; and fifteen years for the cheek, which was pretty bad sort of cheek, judging by what we've heard from the witness-box, even if you only believe one-tenth part of what you heard, and I never believe more myself--those figures, if added together correctly, tot up to nineteen years----'
'First-rate!' said the Chairman.
'--So you had better make it a round twenty years and be on the safe side,' concluded the Clerk.
'An excellent suggestion!' said the Chairman approvingly. 'Prisoner! Pull yourself together and try and stand up straight. It's going to be twenty years for you this time. And mind, if you appear before us again, upon any charge whatever, we shall have to deal with you very seriously!'
Then the brutal minions of the law fell upon the hapless Toad; loaded him with chains, and dragged him from the Court House, shrieking, praying, protesting; across the marketplace, where the playful populace, always as severe upon detected crime as they are sympathetic and helpful when one is merely 'wanted,' assailed him with jeers, carrots, and popular catch-words; past hooting school children, their innocent faces lit up with the pleasure they ever derive from the sight of a gentleman in difficulties; across the hollow-sounding drawbridge, below the spiky portcullis, under the frowning archway of the grim old castle, whose ancient towers soared high overhead; past guardrooms full of grinning soldiery off duty, past sentries who coughed in a horrid, sarcastic way, because that is as much as a sentry on his post dare do to show his contempt and abhorrence of crime; up time-worn winding stairs, past men-at-arms in casquet and corselet of steel, darting threatening looks through their vizards; across courtyards, where mastiffs strained at their leash and pawed the air to get at him; past ancient warders, their halberds leant against the wall, dozing over a pasty and a flagon of brown ale; on and on, past the rack-chamber and the thumbscrew-room, past the turning that led to the private scaffold, till they reached the door of the grimmest dungeon that lay in the heart of the innermost keep. There at last they paused, where an ancient gaoler sat fingering a bunch of mighty keys.
'Oddsbodikins!' said the sergeant of police, taking off his helmet and wiping his forehead. 'Rouse thee, old loon, and take over from us this vile Toad, a criminal of deepest guilt and matchless artfulness and resource. Watch and ward him with all thy skill; and mark thee well, greybeard, should aught untoward befall, thy old head shall answer for his--and a murrain on both of them!'
The gaoler nodded grimly, laying his withered hand on the shoulder of the miserable Toad. The rusty key creaked in the lock, the great door clanged behind them; and Toad was a helpless prisoner in the remotest dungeon of the best-guarded keep of the stoutest castle in all the length and breadth of Merry England.
The comparisons with Mr Toad seem too obvious to miss. See below, from "The Wind in the Willows", Chapter VI:
'To my mind,' observed the Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates cheerfully, 'the ONLY difficulty that presents itself in this otherwise very clear case is, how we can possibly make it sufficiently hot for the incorrigible rogue and hardened ruffian whom we see cowering in the dock before us. Let me see: he has been found guilty, on the clearest evidence, first, of stealing a valuable motor-car; secondly, of driving to the public danger; and, thirdly, of gross impertinence to the rural police. Mr. Clerk, will you tell us, please, what is the very stiffest penalty we can impose for each of these offences? Without, of course, giving the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, because there isn't any.'
The Clerk scratched his nose with his pen. 'Some people would consider,' he observed, 'that stealing the motor-car was the worst offence; and so it is. But cheeking the police undoubtedly carries the severest penalty; and so it ought. Supposing you were to say twelve months for the theft, which is mild; and three years for the furious driving, which is lenient; and fifteen years for the cheek, which was pretty bad sort of cheek, judging by what we've heard from the witness-box, even if you only believe one-tenth part of what you heard, and I never believe more myself--those figures, if added together correctly, tot up to nineteen years----'
'First-rate!' said the Chairman.
'--So you had better make it a round twenty years and be on the safe side,' concluded the Clerk.
'An excellent suggestion!' said the Chairman approvingly. 'Prisoner! Pull yourself together and try and stand up straight. It's going to be twenty years for you this time. And mind, if you appear before us again, upon any charge whatever, we shall have to deal with you very seriously!'
Then the brutal minions of the law fell upon the hapless Toad; loaded him with chains, and dragged him from the Court House, shrieking, praying, protesting; across the marketplace, where the playful populace, always as severe upon detected crime as they are sympathetic and helpful when one is merely 'wanted,' assailed him with jeers, carrots, and popular catch-words; past hooting school children, their innocent faces lit up with the pleasure they ever derive from the sight of a gentleman in difficulties; across the hollow-sounding drawbridge, below the spiky portcullis, under the frowning archway of the grim old castle, whose ancient towers soared high overhead; past guardrooms full of grinning soldiery off duty, past sentries who coughed in a horrid, sarcastic way, because that is as much as a sentry on his post dare do to show his contempt and abhorrence of crime; up time-worn winding stairs, past men-at-arms in casquet and corselet of steel, darting threatening looks through their vizards; across courtyards, where mastiffs strained at their leash and pawed the air to get at him; past ancient warders, their halberds leant against the wall, dozing over a pasty and a flagon of brown ale; on and on, past the rack-chamber and the thumbscrew-room, past the turning that led to the private scaffold, till they reached the door of the grimmest dungeon that lay in the heart of the innermost keep. There at last they paused, where an ancient gaoler sat fingering a bunch of mighty keys.
'Oddsbodikins!' said the sergeant of police, taking off his helmet and wiping his forehead. 'Rouse thee, old loon, and take over from us this vile Toad, a criminal of deepest guilt and matchless artfulness and resource. Watch and ward him with all thy skill; and mark thee well, greybeard, should aught untoward befall, thy old head shall answer for his--and a murrain on both of them!'
The gaoler nodded grimly, laying his withered hand on the shoulder of the miserable Toad. The rusty key creaked in the lock, the great door clanged behind them; and Toad was a helpless prisoner in the remotest dungeon of the best-guarded keep of the stoutest castle in all the length and breadth of Merry England.
singlecoil said:
RV8 said:
singlecoil said:
Thanks for that, but I'm not going to need any.
Well good for you, but you'll never get the time back that you spend arguing on here. You are like a child who wants some attention sometimes, just a friendly observation and no harm meant.k off and hide in the corner.Just a friendly response, and no harm meant either.
. Keep wasting your time making pedantic childish observations and pulling apart every thread, which is what you are most likely to do. I couldn't give a rats arse either way.Edited by RV8 on Sunday 22 April 21:27
mjb1 said:
Just to take bit of a step back - remember that Nick was found guilty of a public order offence, not a driving related one. Section 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act to be specific. Section 5:
Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
He's admitted swearing at the horse riders, so there really isn't any other verdict than a guilty one. Forget driving at 100mph, or clouds of tyre smoke in front of the horse riders, forget the car and the horses even - all you need to do is insult someone and you've committed an offence. I guess that means that most if not all of us have fallen foul of this law at some point or other, although in this case the manner of driving was an aggravating factor. It also seems that the horse riders themselves are equally as guilty of this offence (more so if they have admitted to starting the verbal exchange with a load of foul language, as claimed).
wrong offence quoted. Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
He's admitted swearing at the horse riders, so there really isn't any other verdict than a guilty one. Forget driving at 100mph, or clouds of tyre smoke in front of the horse riders, forget the car and the horses even - all you need to do is insult someone and you've committed an offence. I guess that means that most if not all of us have fallen foul of this law at some point or other, although in this case the manner of driving was an aggravating factor. It also seems that the horse riders themselves are equally as guilty of this offence (more so if they have admitted to starting the verbal exchange with a load of foul language, as claimed).
correct offence:
4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—
...
(b)that his conduct was reasonable.
RV8 said:
Whatever. Sometimes you come across as a . Keep wasting your time making pedantic childish observations and pulling apart every thread, which is what you are most likely to do. I couldn't give a rats arse either way.
What an extraordinary outburst. You're not, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, and no value judgement implied, an educated chap are you? Please don't take that the wrong way, some of my best friends left school early.. Keep wasting your time making pedantic childish observations and pulling apart every thread, which is what you are most likely to do. I couldn't give a rats arse either way.Edited by RV8 on Sunday 22 April 21:27
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff