Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?

[Garlick]

Any chance you two could leave the handbags at the door?

Thanks

[julian64]

Breadvan72 said:

Summary stuff

It reminds me of the local TV fest to daily mail standard. Mother protests son was innocent of all crime, and promising footballer who wouldn't hurt a fly. This is despite son being found in stripy clothes running away from bank with loot in giant bag with the words swag written on the outside.

Not sure whether to be in awe of Mums denial, after all everyone needs someone on their side. Or consider Mum has been a contributory factor to the yob behaviour.

I would like to think mum is publically defensive, but at the coffee moment in the eastenders ad break the penny would drop and junior would gat a sudden smack round the head when they were least expecting it.

[singlecoil]

One aspect of the event that hasn't been explored yet is the way that disagreements between two parties (such as the incident with the riders and the drivers) can escalate. Party A says something a bit 'confrontational' (shall we say?) to party B, Party B responds and maybe raises it a notch or two, Party A then, having thought their initial 'shot' to have been entirely reasonable and justified, then gets cross and responds, and things go up another notch, then Party B, feeling that Party A's inital words were not justified, then responds. Up another notch, and so on and so forth until things get really nasty, each party remaining convinced that the other party is in the wrong.

The question is, at what point should anyone else intervene, and where should blame be placed? Obviously each case has to to be judged on its merits, and a decision made about where the line was crossed and who crossed it (which of course depends on where the line is, of course, and who decides that).

One sees the same thing all the time, everywhere. If I had to be the person who decided such an issue, I think I would be having a long hard look at the circumstances leading to Party A's opening, and that opening itself. Others may see the whole problem differently, they might be more interested in where the line is placed, and who crossed it first. Interesting stuff, I reckon.

[KevinA3DSG32]

SingleCoil, is it not about time to end this thread?

None of us were present either at the scene, or in court. We cannot know what occurred at either event, all you are doing is speculating and saying what if.

So, what if we all waste more time debating something none of us has any direct knowledge of?

Enjoy your day.

[singlecoil]

KevinA3DSG32 said:

SingleCoil, is it not about time to end this thread?

Not up to me to make that decision. I was just moving it along, and looking at an under-explored aspect of that dipute and most others. If no-one else has anything to say then I daresay they won't post and the thread will come to a natural close.

I'm very interested in philosophy and human behaviour, and the situation that has been described has much to say about both of these (if they can be considered separate subjects).

[LoonR1]

Given the views of many on here since my last post and the absurdity of singlecoils absolutes I'm not going to bother replying to the challenge laid out as I've got a million better things to be doing with my time

[singlecoil]

Not long after I made the point about how disputes get started, along comes an excellent example! LoonR1 obviously feels entirely justified in making (what I see as) quite an aggressive post, directed at me. No attempt to address the point, but straight in to an Ad Hominem attack (sorry, L, about the Latin-based English expression, but there isn't a better one as far as I know). In terms that he would be more comfortable with, he's playing the man rather than the ball.

Now, how shoud I react? Sometimes I decide to reply in the same vein, and then of course he would feel justified in responding, and next thing a moderator would have to intervene. Pretty similar situation to the one the thread is about, I expect. One party feeling justified in doing something confrontational, initiating the confrontation, and then it all goes up from there.

This time I won't bother, but will draw attention to the irony of him saying how he has better things to do with his time, when it's apparent that he hasn't.

Anyway, it looks like this thread has pretty much run out of steam.

[simer553]

singlecoil said:

KevinA3DSG32 said:

SingleCoil, is it not about time to end this thread?

Not up to me to make that decision. I was just moving it along, and looking at an under-explored aspect of that dipute and most others. If no-one else has anything to say then I daresay they won't post and the thread will come to a natural close.

I'm very interested in philosophy and human behaviour, and the situation that has been described has much to say about both of these (if they can be considered separate subjects).

Psychologist's wet dream man.......

[LoonR1]

singlecoil said:

A lot of stuff

I know you want the last word and you can have it after this post.

My post was harsh but you need to look at how others have posted and your response to that too. You reacted quite vocally. However not everyone reacts that way and those that are sworn at can and do make complaints

The OP admits his son swore. That is the absolute offence that he was found guilty of so there is no travesty here. I wouldn't personally complain to the police if it happened to me but some would.

Your point rests on the fact that unless you were there you don't believe it happened. As you weren't there your view can never be changed. I wonder if you would feel the same if your wife came home having been beaten up with two of her friends being witnesses to the event. Would you fight her attackers corner so strongly.

Over to you for the last word as promised.

[singlecoil]

LoonR1 said:

Over to you for the last word as promised.

Thanks.

Did you have any luck finding that post you were going to seek out when you were in front of your laptop? I know you can't answer that, seeing as you've given me the last word (or perhaps for the other reason ).

[McHaggis]

The quality of debate has dropped significantly in this forum.

Neither of you are going to bring the other round to their point of view, so I suggest you both just agree to differ?

[slinky]

The silly bickering ends here.

[10 Pence Short]

singlecoil said:

One aspect of the event that hasn't been explored yet is the way that disagreements between two parties (such as the incident with the riders and the drivers) can escalate. Party A says something a bit 'confrontational' (shall we say?) to party B, Party B responds and maybe raises it a notch or two, Party A then, having thought their initial 'shot' to have been entirely reasonable and justified, then gets cross and responds, and things go up another notch, then Party B, feeling that Party A's inital words were not justified, then responds. Up another notch, and so on and so forth until things get really nasty, each party remaining convinced that the other party is in the wrong.

That is covered by one of the statutory defences under s. 4a, where if the defendant can prove their actions were reasonable in the circumstances, they will be acquitted. This would have been covered at trial and, more than likely, the main item relied upon by the defence.

[singlecoil]

10 Pence Short said:

singlecoil said:

One aspect of the event that hasn't been explored yet is the way that disagreements between two parties (such as the incident with the riders and the drivers) can escalate. Party A says something a bit 'confrontational' (shall we say?) to party B, Party B responds and maybe raises it a notch or two, Party A then, having thought their initial 'shot' to have been entirely reasonable and justified, then gets cross and responds, and things go up another notch, then Party B, feeling that Party A's inital words were not justified, then responds. Up another notch, and so on and so forth until things get really nasty, each party remaining convinced that the other party is in the wrong.

That is covered by one of the statutory defences under s. 4a, where if the defendant can prove their actions were reasonable in the circumstances, they will be acquitted. This would have been covered at trial and, more than likely, the main item relied upon by the defence.

That would be a response covering the legalities of the situation. I'm more interested in the philosophical aspects of it. Most of us don't like being in situations like that, and one wonders how best they might be prevented altogether or prevented from escalating.


I think these things are often based in different views on what is reasonable behaviour. Both parties to this event presumably felt that what they were doing before the event happened was entirely reasonable, then the event started because one party felt that the other party's actions were not reasonable, and that therefore entitled them to initiate a confrontation.

You see the same thing is all sorts of disputes. Let's say a loud party at a neighbour's house, person next door thinks that's unreasonable and goes and asks them to turn it down, neighbours and their guests are having fun, and think that the complainer is being unreasonable. Each party thinks the other is in the wrong, and so the dispute gathers steam. And, of course, any third party is bound to be more sympathetic to one side than the other, depending on their pre-exisitng attitudes.

[10 Pence Short]

And that's why we have laws and independent tribunals to make decisions on them.

In this case, a law determines tests for whether an offence is committed. In this case, one of the tests was whether the conduct of Nick was reasonable. One side believed it was, and the other believed it was not.

The independent tribunal looked at all the evidence from both sides of the debate and decided Nicks actions weren't reasonable, and therefore the offence had taken place.

You may want to discuss the minutiae of the case but, with that detail being completely absent outside of the court hearing, there's absolutely no point, as no agreement will be reached.

[singlecoil]

I'm not discussing that case as such, I'm talking about all sorts of disputes, how they get started and what can be done to stop them escalating. I'm really not interested in the legal aspects of them, because, as you say, that is covered by existing laws and procedures.

But fair enough, I mustn't think that just because these things fascinate me, that anybody else will have any interest in them.

[10 Pence Short]

As a general rule, once a dispute escalates and a party's behaviour becomes unreasonable, they have possibly committed an offence. Most minor public order offences will go unreported and unpunished, probably because most people are thick-skinned enough that being told to "fk off" is merely unpleasant, but nothing more.

However there will be circumstances where simply using foul language will be enough that an offence is committed.

[singlecoil]

10 Pence Short said:

As a general rule, once a dispute escalates and a party's behaviour becomes unreasonable, they have possibly committed an offence. Most minor public order offences will go unreported and unpunished, probably because most people are thick-skinned enough that being told to "fk off" is merely unpleasant, but nothing more.

However there will be circumstances where simply using foul language will be enough that an offence is committed.

Was that a reply to me?

[10 Pence Short]

singlecoil said:

Was that a reply to me?

Yes, in that you ask "what can be done to stop them escalating". I realise you say you're not interested in the legal side of things, but since that's the remedy to prevent escalation or to deal with it when it happens, there's no real escaping it being an answer to your question.

Of course, there is a much more simple answer, which is to remain being a decent human being and act proportionally, and you will be neither wrongly escalating a dispute or be falling foul of the law. Something which Nick obviously failed to do in this case.

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Monday 23 April 12:52

[singlecoil]

10 Pence Short said:

Something which Nick obviously failed to do in this case.

And the other party too, I expect, but as you say, there's no 'legal' proof of that so there' and there's no point in going over old ground again. I've usually found it takes two parties to create a dispute, and it's rare indeed that one side is completely blameless.