Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?
Discussion
I'm not getting involved in the whys and wheretofores of this argument, but I thought it was worth pointing out that a horserider flapping their arm up and down isn't an aggressive action, nor is it asking the driver to stop. It's merely a way of saying "please slow down a bit because I'm aware of a hazard that you might not be aware of".
Okay, do carry on.
Okay, do carry on.
SGirl said:
I'm not getting involved in the whys and wheretofores of this argument, but I thought it was worth pointing out that a horserider flapping their arm up and down isn't an aggressive action, nor is it asking the driver to stop. It's merely a way of saying "please slow down a bit because I'm aware of a hazard that you might not be aware of".
Okay, do carry on.
Not only that, there was no obligation for Nick to stop and no obligation for him to be so out of order when he did, that he committed a public order offence.Okay, do carry on.
From what we've seen and heard so far, allied to the finding of guilt at court, you could well believe the theory that Nick stopped to purposely give the horse riders a piece of his mind and damn the consequences. Fortunately, the consequences were of detriment to him.
Hopefully the guy has learned something from the experience and ignores his imbecilic father in believe he did nothing wrong.
singlecoil said:
10 Pence Short said:
Why?
Why? You were the one that said I should read the full post, yet it doesn't make any difference to the impression (that he spoke first) that you gave. Up to you to explain how it does.If Nick didn't stop with the intention of abusing the horse riders, he certainly changed his mind quickly and got on with doing exactly that. Considering he had no obligation to stop, and he's hardly the type to observe instruction from others if he doesn't want to, you have to ask, why did he stop?
King Fisher said:
Ok guys, thanks for the info. It's an on going case, but basically my son is under investigation for careless driving after he stopped for a few horse riders (who I may add flagged him down), they abused him for the volume of his exhaust, then one started to prance towards his car, at which point he removed himself from the situation. Apparently because he accelerated away from the horse, it spooked it. Where does he stand?
Could be fail to stop and report as well as due care if "Owing to the pressence of his vehicle an accident occured"?? Even if there was no contact between your sons car and the horse/rider...Good advice earlier about due care defintion...10 Pence Short said:
singlecoil said:
10 Pence Short said:
Why?
Why? You were the one that said I should read the full post, yet it doesn't make any difference to the impression (that he spoke first) that you gave. Up to you to explain how it does.If Nick didn't stop with the intention of abusing the horse riders, he certainly changed his mind quickly and got on with doing exactly that. Considering he had no obligation to stop, and he's hardly the type to observe instruction from others if he doesn't want to, you have to ask, why did he stop?
As far as I am concerned, abuse begets abuse, and the people who start it shouldn't be allowed to get off scot free. The whole thing should have been dropped after BOTH parties had been spoken to.
singlecoil said:
That's not the point, you gave the impression that he spoke first, he says he didn't. I should think that, given that the riders were angry that he was driving such a loud car,it is far more likely that they spoke first, whatever may have happened later.
As far as I am concerned, abuse begets abuse, and the people who start it shouldn't be allowed to get off scot free. The whole thing should have been dropped after BOTH parties had been spoken to.
The point being made was nothing to do with who spoke first- it was in relation to Nick's intention when deciding to stop. My point being that he stopped in order to give the horse riders a piece of his mind, rather than to listen and react from there.As far as I am concerned, abuse begets abuse, and the people who start it shouldn't be allowed to get off scot free. The whole thing should have been dropped after BOTH parties had been spoken to.
In any case, they're mere semantics in a case where one side has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I'll leave you to sweat it out, about how hard done by he's been by the horse riders, the independent witness, the Police, the CPS and the Courts, all of whom thought he behaved like an idiot.
10 Pence Short said:
singlecoil said:
That's not the point, you gave the impression that he spoke first, he says he didn't. I should think that, given that the riders were angry that he was driving such a loud car,it is far more likely that they spoke first, whatever may have happened later.
As far as I am concerned, abuse begets abuse, and the people who start it shouldn't be allowed to get off scot free. The whole thing should have been dropped after BOTH parties had been spoken to.
The point being made was nothing to do with who spoke first- it was in relation to Nick's intention when deciding to stop. My point being that he stopped in order to give the horse riders a piece of his mind, rather than to listen and react from there.As far as I am concerned, abuse begets abuse, and the people who start it shouldn't be allowed to get off scot free. The whole thing should have been dropped after BOTH parties had been spoken to.
In any case, they're mere semantics in a case where one side has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I'll leave you to sweat it out, about how hard done by he's been by the horse riders, the independent witness, the Police, the CPS and the Courts, all of whom thought he behaved like an idiot.
doogz said:
You say comfirmed. I say corrected.
Kingfisher, do you actually believe his mistake was stopping, and not his attitude or behaviour when he stopped?
As previously posted, under cross examination, the horse riders all agreed that Nick stopped, and calmly said 'What's the problem?', to which the horse riders then made the inflammatory comments that he was going too fast. Their independent witness even stated that she couldn't hear anything more than a 'woman's voice shouting about going too fast', and then a male's voice in reply, but that was too quiet too heard what was said. The court seemed to completely overlook the fact that the horse riders were the first to be aggressive. As for 'pKingfisher, do you actually believe his mistake was stopping, and not his attitude or behaviour when he stopped?
s off' being worthy of an £815, that is absurd, as I am sure you would agree.Mr GrimNasty said:
Oh FFS LOCK THIS THREAD ADMIN.
OP you can start a new thread when your son is cleared of all wrong doing, the holocaust, nicking smarties from the COOP, and beatified to boot.
Appeal to Ridicule. I think we've seen that particular fallacy more than one once on this thread (and elsewhere on PH OP you can start a new thread when your son is cleared of all wrong doing, the holocaust, nicking smarties from the COOP, and beatified to boot.
)I gather that it was not merely the exchange of naughty words that was regarded as problematic, but the somewhat enthusiastic departure from the scene, that engaged the attention of the court.
The whole thing was probably a riduclous tiff which reflected credit on no one involved, but the one participant who was equipped with a noisy, rapid, metal and plastic thing as opposed to a not so noisy, rapid but not that rapid flesh and wind thing was regarded by the court, a body quite good at sorting out a tanged tale, as having used his machine in a way that contravened a public order rule. I add that I am not very keen on the wording of the statute, but we are stuck with it for the present. As noted, it regulates surly conduct, and not just cuss-words.
KF appears to assume that the court just bought every word of what the riders and the other witness said. I doubt that it did. It probably inferred that the riders may have been a bit stroppy, and that there was exaggeration in the description of what had happened, but none of that displaced the conclusion that the perfect boy had acted less than perfectly on the day.
As for exaggeration, a driving ban (unlikely in any event, even if an appeal could be pursued out of time), would not ruin most careers. Why all the drama queening?
The whole thing was probably a riduclous tiff which reflected credit on no one involved, but the one participant who was equipped with a noisy, rapid, metal and plastic thing as opposed to a not so noisy, rapid but not that rapid flesh and wind thing was regarded by the court, a body quite good at sorting out a tanged tale, as having used his machine in a way that contravened a public order rule. I add that I am not very keen on the wording of the statute, but we are stuck with it for the present. As noted, it regulates surly conduct, and not just cuss-words.
KF appears to assume that the court just bought every word of what the riders and the other witness said. I doubt that it did. It probably inferred that the riders may have been a bit stroppy, and that there was exaggeration in the description of what had happened, but none of that displaced the conclusion that the perfect boy had acted less than perfectly on the day.
As for exaggeration, a driving ban (unlikely in any event, even if an appeal could be pursued out of time), would not ruin most careers. Why all the drama queening?
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th April 17:40
King Fisher said:
So he should stop, and let them then make false allegations which he is powerless to disprove? No, I think not. He always slows for horses, as do I, but if they start flapping their arms up and down again, shouting and swearing, I certainly won't stop for them for fear the same thing will happen to me as happened to Nick.
Wonderful, you post, you don't listen and you still say it's false allegations.Think about this, YOU have just made another allegation, much like the ones of collusion.
He was powerless to disprove because people don't belive him.
If the last part of your post were remotely accurate the courts would be people defending conspiracies. For goodness sake grow up.
Dave_M said:
He was powerless to disprove because people don't belive him.
Innocent people have been suffered severe punishments because they weren't believed. Being not believed is no proof that one is lying. I don't know whether he is lying or not, because I wasn't there. Nor were you, unless you were one of the riders?There are only 4 people who know the truth, three friends and the OP's son. The fact that no-one who wasn't there believes him is irrelevant.
singlecoil said:
Dave_M said:
He was powerless to disprove because people don't belive him.
Innocent people have been suffered severe punishments because they weren't believed. Being not believed is no proof that one is lying. I don't know whether he is lying or not, because I wasn't there. Nor were you, unless you were one of the riders?There are only 4 people who know the truth, three friends and the OP's son. The fact that no-one who wasn't there believes him is irrelevant.
Also, there were 5 people involved not 4.
Totally agree with the first part, people have been executed who were most likely innocent, of course that does happen. There is a chance that may be the case here perhaps, but based on what has been said it's highly unlikely.
Dave_M said:
You don't understand law then.
Also, there were 5 people involved not 4.
Totally agree with the first part, people have been executed who were most likely innocent, of course that does happen. There is a chance that may be the case here perhaps, but based on what has been said it's highly unlikely.
I don't need to understand law, thanks, but I do understand logical thought. The second is far more valuable in trying to figure out what happened, or, more to the point, when the truth cannot be established. The court established the legal truth, it's now alright for people, and especially the media, to state that the OP's son was totally guilty, and the riders totally innocent. Anybody who believes that that is actually true as opposed to legally true is naive to say the least.Also, there were 5 people involved not 4.
Totally agree with the first part, people have been executed who were most likely innocent, of course that does happen. There is a chance that may be the case here perhaps, but based on what has been said it's highly unlikely.
4 people, BTW, the 5th person was too far away to hear what was said, or see what happened.
singlecoil said:
Dave_M said:
You don't understand law then.
Also, there were 5 people involved not 4.
Totally agree with the first part, people have been executed who were most likely innocent, of course that does happen. There is a chance that may be the case here perhaps, but based on what has been said it's highly unlikely.
I don't need to understand law, thanks, but I do understand logical thought. The second is far more valuable in trying to figure out what happened, or, more to the point, when the truth cannot be established. The court established the legal truth, it's now alright for people, and especially the media, to state that the OP's son was totally guilty, and the riders totally innocent. Anybody who believes that that is actually true as opposed to legally true is naive to say the least.Also, there were 5 people involved not 4.
Totally agree with the first part, people have been executed who were most likely innocent, of course that does happen. There is a chance that may be the case here perhaps, but based on what has been said it's highly unlikely.
4 people, BTW, the 5th person was too far away to hear what was said, or see what happened.
There were 5 witnesses, NTB, 3 riders and the one some distance away. The later was some distance away but clearly their opinion of what they heard was considered or the statement would not have been used.
Your logic does not entirely make sense.
By it, you are suggesting that we can never believe any court decision? Mistakes will occur, sadly sometimes defendents may not present themselves well but in the main the determination of guilt or otherwise will be correct.
Sentencing may be another debate
Singlecoil appears to hold out for some standard of proof greater than that of proof beyond reasonable doubt, to be applied to criminal trials. I don't think that anyone here is saying that there was absolute purity and truth in either extreme version of events. The incident was, no doubt, confused, and memory is fallible, and people are susceptible to influences,but the court, doing the best it could, with the evidence that it had, (and which none of us has) reached a conclusion. Of course that conclusion might be mistaken, but I don't think that is very likely.
Dave_M said:
Sorry, if my first commet sounded blunt - the comment about the law was maybe insufficient. You made a comment about people who were not there being irrelevant and I agree largely (e.g. none of our opions on here matter) but the investigators and magistrates also weren't there and their opinions are totally relevant.
There were 5 witnesses, NTB, 3 riders and the one some distance away. The later was some distance away but clearly their opinion of what they heard was considered or the statement would not have been used.
Your logic does not entirely make sense.
By it, you are suggesting that we can never believe any court decision? Mistakes will occur, sadly sometimes defendents may not present themselves well but in the main the determination of guilt or otherwise will be correct.
Sentencing may be another debate
I'm afraid it seems to make more sense than yours. For instance "in the main the determination of guilt or otherwise will be correct" how do you know that to be true? I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just asking how you know that. The only way you could know that is to have been an eyewitness at the majority of crimes that come before the courts, and then have followed the cases through and learned what the courts decided. Obviously that's not possible for one person to do, so you are basing that statement on what, exactly? Hope, supposition, the reports of others? There were 5 witnesses, NTB, 3 riders and the one some distance away. The later was some distance away but clearly their opinion of what they heard was considered or the statement would not have been used.
Your logic does not entirely make sense.
By it, you are suggesting that we can never believe any court decision? Mistakes will occur, sadly sometimes defendents may not present themselves well but in the main the determination of guilt or otherwise will be correct.
Sentencing may be another debate
It doesn't matter if you don't want to discuss that, it's really not important but it does have some bearing on the logic of the situation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff