Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?

Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?

Author
Discussion

Dave_M

5,486 posts

223 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
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.
yes

Those who have actually taken statements or had to examine evidence or present / defend cases realise there are highly likely to be differences in recall and re-telling of events, let alone an individual's perception.

Nobody is perfect, I wish we were as there would be little need for laws.

Mind you that wouldn't be good for employmentsmile


singlecoil

33,310 posts

245 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Singlecoil appears to hold out for some standard of proof greater than that of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Appears to, but doesn't. I'm well aware of the practicalities of the situation. But as far as 'do I believe what interested parties are telling me about a situation to be the actual unvarnished truth', no, I don't. I realise that courts have to draw the line somehwere, and I think in the main where they draw it is reasonable.

Dave_M

5,486 posts

223 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
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?

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.
Do you understand the term logic?

No, I thought not.

singlecoil

33,310 posts

245 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Dave_M said:
Do you understand the term logic?

No, I thought not.
Don't spoil what might have been an intersting conversation by suggesting that I don't understand simple words. Make the effort to reply properly.

Dave_M

5,486 posts

223 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Agreed, it would be a good face to face discussion agreed, a bit too difficult via the internet though smile

As your assertion clearly means there can be no absolute truth then there would be no logic as that is the study of validated reasoning, determining what is truth or fallacy. However, you have posited there is no truth.

It also depends what we mean by logic. It may not be there is one logic, as in there are many opinions. An example would be philosophical logic as opposed to mathematical logic. Even in the later, what was once perceived as logic (e.g. flat earth) is somewtimes later disproved.

singlecoil

33,310 posts

245 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Dave_M said:
Agreed, it would be a good face to face discussion agreed, a bit too difficult via the internet though smile

As your assertion clearly means there can be no absolute truth then there would be no logic as that is the study of validated reasoning, determining what is truth or fallacy. However, you have posited there is no truth.
I have never asserted that there is no absolute truth. All I have asserted is that the court was right, or it was wrong, and that I don't know which is true. So your logic is off to a rocky start because you claim that I am asserting something that I haven't. That's clearly a fallacy.

Dave_M said:
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.
That's supposed to be logical? That the evidence of a person who wasn't there was only given because the court wanted to consider it? How would they know if they wanted to consider it until they heard it? The police and CPS were simply doing their job by gathering up what evidence they could and putting it before the court, and it was up to the court to decide whether it was relevant or not. We don't know what the outcome of that was. We know what the outcome of the trial was, but not whether what the other witness heard, from that distance, was considered as corroboration or just noise.

I'm sure people are wondering why I am taking such an interest in this thread, and putting forward my opinions even though they are unpopular. The main reason is that I have been surprised at the sheer nastiness of some of the posters' comment. Even by PH standards some of it has been well over the top. I think it's only fair that someone point out that the Op and his son may have some, even quite a lot, of right on their side. I don't know how much, but it's a distinct possibility and it's one that most people here are ignoring.

It's as if they are all queueing up to put the boot in. I hate that sort of thing.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
I gather that the OP and his son (if the are two separate posters), have made themselves somewhat notorious by content and tone of posting. Also, look at all the contrary stuff on this and the other threads on the subject (I have lost count), with lots of crude stereotyping of horse riders and country dwellers in general.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
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 smile).
The quote relating to this challenge:

singlecoil said:
LoonR1 said:
Your point wasnt that originally though. It was that the OPs son had been badly treated and you've done nothing to convince me of that stance.
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.
Quote below is from Page 5 on Friday 11th November. Second paragraph is very telling.

BTW, I now expect to be told that it's a fallacy or a straw man, as you've used the former as a retort five times and the latter at least twice.

singlecoil said:
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.

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 [b]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

singlecoil

33,310 posts

245 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Quote below is from Page 5 on Friday 11th November. Second paragraph is very telling.
No, it isn't

LoonR1 said:
BTW, I now expect to be told that it's a fallacy or a straw man, as you've used the former as a retort five times and the latter at least twice.
rofl
A 'straw man' is a type of fallacy!!! Did you not look it up? You should, then you would see that you have to stop using it if you want to construct a strong argument.

Anyway, if you are back in, I am out, for the time being at least. I prefer my discussions to be a little more 'cerebral'.



LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
rofl
A 'straw man' is a type of fallacy!!! Did you not look it up? You should, then you would see that you have to stop using it if you want to construct a strong argument.

Anyway, if you are back in, I am out, for the time being at least. I prefer my discussions to be a little more 'cerebral'.
You really are a tiresome individual. Let's be clear on my straw man / fallacy comment.

It was to show how repetitive you're being rather than me trying and failing to demonstrate some intellectual superiority.

ExChrispy Porker

16,875 posts

227 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Blimey! is this still going??

martinalex

168 posts

170 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
Surely this can't be the end?

The bit I'm still fascinated by is KF's unwavering faith in his son's honesty/truthfulness.

My parents greeted everything I said with suspicion/distrust and were always more likely to take the part of another over me - I may have had a very old-fashioned upbringing though.

But KF wasn't at the incident and wasn't at court - out of interest, why not go to court?

So, as it stands, he has only his son's version of events at both the incident and the hearing to rely upon and yet he's adamant that the son did no wrong.

I wasn't at either 'happening' and I'm not convinced.

That boy must have the face of an angel.


anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
Crikey! Did he not even go to the hearing? Why all the blah about the fourth witness, then? Is KF actually "Nick"?

martinalex

168 posts

170 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
Actually, I may be wrong there. I've had a quick look through the thread and can't see the bit I was looking for.

I remember KF saying he didn't get the opportunity to give his 'scientific' evidence so perhaps I mistakenly took that to mean he was not at the hearing.

Although, I don't recall him saying anything which seemed to give a sense of what happened at the hearing - atmosphere and so on...

Don't know... I could be right, I could be wrong.

singlecoil

33,310 posts

245 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
martinalex said:
Actually, I may be wrong there. I've had a quick look through the thread and can't see the bit I was looking for.

I remember KF saying he didn't get the opportunity to give his 'scientific' evidence so perhaps I mistakenly took that to mean he was not at the hearing.

Although, I don't recall him saying anything which seemed to give a sense of what happened at the hearing - atmosphere and so on...

Don't know... I could be right, I could be wrong.
Probably the second, as I think he gave a brief description of the testimony of the independent witness. It would be good if he was to give some more atmosphere etc but considering the reception it would be likely to have, not surprsing that he hasn't.

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

216 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
The original thread was I think removed at KF's request. They're obviously taking the case all the way to Strasbourg and don't want to risk prejudicing anything.

The Beaver King

6,095 posts

194 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
Jesus, what read this has been.

I've not seen this thread before as I don't spend much time in SP&TL, but it's come about at a coincidental time for me.

I have a TVR S2, similar to the OP's son. Mine does have aftermarket silencers though, so it is louder than standard. My drive back from work takes me through the Warwickshire country roads and occasionally there are horses in the road.

Driving back last week I came around a corner and spotted a horse and rider further up the road. The first thing that occured to me was that I've never needed to pass a horse before in the TVR. So I just approached the horse as slowly as possible and gave it a wide berth, clutch in, cruise past and (as I had the roof off) apologised as I went by. No issues, no drama. The rider even nodded a thanks.

I guess if you make an effort to cause as little disruption as possible then there is no problem. I look at it the same way as cyclists on the road.