UK and Europe · Public discussion

Ultimate callousness

Started by Tony Raven · · Last activity · 108 posts · 2,521 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
5 October 2005
Last activity
17 October 2005
Original author
Tony Raven
Posts
108
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,521
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–40 of 108
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. If anyone wants a further insight into the insanity of UK motoring
    laws, in order to be guilty of 'perverting the course of justice' the
    guilty party must take positive action to avoid detection. HOWEVER, the
    very positive action of doing a runner is not considered to be an
    action at all, merely an 'omission' and therefore not grounds for a
    'perverting the course of justice' charge! I wonder if the courts would
    similarly hold that walking out of a shop with stolen goods is not
    actually theft but merely an 'omission' to pay.

    Although this case is horrific we should not loose sight of the fact
    that 'hit and run's have practically become the norm. In areas such as
    Manchester, Liverpool and Hull over half of all crashes resulting in
    death or serious injury also result in the driver doing a runner.

    The law holds that doing a 'hit an run' is actually only a technical
    offence of failing to exchange insurance details and/or report the
    crash. The 'Government' recently rejected calls for doing a 'hit an
    run' to be made a serious offence in its own right or to automatically
    warrant a 'perverting the course of justice' charge.'

    In the UK 'the car (driver) is king and it seems nothing is ever going
    to see drivers held properly accountable for their actions.

  2. Quoted message said:

    If anyone wants a further insight into the insanity of UK motoring
    laws, in order to be guilty of 'perverting the course of justice' the
    guilty party must take positive action to avoid detection. HOWEVER, the
    very positive action of doing a runner is not considered to be an
    action at all, merely an 'omission' and therefore not grounds for a
    'perverting the course of justice' charge! I wonder if the courts would
    similarly hold that walking out of a shop with stolen goods is not
    actually theft but merely an 'omission' to pay.

    If you take that line then virtually everyone who commits a criminal act
    and tries to avoid being caught would be perverting the course of justice.

    --
    Tony

    "I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
    Anon

  3. MartinM said:

    yebbut as the case is sub judice you'd probably be done for
    perverting the course of justus or similar; these things need to be
    done soon after the event to have real effect which is where the
    London CM has been effective recently.

    I don't think think that either the location of the golf club or the
    site of the crash are in doubt. Nor is the idea that cyclists tend to
    get upset when their fellows are killed, and like to demonstrate their
    sympathy with one party and anger at the other. How can a ride over the
    route possibly be affected by the sub judice rules?

    --
    Dave...

  4. dkahn400 said:
    MartinM said:

    yebbut as the case is sub judice you'd probably be done for
    perverting the course of justus or similar; these things need to be
    done soon after the event to have real effect which is where the
    London CM has been effective recently.

    I don't think think that either the location of the golf club or the
    site of the crash are in doubt. Nor is the idea that cyclists tend to
    get upset when their fellows are killed, and like to demonstrate their
    sympathy with one party and anger at the other. How can a ride over the
    route possibly be affected by the sub judice rules?

    probably not,

    are you doing Gavin's 200 tomorrow? looks like a horror.

  5. Quoted message said:


    are you doing Gavin's 200 tomorrow? looks like a horror.

    Its next week.

    I am not doing it this year, but have in previous years. No serious
    hills. Pretty. Why do you think it is a horror? The only problem
    is that most people finish in the dark.

  6. On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:43:46 +0100, Ian Blake <NoNotMe@NotAnywhere>
    wrote:

    Sorry, ignore me wrong Gavin. I thought Greenhow from Droitwich
    rather than Gilbert from Chalfont St Peter

  7. Ian Blake said:
    Quoted message said:


    are you doing Gavin's 200 tomorrow? looks like a horror.

    Its next week.

    I am not doing it this year, but have in previous years. No serious
    hills. Pretty. Why do you think it is a horror? The only problem
    is that most people finish in the dark.

    Gavin Gilbert's Anfractuous 200 is tomorrow; 2750m of climbing, is this
    the ride you are thinking of?

  8. MartinM said:

    are you doing Gavin's 200 tomorrow? looks like a horror.

    Phew, no. Luckily I have an excuse. Class re-union (to which I shall be
    cycling) in Ware. I need to find at least one ride this month though to
    keep my RTY effort going.

    --
    Dave...

  9. dkahn400 said:
    MartinM said:

    are you doing Gavin's 200 tomorrow? looks like a horror.

    Phew, no. Luckily I have an excuse. Class re-union (to which I shall be
    cycling) in Ware. I need to find at least one ride this month though to
    keep my RTY effort going.

    do mine next week, only 1600m

  10. MartinM said:


    Gavin Gilbert's Anfractuous 200 is tomorrow; 2750m of climbing, is this
    the ride you are thinking of?

    No I got the wrong ride. I' m only climbing 2270m in 100km tomorrow.
    On the other hand the Trefil's final climb is Pen Heol Ely Road on to
    Mynydd Eglwysilan. I doubt you have anything that 'scenic'* in the
    Chilterns.

    Last year as I was winching myself up. I saw a serious rider coming
    back down so he could try it again. The road gets very steep just
    before the top. Takes most people by surprise so he failed first
    time.

    * For those who do not know audax speak 'scenic' means big hills.

  11. Ian Blake said:

    On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:43:46 +0100, Ian Blake <NoNotMe@NotAnywhere>
    wrote:

    Sorry, ignore me wrong Gavin. I thought Greenhow from Droitwich
    rather than Gilbert from Chalfont St Peter

    Thought so; the Anfractuous is running for the first (and is it last
    ;0( time tomorrow.

  12. MartinM said:

    dkahn400 wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I need to find at least one ride this month though to
    keep my RTY effort going.

    do mine next week, only 1600m

    Unfortunately it's only 108k so doesn't count towards RTY.

    --
    Dave...

  13. dkahn400 said:
    MartinM said:

    dkahn400 wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I need to find at least one ride this month though to
    keep my RTY effort going.

    do mine next week, only 1600m

    Unfortunately it's only 108k so doesn't count towards RTY.

    do they have to be 200 or more?

  14. MartinM said:
    dkahn400 said:
    MartinM said:

    dkahn400 wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    > I need to find at least one ride this month though to
    > keep my RTY effort going.

    do mine next week, only 1600m

    Unfortunately it's only 108k so doesn't count towards RTY.

    do they have to be 200 or more?

    Indeed. See
    <http://www.highergrangefarm.fsnet.co.uk/PeakAudax/rrty.htm>.

    --
    Dave...

  15. dkahn400 said:
    MartinM said:
    dkahn400 said:

    MartinM wrote:
    > dkahn400 wrote:

    > > I need to find at least one ride this month though to
    > > keep my RTY effort going.
    >
    > do mine next week, only 1600m

    Unfortunately it's only 108k so doesn't count towards RTY.

    do they have to be 200 or more?

    Indeed. See
    <http://www.highergrangefarm.fsnet.co.uk/PeakAudax/rrty.htm>.

    thanks, was looking for it on the AUK site; some familiar names there,
    one is doing my ride next week. I would go for it but it gets hard in
    the summer with non-AUK events.

  16. On 6 Oct 2005 08:03:15 -0700 someone who may be "MartinM"
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    Anyone for a CM from the bowls club to the scene of the accident? ;-(

    Sounds like a good idea. According to
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4330950.stm the Hutton
    has directed the motorist be found not guilty of the manslaughter
    charges.

    The story also has the following gem:

    =================================================================

    Explaining why he did not stop after the accident, Mr Cottrell, a
    retired electrical engineer and former RAF aircraftsman, said: "I
    can give no good reason for not stopping.

    "It didn't seem a very serious accident, it just seemed a glancing
    blow."

    =================================================================

    which hardly needs anything adding to it.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

  17. "David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On 6 Oct 2005 08:03:15 -0700 someone who may be "MartinM"
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    Anyone for a CM from the bowls club to the scene of the accident? ;-(

    Sounds like a good idea. According to
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4330950.stm the Hutton
    has directed the motorist be found not guilty of the manslaughter
    charges.

    The story also has the following gem:

    =================================================================

    Explaining why he did not stop after the accident, Mr Cottrell, a
    retired electrical engineer and former RAF aircraftsman, said: "I
    can give no good reason for not stopping.

    "It didn't seem a very serious accident, it just seemed a glancing
    blow."

    Also "I am sure they cannot forgive what has happened. I am truly, truly
    sorry that Mr Morris has died."

    I'd swap all the sorrow in the world for a moment's thought first.

    Quoted message said:


    =================================================================

    which hardly needs anything adding to it.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

  18. Rich:

    Quoted message said:

    I'd swap all the sorrow in the world for a moment's thought first.


    If you thought about the dangers you as a driver expose others to,
    you'd be too scared to drive - in towns at least. Just drive on down
    that street with parked cars and kids playing, at 30mph and rely on
    chance not to kill someone. And if you do? Sure, it was an 'accident',
    you weren't exceed the posted speed limit, so how could you be to blame?

  19. sothach said:

    Rich:

    Quoted message said:

    I'd swap all the sorrow in the world for a moment's thought first.

    Quoted message said:

    If you thought about the dangers you as a driver expose others to,
    you'd be too scared to drive - in towns at least. Just drive on down
    that street with parked cars and kids playing, at 30mph and rely on
    chance not to kill someone. And if you do? Sure, it was an 'accident',
    you weren't exceed the posted speed limit, so how could you be to blame?

    And that is precisely the kind of idiot attitude that is being
    objected to. It absolutely would be your fault, and the speed limit
    does not reduce your liability for assessing a safe speed and not
    driving faster than teh safe speed, regardless of teh limit.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  20. Ian Smith said:

    And that is precisely the kind of idiot attitude that is being
    objected to. It absolutely would be your fault, and the speed limit
    does not reduce your liability for assessing a safe speed and not
    driving faster than teh safe speed, regardless of teh limit.

    Like, duh!

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.