Drunk cyclist walks free from court

They can't touch you for it.

QUOTE:
"In interview he admitted to enjoying a few drinks at home before deciding to pedal into town."

Read mo http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/...#ixzz3zJ0tXK2m

Alycidon wrote:

They can't touch you for it.

QUOTE:
"In interview he admitted to enjoying a few drinks at home before deciding to pedal into town."

Read mo http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/...#ixzz3zJ0tXK2m

I think he got nicked more for the affray and being a ****, than the
cycling drunk. But in fact, when one studies law, one learns about the
famous case of Yep. _Corkery v Carpenter_ [1951] 1 KB 102. One _can_ be
charged (and convicted) of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

They can't touch you for it.

QUOTE:
"In interview he admitted to enjoying a few drinks at home before deciding to pedal into town."

Read mo http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/...#ixzz3zJ0tXK2m

I think he got nicked more for the affray and being a ****, than the
cycling drunk. But in fact, when one studies law, one learns about the
famous case of Yep. _Corkery v Carpenter_ [1951] 1 KB 102. One _can_ be
charged (and convicted) of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

No idea how that 'Yep.' got in there.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On 05/02/2016 14:58, Alycidon wrote:

They can't touch you for it.
QUOTE:
"In interview he admitted to enjoying a few drinks at home before deciding to pedal into town."
Read mo http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/...#ixzz3zJ0tXK2m

Your hero, obviously.

You are lost in admiration for him.

On 05/02/2016 15:06, John Smith wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

They can't touch you for it.
QUOTE:
"In interview he admitted to enjoying a few drinks at home before deciding to pedal into town."
Read mo http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/...#ixzz3zJ0tXK2m

I think he got nicked more for the affray and being a ****, than the
cycling drunk. But in fact, when one studies law, one learns about the
famous case of Yep. _Corkery v Carpenter_ [1951] 1 KB 102. One _can_ be
charged (and convicted) of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

No idea how that 'Yep.' got in there.

At a guess: http://tinyurl.com/gt2l764

JNugent wrote:
On 05/02/2016 15:06, John Smith wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

They can't touch you for it.
QUOTE:
"In interview he admitted to enjoying a few drinks at home before deciding to pedal into town."
Read mo http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/...#ixzz3zJ0tXK2m

I think he got nicked more for the affray and being a ****, than the
cycling drunk. But in fact, when one studies law, one learns about the
famous case of Yep. _Corkery v Carpenter_ [1951] 1 KB 102. One _can_ be
charged (and convicted) of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

No idea how that 'Yep.' got in there.

At a guess: http://tinyurl.com/gt2l764

Wrong again. You're on a roll.

In fact, it got in because I use vim to write my posts, and used the 'yank'
from a previous post in which I cited _Corkery v Carpenter_.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On Friday, 5 February 2016 15:04:03 UTC, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

They can't touch you for it.

QUOTE:
"In interview he admitted to enjoying a few drinks at home before deciding to pedal into town."

Read mo http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/...#ixzz3zJ0tXK2m

I think he got nicked more for the affray and being a ****, than the
cycling drunk. But in fact, when one studies law, one learns about the
famous case of Yep. _Corkery v Carpenter_ [1951] 1 KB 102. One _can_ be
charged (and convicted) of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

Indeed - but nobody brought up that side of the case in court - it was bearly mentioned, whereas a driver would have had a year ban for same.

Alycidon wrote:
On Friday, 5 February 2016 15:04:03 UTC, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

They can't touch you for it.

QUOTE:
"In interview he admitted to enjoying a few drinks at home before deciding to pedal into town."

Read mo http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/...#ixzz3zJ0tXK2m

I think he got nicked more for the affray and being a ****, than the
cycling drunk. But in fact, when one studies law, one learns about the
famous case of Yep. _Corkery v Carpenter_ [1951] 1 KB 102. One _can_ be
charged (and convicted) of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

Indeed - but nobody brought up that side of the case in court - it was bearly mentioned, whereas a driver would have had a year ban for same.

Hardly surprising, since psychopaths in their metal boxes have already
killed 45,000 people this century, as opposed to .... 10 killed by
cyclists.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On 05/02/2016 15:34, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 05/02/2016 15:06, John Smith wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

They can't touch you for it.
QUOTE:
"In interview he admitted to enjoying a few drinks at home before deciding to pedal into town."
Read mo http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/...#ixzz3zJ0tXK2m

I think he got nicked more for the affray and being a ****, than the
cycling drunk. But in fact, when one studies law, one learns about the
famous case of Yep. _Corkery v Carpenter_ [1951] 1 KB 102. One _can_ be
charged (and convicted) of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

No idea how that 'Yep.' got in there.

At a guess: http://tinyurl.com/gt2l764

Wrong again. You're on a roll.

Which part of "guess" was too complicated for you?

In fact, it got in because I use vim to write my posts, and used the 'yank'
from a previous post in which I cited _Corkery v Carpenter_.

How interesting.

On 05/02/2016 15:51, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:
On Friday, 5 February 2016 15:04:03 UTC, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

They can't touch you for it.

QUOTE:
"In interview he admitted to enjoying a few drinks at home before deciding to pedal into town."

Read mo http://www.maltonmercury.co.uk/news/...#ixzz3zJ0tXK2m

I think he got nicked more for the affray and being a ****, than the
cycling drunk. But in fact, when one studies law, one learns about the
famous case of Yep. _Corkery v Carpenter_ [1951] 1 KB 102. One _can_ be
charged (and convicted) of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

Indeed - but nobody brought up that side of the case in court - it was bearly mentioned, whereas a driver would have had a year ban for same.

Hardly surprising, since psychopaths in their metal boxes have already
killed 45,000 people this century, as opposed to .... 10 killed by
cyclists.



Please try to get more accurate figures, 19 were killed between 2010 and
2014

Or do you think that minus 9 were killed in the preceding 10 years