Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrong sideof road is jailed - LONG

On 14/09/2020 11:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/09/2020 15:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 12 September 2020 15:04:55 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:
On 12/09/2020 14:52, Mike Collins wrote:

Finally you grasp the difference between law and legislative intent.

I really doubt it.

When the law against the use of carriages on footways was introduced,

That would be the 1835 Highways Act.

I expect the legal gods that Nugent worships knew all about future
inventions.

there was no legislative intent to allow cyclists to cycle along them.

I have a copy of the first Highway Code. Nowhere does it mention
pavements except to tell pedestrians to "never walk on the carriageway
where there is a pavement".
https://swarb.co.uk/taylor-v-goodwin-qbd-1879/

When traffic lights were introduced

Their purpose was to manage traffic flow and had nothing to do with
safety.

The same Highway Code says that section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1930
made it an offence to disobey the indications given by traffic lights.
Since the first traffic light was installed in London in 1868 (non-lit
signals have a much longer history), I expect it took a good number of
careful, law abiding motorists to kill people before the law caught up.

Are you not familiar with the process of legislation and its rolling
programme of amendment and consolidation?

If it were, for instance, pointed out to you that dangerous driving is
an offence under Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (which it is),
would you conclude that prior to the coming into force of that Act,
dangerous driving was not an offence under English law?

If it were further pointed out to you that driving whilst intoxicated is
dealt with under Sections 4 to 11 of the same Act (1988, remember),
would you insist that the Breathalyser therefore was not in use from as
early as late 1967?

On Monday, 14 September 2020 12:53:14 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 11:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/09/2020 15:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 12 September 2020 15:04:55 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:
On 12/09/2020 14:52, Mike Collins wrote:

Finally you grasp the difference between law and legislative intent.

I really doubt it.

When the law against the use of carriages on footways was introduced,

That would be the 1835 Highways Act.

I expect the legal gods that Nugent worships knew all about future
inventions.

there was no legislative intent to allow cyclists to cycle along them..

I have a copy of the first Highway Code. Nowhere does it mention
pavements except to tell pedestrians to "never walk on the carriageway
where there is a pavement".
https://swarb.co.uk/taylor-v-goodwin-qbd-1879/

When traffic lights were introduced

Their purpose was to manage traffic flow and had nothing to do with
safety.

The same Highway Code says that section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1930
made it an offence to disobey the indications given by traffic lights.
Since the first traffic light was installed in London in 1868 (non-lit
signals have a much longer history), I expect it took a good number of
careful, law abiding motorists to kill people before the law caught up.

Are you not familiar with the process of legislation and its rolling
programme of amendment and consolidation?


Did you practice with your longbow yesterday in accordance with the 1363 Archery Law?

On 14/09/2020 12:54, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 11:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/09/2020 15:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 12 September 2020 15:04:55 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:
On 12/09/2020 14:52, Mike Collins wrote:

Finally you grasp the difference between law and legislative intent.

I really doubt it.

When the law against the use of carriages on footways was introduced,

That would be the 1835 Highways Act.

I expect the legal gods that Nugent worships knew all about future
inventions.

there was no legislative intent to allow cyclists to cycle along them.

I have a copy of the first Highway Code. Nowhere does it mention
pavements except to tell pedestrians to "never walk on the carriageway
where there is a pavement".
https://swarb.co.uk/taylor-v-goodwin-qbd-1879/

When traffic lights were introduced

Their purpose was to manage traffic flow and had nothing to do with
safety.

The same Highway Code says that section 49 of the Road Traffic Act
1930 made it an offence to disobey the indications given by traffic
lights. Since the first traffic light was installed in London in 1868
(non-lit signals have a much longer history), I expect it took a good
number of careful, law abiding motorists to kill people before the law
caught up.

Are you not familiar with the process of legislation and its rolling
programme of amendment and consolidation?

We are discussing the intention of laws.

If it were, for instance, pointed out to you that dangerous driving is
an offence under Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (which it is),
would you conclude that prior to the coming into force of that Act,
dangerous driving was not an offence under English law?

If it were further pointed out to you that driving whilst intoxicated is
dealt with under Sections 4 to 11 of the same Act (1988, remember),
would you insist that the Breathalyser therefore was not in use from as
early as late 1967?

I would conclude that the intention behind these laws was to try to
reduce a public safety problem. (Though as we know, it is almost
impossible to be convicted of dangerous driving.)

I doubt that even you dare to put pavement cycling in the same category.
Particularly as any argument falls flat in light of the many places
where the mix of cyclist and pedestrian is allowed.

On 14/09/2020 13:39, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 12:53:14 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 11:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/09/2020 15:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 12 September 2020 15:04:55 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:
On 12/09/2020 14:52, Mike Collins wrote:

Finally you grasp the difference between law and legislative intent.

I really doubt it.

When the law against the use of carriages on footways was introduced,

That would be the 1835 Highways Act.

I expect the legal gods that Nugent worships knew all about future
inventions.

there was no legislative intent to allow cyclists to cycle along them.

I have a copy of the first Highway Code. Nowhere does it mention
pavements except to tell pedestrians to "never walk on the carriageway
where there is a pavement".
https://swarb.co.uk/taylor-v-goodwin-qbd-1879/

When traffic lights were introduced

Their purpose was to manage traffic flow and had nothing to do with
safety.

The same Highway Code says that section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1930
made it an offence to disobey the indications given by traffic lights.
Since the first traffic light was installed in London in 1868 (non-lit
signals have a much longer history), I expect it took a good number of
careful, law abiding motorists to kill people before the law caught up.

Are you not familiar with the process of legislation and its rolling
programme of amendment and consolidation?


Did you practice with your longbow yesterday in accordance with the 1363 Archery Law?

Did you remember to take your tablets?

On 14/09/2020 14:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/09/2020 12:54, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 11:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/09/2020 15:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 12 September 2020 15:04:55 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:
On 12/09/2020 14:52, Mike Collins wrote:

Finally you grasp the difference between law and legislative intent.

I really doubt it.

When the law against the use of carriages on footways was introduced,

That would be the 1835 Highways Act.

I expect the legal gods that Nugent worships knew all about future
inventions.

there was no legislative intent to allow cyclists to cycle along them.

I have a copy of the first Highway Code. Nowhere does it mention
pavements except to tell pedestrians to "never walk on the
carriageway where there is a pavement".
https://swarb.co.uk/taylor-v-goodwin-qbd-1879/

When traffic lights were introduced

Their purpose was to manage traffic flow and had nothing to do with
safety.

No-one has commented below on that bit.

Well, no-one important.

But we did get this change of subject:

[TMS320:]
The same Highway Code says that section 49 of the Road Traffic Act
1930 made it an offence to disobey the indications given by traffic
lights. Since the first traffic light was installed in London in 1868
(non-lit signals have a much longer history), I expect it took a good
number of careful, law abiding motorists to kill people before the
law caught up.

Are you not familiar with the process of legislation and its rolling
programme of amendment and consolidation?

We are discussing the intention of laws.

Not at this stage, we aren't.

TMS320 seemed to think that because a Road Traffic Act of 1930 contained
a Section making non-compliance with traffic lights an offence, that it
wasn't an offence before that.

If it were, for instance, pointed out to you that dangerous driving is
an offence under Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (which it is),
would you conclude that prior to the coming into force of that Act,
dangerous driving was not an offence under English law?

If it were further pointed out to you that driving whilst intoxicated
is dealt with under Sections 4 to 11 of the same Act (1988, remember),
would you insist that the Breathalyser therefore was not in use from
as early as late 1967?

I would conclude that the intention behind these laws was to try to
reduce a public safety problem.

You might well conclude that. But it wasn't what I asked.

I asked whether an Act containing a prohibition on something means that
it wasn't already prohibited (TMS320 seemed to be under that impression).

(Though as we know, it is almost
impossible to be convicted of dangerous driving.)

It SHOULD be impossible, or very nearly impossible, to be convicted of
an offence one has not committed.

Even you would support that as a general principle, I expect.

I doubt that even you dare to put pavement cycling in the same category.
Particularly as any argument falls flat in light of the many places
where the mix of cyclist and pedestrian is allowed.

Where did that come from? What does it have to do with the rolling
review, amendment and consolidation of statute law?

On Monday, 14 September 2020 16:15:57 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

It SHOULD be impossible, or very nearly impossible, to be convicted of
an offence one has not committed.

Tell that to Barry George.

On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:52:35 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

Tell that to Barry George.

Stefan Kiszko, Barry George, Birmingham Six, Timothy Evans, George Kelly, Mahmood Hussein Mattan, Derek Bentley, George Thatcher, Andrew Evans, Liam Holden, Stephen Downing, Judith Ward, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, Terry Pinfold, Harry MacKenney, Robert Brown, Paul Blackburn, Bridgewater Four, Sean Hodgson, Winston Silcott, Michael Shirley, Danny McNamee, Cardiff Newsagent Three, Cardiff Three, M25 Three, Christy Walsh, Eddie Gilfoyle, Sally Clark, Donna Anthony, Victor Nealon, Siôn Jenkins, Angela Cannings, Barri White, Suzanne Holdsworth, Sam Hallam, Ched Evans, Oval Four - all were wrongly convicted and some were hanged, despite being innocent.

On Monday, 14 September 2020 18:31:17 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:52:35 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

Tell that to Barry George.

Stefan Kiszko, Barry George, Birmingham Six, Timothy Evans, George Kelly, Mahmood Hussein Mattan, Derek Bentley, George Thatcher, Andrew Evans, Liam Holden, Stephen Downing, Judith Ward, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, Terry Pinfold, Harry MacKenney, Robert Brown, Paul Blackburn, Bridgewater Four, Sean Hodgson, Winston Silcott, Michael Shirley, Danny McNamee, Cardiff Newsagent Three, Cardiff Three, M25 Three, Christy Walsh, Eddie Gilfoyle, Sally Clark, Donna Anthony, Victor Nealon, Siôn Jenkins, Angela Cannings, Barri White, Suzanne Holdsworth, Sam Hallam, Ched Evans, Oval Four - all were wrongly convicted and some were hanged, despite being innocent.

The above examples are why I changed my mind about the death penalty.
Barry George would certainly have been sentenced to death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIsovWTejRc

An eye for an eye makes us all blind.

On Monday, 14 September 2020 18:31:17 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:52:35 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

Tell that to Barry George.

Stefan Kiszko, Barry George, Birmingham Six, Timothy Evans, George Kelly, Mahmood Hussein Mattan, Derek Bentley, George Thatcher, Andrew Evans, Liam Holden, Stephen Downing, Judith Ward, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, Terry Pinfold, Harry MacKenney, Robert Brown, Paul Blackburn, Bridgewater Four, Sean Hodgson, Winston Silcott, Michael Shirley, Danny McNamee, Cardiff Newsagent Three, Cardiff Three, M25 Three, Christy Walsh, Eddie Gilfoyle, Sally Clark, Donna Anthony, Victor Nealon, Siôn Jenkins, Angela Cannings, Barri White, Suzanne Holdsworth, Sam Hallam, Ched Evans, Oval Four - all were wrongly convicted and some were hanged, despite being innocent.

I am sure some people on this group will say they are in favour of the death penalty but would they be willing to shoot the condemned in the face with a Raufoss MK 211 round delivered by a Barrett M82. There will be blood and brains and bone and cerebral spinal fluid and hair and teeth and eyeballs all over the place but at least it will be quick.

On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 6:50:49 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 18:31:17 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:52:35 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

Tell that to Barry George.

Stefan Kiszko, Barry George, Birmingham Six, Timothy Evans, George Kelly, Mahmood Hussein Mattan, Derek Bentley, George Thatcher, Andrew Evans, Liam Holden, Stephen Downing, Judith Ward, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, Terry Pinfold, Harry MacKenney, Robert Brown, Paul Blackburn, Bridgewater Four, Sean Hodgson, Winston Silcott, Michael Shirley, Danny McNamee, Cardiff Newsagent Three, Cardiff Three, M25 Three, Christy Walsh, Eddie Gilfoyle, Sally Clark, Donna Anthony, Victor Nealon, Siôn Jenkins, Angela Cannings, Barri White, Suzanne Holdsworth, Sam Hallam, Ched Evans, Oval Four - all were wrongly convicted and some were hanged, despite being innocent.

The above examples are why I changed my mind about the death penalty.
Barry George would certainly have been sentenced to death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIsovWTejRc

An eye for an eye makes us all blind.

Ah but DNA is 100% certain.
Apart from:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17324912