Police get tough with scofflaws

On 02/06/2013 07:58, thirty-six wrote:
On 1 June, 10:06, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:
On 01/06/2013 02:14, thirty-six wrote:







On May 31, 11:39 am, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2013 11:32, Partac wrote:

http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/News...ist-arrested-f...

QUOTE:
...the woman told an employee at the estate agent she was in a rush to
get a train to work when she cycled up the street and had not realised
it was one-way.
ENDQUOTE

What, it's on her way to the station where she catches the train to work
every day and she "had not realised it was one-way"?

Yeah, right.

fro m the article in question it seems that an officer for the crown
collection agency believed that the cyclist's thinking be wrong and
decided he could arrest despite there being no evidence that any
signage (whether or not exists) was contravened with intent, or
otherwise. By all accounts presented, this appears to be an unlawful
arrest causing personal injury and unnecessary detention.

FFS we have another one.

Large latte & an espresso please.

--
Dave - Cyclists VORC
Bicycles are for Children. Like masturbation, something you should grow
out of.
There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown men who want
to ride a bike."

the woman was arrested despite no witness that she had contravened any
regulation that applied to her and the location in the presence of
appropriate signage.

Apart from the police officer who witnessed the (alleged) offence, you
mean? And apart from her trying to abscond?

On 2 June, 11:56, JNugent wrote:
On 02/06/2013 07:58, thirty-six wrote:









On 1 June, 10:06, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:
On 01/06/2013 02:14, thirty-six wrote:

On May 31, 11:39 am, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2013 11:32, Partac wrote:

http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/News...ist-arrested-f...

QUOTE:
...the woman told an employee at the estate agent she was in a rush to
get a train to work when she cycled up the street and had not realised
it was one-way.
ENDQUOTE

What, it's on her way to the station where she catches the train to work
every day and she "had not realised it was one-way"?

Yeah, right.

fro m the article in question it seems that an officer for the crown
collection agency believed that the cyclist's thinking be wrong and
decided he could arrest despite there being no evidence that any
signage (whether or not exists) was contravened with intent, or
otherwise. * By all accounts presented, this appears to be an unlawful
arrest causing personal injury and unnecessary detention.

FFS we have another one.

Large latte & an espresso please.

--
Dave - Cyclists VORC
Bicycles are for Children. *Like masturbation, something you should grow
out of.
There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown men who want
to ride a bike."

the woman was arrested despite no witness that she had contravened any
regulation that applied to her and the location in the presence of
appropriate signage.

Apart from the police officer who witnessed the (alleged) offence, you
mean? And apart from her trying to abscond?

What precisely did he witness, as stated in the article, and what have
you imagined?
Please give supporting "evidence" for your answer by quoting from the
article, if you believe you can.

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...

On 1 June, 14:02, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2013 02:14, thirty-six wrote:









On May 31, 11:39 am, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2013 11:32, Partac wrote:

http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/News...ist-arrested-f...

QUOTE:
...the woman told an employee at the estate agent she was in a rush to
get a train to work when she cycled up the street and had not realised
it was one-way.
ENDQUOTE

What, it's on her way to the station where she catches the train to
work
every day and she "had not realised it was one-way"?

Yeah, right.

fro m the article in question it seems that an officer for the crown
collection agency

A police officer, you mean?

believed that the cyclist's thinking be wrong

You have no reason for it to "seem" that way to you. Thinking is a
personal matter. The cyclist was arrested for seeking to leave the scene
of her observed breach of the law - that is, her illegal *action*, not
her improper thought.


What precisely have you ascertained was observed directly from reading
the article and what have you imagined?


and
decided he could arrest despite there being no evidence that any
signage (whether or not exists) was contravened with intent, or
otherwise. By all accounts presented, this appears to be an unlawful
arrest causing personal injury and unnecessary detention.

Really?

Do you believe that she didn't know that the street was one-way, despite
signage to say so (as there always is)

It has not been reported that there was adequate signage. It has not
been reported that the woman had passed any signage or that any order
had been made at the location. It has not been reported in what way
she is supposed to have agreed to comply with any regulation that may
or may not exist for some persons.

and the her going that way to
work every day?

Does she work for the government? Does it say?

She should be convicted of attempted insult of the intelligence (I'll
exempt you from victimhood there - it seems that it didn't insult
yours), let alone anything else.

When government wish to wrap the people in legislation, they have to
get their agreement. I do not work for the government and am not
bound by their legislation on matters which I have not explicitly
agreed to.

Have you been talking to Phil Lee? He talks similar ****e, too.

On 2 June, 11:46, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 2 June, 09:03, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 1 June, 16:10, "Partac" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in ...

On 31/05/2013 11:32, Partac wrote:

http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/News...ist-arrested-f...

QUOTE:
...the woman told an employee at the estate agent she was in a rush
to
get a train to work when she cycled up the street and had not
realised
it was one-way.
ENDQUOTE

What, it's on her way to the station where she catches the train to
work every day and she "had not realised it was one-way"?

Yeah, right.

For the avoidance of doubt, I've taken the liberty of posting the
Google Earth street view of the road in question. I'll leave it up
to the panel to decide whether she was genuinely mistaken, or if
she was just lying through her teeth:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/96800572@N02/8912745605/

Excellent. The signage is not legally binding, even to a person
driving a licensed vehicle. Any "notice" or "order" which may or
may not exist in the scrolls of office can not awfully be enforced
or penalty made. The signage does not comply with the prescribed
format as recorded in the legislaughter. As I said, thick as ...

Signage looks good to me, what do you think is wrong with it? No
entry signs apply to all vehicular traffic, and a bicycle is a
vehicle.

I obviously have greater awareness of UK-law than your deluded
understanding.

If you wish to engage your mind, please do it for the good and not be
so willing to voice your misunderstanding. * The signage does not
comply with that prescribed under UK-law. * *It will be for the
prosecution to find the legislation and present it to court.
Examination of the legislation which was current at the time will show
that signage not to be proper and any penalties unenforceable. * When
this is said to the arresting officer, great damages can later be
brought due to the injury made by false arrest, loss of liberty, blah
de blah.

So what is wrong with it?

apart from everything?

Is it because it is not mentioned in the magna carta?

On 2 June, 12:02, "Partac" wrote:
"thirty-six" *wrote in message

...

On 1 June, 14:02, JNugent wrote:









On 01/06/2013 02:14, thirty-six wrote:

On May 31, 11:39 am, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2013 11:32, Partac wrote:

http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/News...ist-arrested-f...

QUOTE:
...the woman told an employee at the estate agent she was in a rush to
get a train to work when she cycled up the street and had not realised
it was one-way.
ENDQUOTE

What, it's on her way to the station where she catches the train to
work
every day and she "had not realised it was one-way"?

Yeah, right.

fro m the article in question it seems that an officer for the crown
collection agency

A police officer, you mean?

believed that the cyclist's thinking be wrong

You have no reason for it to "seem" that way to you. Thinking is a
personal matter. The cyclist was arrested for seeking to leave the scene
of her observed breach of the law - that is, her illegal *action*, not
her improper thought.

What precisely have you ascertained was observed directly from reading
the article and what have you imagined?



and
decided he could arrest despite there being no evidence that any
signage (whether or not exists) was contravened with intent, or
otherwise. * By all accounts presented, this appears to be an unlawful
arrest causing personal injury and unnecessary detention.

Really?

Do you believe that she didn't know that the street was one-way, despite
signage to say so (as there always is)

It has not been reported that there was adequate signage. *It has not
been reported that the woman had passed any signage or that any order
had been made at the location. *It has not been reported in what way
she is supposed to have agreed to comply with any regulation that may
or may not exist for some persons.

and the her going that way to
work every day?

Does she work for the government? * Does it say?



She should be convicted of attempted insult of the intelligence (I'll
exempt you from victimhood there - it seems that it didn't insult
yours), let alone anything else.

When government wish to wrap the people in legislation, they have to
get their agreement. * I do not work for the government and am not
bound by their legislation on matters which I have not explicitly
agreed to.

Have you been talking to Phil Lee? He talks similar ****e, too.

English not your subject then?

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...

On 2 June, 12:54, "Partac" wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message

...

On 2 June, 12:02, "Partac" wrote:









"thirty-six" wrote in message

...

On 1 June, 14:02, JNugent wrote:

On 01/06/2013 02:14, thirty-six wrote:

On May 31, 11:39 am, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2013 11:32, Partac wrote:

http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/News...ist-arrested-f...

QUOTE:
...the woman told an employee at the estate agent she was in a rush
to
get a train to work when she cycled up the street and had not
realised
it was one-way.
ENDQUOTE

What, it's on her way to the station where she catches the train to
work
every day and she "had not realised it was one-way"?

Yeah, right.

fro m the article in question it seems that an officer for the crown
collection agency

A police officer, you mean?

believed that the cyclist's thinking be wrong

You have no reason for it to "seem" that way to you. Thinking is a
personal matter. The cyclist was arrested for seeking to leave the
scene
of her observed breach of the law - that is, her illegal *action*, not
her improper thought.

What precisely have you ascertained was observed directly from reading
the article and what have you imagined?

and
decided he could arrest despite there being no evidence that any
signage (whether or not exists) was contravened with intent, or
otherwise. By all accounts presented, this appears to be an
unlawful
arrest causing personal injury and unnecessary detention.

Really?

Do you believe that she didn't know that the street was one-way,
despite
signage to say so (as there always is)

It has not been reported that there was adequate signage. It has not
been reported that the woman had passed any signage or that any order
had been made at the location. It has not been reported in what way
she is supposed to have agreed to comply with any regulation that may
or may not exist for some persons.

and the her going that way to
work every day?

Does she work for the government? Does it say?

She should be convicted of attempted insult of the intelligence (I'll
exempt you from victimhood there - it seems that it didn't insult
yours), let alone anything else.

When government wish to wrap the people in legislation, they have to
get their agreement. I do not work for the government and am not
bound by their legislation on matters which I have not explicitly
agreed to.

Have you been talking to Phil Lee? He talks similar ****e, too.

English not your subject then?

No, certainly not your kind of English.

There is no need to question my abilities, it is the news article you
are (purposely?) having difficulty comprehending.

No, no problem with the news article or most people's comments. Just
problems with your prattle.
I wasn't questioning your abilities, I have already made my mind up on that
subject.

thirty-six wrote:
On 2 June, 11:46, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 2 June, 09:03, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 1 June, 16:10, "Partac" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in
...

On 31/05/2013 11:32, Partac wrote:

http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/News...ist-arrested-f...

QUOTE:
...the woman told an employee at the estate agent she was in a
rush to
get a train to work when she cycled up the street and had not
realised
it was one-way.
ENDQUOTE

What, it's on her way to the station where she catches the train
to work every day and she "had not realised it was one-way"?

Yeah, right.

For the avoidance of doubt, I've taken the liberty of posting the
Google Earth street view of the road in question. I'll leave it
up to the panel to decide whether she was genuinely mistaken, or
if she was just lying through her teeth:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/96800572@N02/8912745605/

Excellent. The signage is not legally binding, even to a person
driving a licensed vehicle. Any "notice" or "order" which may or
may not exist in the scrolls of office can not awfully be enforced
or penalty made. The signage does not comply with the prescribed
format as recorded in the legislaughter. As I said, thick as ...

Signage looks good to me, what do you think is wrong with it? No
entry signs apply to all vehicular traffic, and a bicycle is a
vehicle.

I obviously have greater awareness of UK-law than your deluded
understanding.

If you wish to engage your mind, please do it for the good and not
be so willing to voice your misunderstanding. The signage does not
comply with that prescribed under UK-law. It will be for the
prosecution to find the legislation and present it to court.
Examination of the legislation which was current at the time will
show that signage not to be proper and any penalties unenforceable.
When this is said to the arresting officer, great damages can later
be brought due to the injury made by false arrest, loss of liberty,
blah de blah.

So what is wrong with it?

apart from everything?


Boring.

On 2 June, 13:25, "Partac" wrote:
"thirty-six" *wrote in message

...

On 2 June, 12:54, "Partac" wrote:









"thirty-six" *wrote in message

...

On 2 June, 12:02, "Partac" wrote:

"thirty-six" *wrote in message

....

On 1 June, 14:02, JNugent wrote:

On 01/06/2013 02:14, thirty-six wrote:

On May 31, 11:39 am, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2013 11:32, Partac wrote:

http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/News...ist-arrested-f...

QUOTE:
...the woman told an employee at the estate agent she was in a rush
to
get a train to work when she cycled up the street and had not
realised
it was one-way.
ENDQUOTE

What, it's on her way to the station where she catches the train to
work
every day and she "had not realised it was one-way"?

Yeah, right.

fro m the article in question it seems that an officer for the crown
collection agency

A police officer, you mean?

believed that the cyclist's thinking be wrong

You have no reason for it to "seem" that way to you. Thinking is a
personal matter. The cyclist was arrested for seeking to leave the
scene
of her observed breach of the law - that is, her illegal *action*, not
her improper thought.

What precisely have you ascertained was observed directly from reading
the article and what have you imagined?

and
decided he could arrest despite there being no evidence that any
signage (whether or not exists) was contravened with intent, or
otherwise. * By all accounts presented, this appears to be an
unlawful
arrest causing personal injury and unnecessary detention.

Really?

Do you believe that she didn't know that the street was one-way,
despite
signage to say so (as there always is)

It has not been reported that there was adequate signage. *It has not
been reported that the woman had passed any signage or that any order
had been made at the location. *It has not been reported in what way
she is supposed to have agreed to comply with any regulation that may
or may not exist for some persons.

and the her going that way to
work every day?

Does she work for the government? * Does it say?

She should be convicted of attempted insult of the intelligence (I'll
exempt you from victimhood there - it seems that it didn't insult
yours), let alone anything else.

When government wish to wrap the people in legislation, they have to
get their agreement. * I do not work for the government and am not
bound by their legislation on matters which I have not explicitly
agreed to.

Have you been talking to Phil Lee? He talks similar ****e, too.

English not your subject then?

No, certainly not your kind of English.

There is no need to question my abilities, it is the news article you
are (purposely?) having difficulty comprehending.

No, no problem with the news article or most people's comments. Just
problems with your prattle.
I wasn't questioning your abilities, I have already made my mind up on that
subject.

I'll take it slow for you. Avoid using prejudice in your answer.
From the article, what have we been told that the officer did
observe? Please quote extracts from the passage to support your
answer. 3

On 2 June, 12:24, Bruise Prestine wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 2 June, 10:30, Bruise Prestine wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
[...] I would be happy to read about a "person" in my book of truth,
please guide me to the relevant parts of the King James Bible. *Be
aware that this is the book I shall hold at court. *This is not for
theatrics, but to uphold the truth.

When I first heard the Manic Street Preachers' line: "This Is My Truth
Tell Me Yours", I remember thinking there was no sense in that (just
some more nollocks, really)... but I know better now.

In fact, this newsgroup is as good a demonstration as any of us need
to show that we do indeed, as individuals, hold our own 'truths' - and
that these 'truths' may, or may not, be the same as those held by
other individuals around us.

I sense that there may be some frustration by more than yourself.

Acceptance is the thing, though. Once one can accept that we each have
our own 'truths', then there is far less frustration. As long as we
are personally happy with our own 'truths', then, so what?

--
Alexis

Their support of the delusion affects me and my kind. I want the
destruction of mankind and this planet to stop.

On 2 June, 13:50, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 2 June, 11:46, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 2 June, 09:03, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 1 June, 16:10, "Partac" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in
...

On 31/05/2013 11:32, Partac wrote:

http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/News...ist-arrested-f...

QUOTE:
...the woman told an employee at the estate agent she was in a
rush to
get a train to work when she cycled up the street and had not
realised
it was one-way.
ENDQUOTE

What, it's on her way to the station where she catches the train
to work every day and she "had not realised it was one-way"?

Yeah, right.

For the avoidance of doubt, I've taken the liberty of posting the
Google Earth street view of the road in question. I'll leave it
up to the panel to decide whether she was genuinely mistaken, or
if she was just lying through her teeth:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/96800572@N02/8912745605/

Excellent. The signage is not legally binding, even to a person
driving a licensed vehicle. Any "notice" or "order" which may or
may not exist in the scrolls of office can not awfully be enforced
or penalty made. The signage does not comply with the prescribed
format as recorded in the legislaughter. As I said, thick as ...

Signage looks good to me, what do you think is wrong with it? No
entry signs apply to all vehicular traffic, and a bicycle is a
vehicle.

I obviously have greater awareness of UK-law than your deluded
understanding.

If you wish to engage your mind, please do it for the good and not
be so willing to voice your misunderstanding. The signage does not
comply with that prescribed under UK-law. It will be for the
prosecution to find the legislation and present it to court.
Examination of the legislation which was current at the time will
show that signage not to be proper and any penalties unenforceable.
When this is said to the arresting officer, great damages can later
be brought due to the injury made by false arrest, loss of liberty,
blah de blah.

So what is wrong with it?

apart from everything?

Boring.

so go tickle your love pump with a paring knife.