How did he not get done for this

On 9 Jan, 00:55, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
wrote:
JNugent writes:

wrote:

Judith Smith writes:
wrote:
" writes:

What has being closed got to do with it?

Mr Benn said:
"The purpose of public roads is... not for
recreational purposes."

See also Hirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 85 Cr
App Rep 143, 151 JP 304, [1987] Crim LR 330 Divisional Court, and
Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and another, House of
Lords
Is there a particular part of that which you believe is relevant?

Have you changed email addresses? *I'm sure I used to have you
killfiled

Yes, the first few pages of the DPP vs Jones case in particular goes
into a lot of detail about the reasonable uses of the public
highway. But if you have the time (and as you're reading Usenet, I
assume you must have) I do recommend you set some aside to read the
whole thing. Google will find it for you.

It appears to be about a wilful obstruction of the highway charge
brought against some people who were apparently seen to be
obstructing the highway.

They got off with it on appeal - something about the right of
assembly.

It's very easy to distinguish it from the point under discussion

The point of discussion in the immediate thread is "Mr Benn"'s
assertion that

*"The purpose of public roads is... not for recreational purposes."

The purposes of public roads are manifold and, as illustrated by the
Law Lords findings in these cases as well as other posts upthread,
encompass many uses that could be characterised as "recreational".
Indeed, some public roads (for example the majority of footpaths,
bridlepaths and "green lanes") are probably *primarily* used for
recreational purposes.

Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cyclists closing roads
for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.


"Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cancer charities
closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity fundraising
activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream of cyclists").

http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Fundrais...Caledonia.aspx

On 9 Jan, 14:39, Squashme wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:55, "The Medway Handyman"





wrote:
wrote:
JNugent writes:

wrote:

Judith Smith writes:
wrote:
" writes:

What has being closed got to do with it?

Mr Benn said:
"The purpose of public roads is... not for
recreational purposes."

See also Hirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 85 Cr
App Rep 143, 151 JP 304, [1987] Crim LR 330 Divisional Court, and
Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and another, House of
Lords
Is there a particular part of that which you believe is relevant?

Have you changed email addresses? *I'm sure I used to have you
killfiled

Yes, the first few pages of the DPP vs Jones case in particular goes
into a lot of detail about the reasonable uses of the public
highway. But if you have the time (and as you're reading Usenet, I
assume you must have) I do recommend you set some aside to read the
whole thing. Google will find it for you.

It appears to be about a wilful obstruction of the highway charge
brought against some people who were apparently seen to be
obstructing the highway.

They got off with it on appeal - something about the right of
assembly.

It's very easy to distinguish it from the point under discussion

The point of discussion in the immediate thread is "Mr Benn"'s
assertion that

*"The purpose of public roads is... not for recreational purposes."

The purposes of public roads are manifold and, as illustrated by the
Law Lords findings in these cases as well as other posts upthread,
encompass many uses that could be characterised as "recreational".
Indeed, some public roads (for example the majority of footpaths,
bridlepaths and "green lanes") are probably *primarily* used for
recreational purposes.

Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cyclists closing roads
for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.

"Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cancer charities
closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity fundraising
activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream of cyclists").

http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Fundrais...aledonia/E...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

His daughter is a paramedic as well. Heaven know what she would make
of her Dad's attitude to charity rides and his wishing to see dead
cyclists on the roads.

--
Simon Mason

Squashme wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:55, "The Medway Handyman"


Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cyclists closing
roads for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.


"Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cancer charities
closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity fundraising
activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream of cyclists").

Oh yet another rib tickling sig alteration. How do you manage to think of
them? Obviously an undiscovered comic genius.

Big difference between pointless bike races & charity fundraising - but then
you wouldn't understand that would you?

Face it - the majority of people don't like cyclists.


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.

On 09/01/2010 14:43, wrote:
On 9 Jan, 14:39, wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:55, "The Medway Handyman"





wrote:
wrote:
writes:

wrote:

Judith writes:
wrote:
writes:

What has being closed got to do with it?

Mr Benn said:
"The purpose of public roads is... not for
recreational purposes."

See also Hirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 85 Cr
App Rep 143, 151 JP 304, [1987] Crim LR 330 Divisional Court, and
Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and another, House of
Lords
Is there a particular part of that which you believe is relevant?

Have you changed email addresses? I'm sure I used to have you
killfiled

Yes, the first few pages of the DPP vs Jones case in particular goes
into a lot of detail about the reasonable uses of the public
highway. But if you have the time (and as you're reading Usenet, I
assume you must have) I do recommend you set some aside to read the
whole thing. Google will find it for you.

It appears to be about a wilful obstruction of the highway charge
brought against some people who were apparently seen to be
obstructing the highway.

They got off with it on appeal - something about the right of
assembly.

It's very easy to distinguish it from the point under discussion

The point of discussion in the immediate thread is "Mr Benn"'s
assertion that

"The purpose of public roads is... not for recreational purposes."

The purposes of public roads are manifold and, as illustrated by the
Law Lords findings in these cases as well as other posts upthread,
encompass many uses that could be characterised as "recreational".
Indeed, some public roads (for example the majority of footpaths,
bridlepaths and "green lanes") are probably *primarily* used for
recreational purposes.

Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cyclists closing roads
for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.

"Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cancer charities
closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity fundraising
activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream of cyclists").

http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Fundrais...aledonia/E...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

His daughter is a paramedic as well. Heaven know what she would make
of her Dad's attitude to charity rides and his wishing to see dead
cyclists on the roads.
He's a god botherer, logic isn't something that comes easy to him.

On 9 Jan, 15:31, Marc wrote:

His daughter is a paramedic as well. Heaven know what she would make
of her Dad's attitude to charity rides and his wishing to see dead
cyclists on the roads.

He's a god botherer, logic isn't something that comes easy to him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He doesn't appear to hold much to a Christian's point of view to me.
I'm glad I'm an atheist, if that is what religion does to you.
--

Simon Mason

On 9 Jan, 15:05, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:55, "The Medway Handyman"

Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cyclists closing
roads for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.

"Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cancer charities
closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity fundraising
activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream of cyclists").

Oh yet another rib tickling sig alteration. *How do you manage to think of
them? *Obviously an undiscovered comic genius.

Jeez, I thought that I was vapid, but I take my hat off to you.


Big difference between pointless bike races & charity fundraising - but then
you wouldn't understand that would you?

No, you'll have to explain. Carry on. I'll really try to understand.
Perhaps if you typed in upper case (big letters).


Face it - the majority of people don't like cyclists.


Face it - the majority of motorists believe that they are above-
average drivers.

wrote:
On 9 Jan, 14:39, Squashme wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:55, "The Medway Handyman"





wrote:
wrote:
JNugent writes:

wrote:

Judith Smith writes:
wrote:
" writes:

What has being closed got to do with it?

Mr Benn said:
"The purpose of public roads is... not for
recreational purposes."

See also Hirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 85
Cr App Rep 143, 151 JP 304, [1987] Crim LR 330 Divisional
Court, and Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and
another, House of Lords
Is there a particular part of that which you believe is
relevant?

Have you changed email addresses? I'm sure I used to have you
killfiled

Yes, the first few pages of the DPP vs Jones case in particular
goes into a lot of detail about the reasonable uses of the public
highway. But if you have the time (and as you're reading Usenet,
I assume you must have) I do recommend you set some aside to
read the whole thing. Google will find it for you.

It appears to be about a wilful obstruction of the highway charge
brought against some people who were apparently seen to be
obstructing the highway.

They got off with it on appeal - something about the right of
assembly.

It's very easy to distinguish it from the point under discussion

The point of discussion in the immediate thread is "Mr Benn"'s
assertion that

"The purpose of public roads is... not for recreational purposes."

The purposes of public roads are manifold and, as illustrated by
the Law Lords findings in these cases as well as other posts
upthread, encompass many uses that could be characterised as
"recreational". Indeed, some public roads (for example the
majority of footpaths, bridlepaths and "green lanes") are probably
*primarily* used for recreational purposes.

Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cyclists
closing roads for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.

"Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cancer charities
closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity fundraising
activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream of cyclists").

http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Fundrais...aledonia/E...-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

His daughter is a paramedic as well. Heaven know what she would make
of her Dad's attitude to charity rides and his wishing to see dead
cyclists on the roads.

She regards them as a PITA as well.


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.

Marc wrote:
On 09/01/2010 14:43, wrote:
On 9 Jan, 14:39, wrote:
On 9 Jan, 00:55, "The Medway Handyman"





wrote:
wrote:
writes:

wrote:

Judith writes:
wrote:
writes:

What has being closed got to do with it?

Mr Benn said:
"The purpose of public roads is... not for
recreational purposes."

See also Hirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 85
Cr App Rep 143, 151 JP 304, [1987] Crim LR 330 Divisional
Court, and Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and
another, House of Lords
Is there a particular part of that which you believe is
relevant?

Have you changed email addresses? I'm sure I used to have you
killfiled

Yes, the first few pages of the DPP vs Jones case in particular
goes into a lot of detail about the reasonable uses of the
public highway. But if you have the time (and as you're reading
Usenet, I assume you must have) I do recommend you set some
aside to read the whole thing. Google will find it for you.

It appears to be about a wilful obstruction of the highway charge
brought against some people who were apparently seen to be
obstructing the highway.

They got off with it on appeal - something about the right of
assembly.

It's very easy to distinguish it from the point under discussion

The point of discussion in the immediate thread is "Mr Benn"'s
assertion that

"The purpose of public roads is... not for recreational
purposes."

The purposes of public roads are manifold and, as illustrated by
the Law Lords findings in these cases as well as other posts
upthread, encompass many uses that could be characterised as
"recreational". Indeed, some public roads (for example the
majority of footpaths, bridlepaths and "green lanes") are
probably *primarily* used for recreational purposes.

Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cyclists
closing roads for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.

"Cutting to the chase, people just don't like ****** cancer
charities closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity
fundraising
activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream of
cyclists").
http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Fundrais...aledonia/E...-
Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -

His daughter is a paramedic as well. Heaven know what she would make
of her Dad's attitude to charity rides and his wishing to see dead
cyclists on the roads.

He's a god botherer, logic isn't something that comes easy to him.

Where on earth did you get that idea?


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.

wrote:
On 9 Jan, 15:31, Marc wrote:

His daughter is a paramedic as well. Heaven know what she would make
of her Dad's attitude to charity rides and his wishing to see dead
cyclists on the roads.

He's a god botherer, logic isn't something that comes easy to him.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He doesn't appear to hold much to a Christian's point of view to me.

I don't. God botherers are another PITA. Not as bad a cyclists mind you.


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.

On 09/01/2010 15:54, wrote:
On 9 Jan, 15:31, wrote:

His daughter is a paramedic as well. Heaven know what she would make
of her Dad's attitude to charity rides and his wishing to see dead
cyclists on the roads.

He's a god botherer, logic isn't something that comes easy to him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He doesn't appear to hold much to a Christian's point of view to me.
Christians, pray on their knees on Sundays, prey on the rest of society
during the rest of the week.