How did he not get done for this

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:01:33 +0000, 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


-dan


Is there a particular part of that which you believe is relevant?

Judith Smith writes:

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:01:33 +0000, 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.


-dan

JNugent wrote:
mileburner wrote:

I think that is a matter which ought to be decided largely by public
opinion. After all, the roads belong to everyone.

But not for exclusive use by anyone (emergencies excepted).

It is only exclusive use for a short period of time and it is a kind gesture
for the wider community to allow a select group to use it.

The same applies to marches, protests, carnivals, even street markets.

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. It was
nothing to do with the authorities closing a road so as to exclude general
traffic from it and enabling some private activity to take place on the highway.

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.


-dan

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:31:46 -0000, JNugent
wrote:

leandr42 wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:33:05 -0000, JNugent
Allegedly. He has a certificate to say he didn't do it.
Really? You have evidence for that?

If there's been (sufficient) evidence, he'd have been prosecuted. He
wasn't...

Er...

prosecute v.tr. 1 institute legal proceedings against (a person).
[COD, other dictionaries have pretty much identical wording]

"ALL CHARGES have been dropped..."
"Alexander Grosset, of Bridge of Gaur, Rannoch, was charged in May..."

So he was prosecuted (proceedings were instituted) and the prosecution
was (much later) abandoned.

I've heard of people who were wrongly accused, the case was
subsequently dropped, and they were disappointed not to get all the
facts out and prove their innocence.

I'd rather not be prosecuted at all for things I haven't done - wouldn't
you?

If I'd been very publicly but wrongly accused of a nasty little offence
then I might wish to set the record straight. He is a man of some public
standing, who was known to be against the event and whose reputation has
suffered as a result of the accusation. In that situation, if I had
nothing to do with it, I might well want my name publicly cleared - not
proceeding definitely hasn't done that.

We know there was enough evidence to charge him.

How do you think you "know" that?

Er, because the newspaper article says so? If you don't like a local
newspaper as a source, there are plenty more, how about The Times? Not the
newspaper of record it once was, but still pretty authoritative on such
things IMO.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6328018.ece

"A solicitor who chairs a community council has appeared in court..."

"The single charge against Mr Grosset..."

"...the case was continued for further examination by Sheriff Michael
Fletcher."

If there was no evidence, or just flimsy evidence, the charge would have
been dropped at that point.

As you seem to have a problem with a local newspaper report as evidence,
I'll continue with The Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6979500.ece

"Charges were dropped yesterday against the church elder accused of
throwing down tacks upon the road in order to disrupt Scotland’s most
prestigious cycle race."

"The Crown refused to give any explanation why proceedings against
Alexander Grosset had been abandoned."

In England, the PTB will use phrases such as "insufficient evidence" if
that's why the case was dropped. Absence of such phrases suggests there's
another reason.

Yes, but you're one of those who "argues" for life-long driving bans for
being involved - perhaps even passively - in any traffic incident in
which a cyclist was also involved, aren't you? For you, is seems that
the idea of guilt is associated with just anything that might be to a
cyclist's disadvantage.

You've really lost it, haven't you. You don't seem to know what prosecute
means, and I've never argued for anything of the kind in my life, and I
disagree with those that do (can't remember if I've posted to that
effect). I believe passionately in justice. If it can be shown that he did
it, he should be prosecuted and sentenced appropriately. If he didn't, he
should be found not guilty. If it can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt
that he did it, he should be found not guilty. I don't know if he did it
or not, but the evidence publicly available suggests there is a case to
answer, and it should be heard. To my mind, the more serious aspect was
probably damaging the emergency vehicles.

"The police said they had no plans to charge anyone else in connection
with the sabotage." [The Times again]

This is police code for "we think we got the right man, we're not going to
look for anybody else". And they may or may not care about a cycling event
being disrupted, but you can bet they were not happy about emergency
vehicles being damaged, they get very ****ed off about that kind of thing.

I don't know about him, but sport on the highway should not be
facilitated.

So you'd effectively put an end to the various road closures that
facilitate the hundred or more marathons, half-marathons and sundry
other road races that take place in this country every year?

Yes.

They can be held in places other than on the road.

I doubt it. To start with, we're talking about road racing. Track and
cross country are different events that don't require road closures. Where
on earth would you hold a road race for 34,000 people (London Marathon) or
54,000 (Great North Run). These events take over wide streets. (Hint: you
couldn't do it on a motor racing circuit. They're no wider than the
streets used for these events, so the competitors would fill them. In big
events, it can take upwards of half an hour for all the competitors to
cross the line. If you did it at Silverstone (3 mile lap, one of the
longer ones I believe) the leaders - who will run a mile roughly every 5
minutes - will have completed 1 lap before half the field has crossed the
start line. Or rather they wouldn't, they'd be hopelessly and
frustratingly trying to get past people running in silly costumes at the
back of the field. And going to London to run a 26 mile route is a big
thing for lots of people, I think a lot less people would want to run 9
laps of Silverstone. The London Marathon raised over £40m last year.. A lot
of charities would be very unhappy if it was stopped, or had much reduced
numbers).

There's a few off road ones, but the large majority have at least some
road closures particularly round the start/finish line, it simply
wouldn't be safe otherwise. These events get probably millions of
people involved in physical activity and raise a lot for charity.

And?

Health problems arising from lack of exercise are a serious issue in this
country and these events get people moving. And the amount they raise for
charity is enormous. They're almost always held on Sundays, and in most
places (highlands of Scotland excepted) there are easy alternative routes,
so the negative economic impact must be small. You're entitled to your
opinion that roads should not be closed, but an event of any size is not
possible without using public roads and is not safe without road closures,
so you're arguing that road racing should end in the UK. Which would be a
pity as we have some people who are rather good at it. And the rest of the
world, who have similar arrangements for similar events would think we
were very strange.

How about sporting events that are not on the road but require road
closures because of the number of people they attract. I believe there
are a lot of road closures when there is (was?) a grand prix at
Silverstone.

Planning issues. I agree that there is a case for restricting the size
of *any* event if it causes undue traffic pressure in the locality. It
is in fact one of the things that the planning authority *must* consider
and take into account before the development even takes place.

Ah, so the planners should have anticipated how big the All England Tennis
Club's championship was going to get when it started (if they had planners
in those days). Or the event should be limited in size. I should think the
roads in that area can cope with less than half of what they actually get,
even with closures. (They're not full closures, just all the roads in the
area are made one way running away from Wimbledon. I was once stuck a mile
from the tennis trying to get to somewhere a mile on the other side, it
was more or less impossible.)

And if road closures for all sporting events - which after all are only
entertainment - are out, how about street parties, village festivals
and the like? Some big charity events require road closures, would
they not happen in your world? I've been to one of these events:
http://www.torrington-cavaliers.co.uk/Bonfires and jolly impressive it
was too. IIRC they closed not just a road but the whole town centre.

What a miserable old curmudgeon you are. Good job the PTB have more
sense than you.

It's soeasy to be liberal with other peoples' rights and/or money, isn't
it?

What on earth has that got to do with enjoying a music festival I've been
to in a Cotswold village where they close the road because it's the only
flat bit of land on which to hold a public gathering? And people have
rights, not just motorists. The rights of different interests are taken
into account when deciding if a road can be closed.

You don't seem to understand basic terminology on the Alexander Grosset
issue, and you're just a curmudgeon about road closures who wants to stop
people having a good time and raising money for charity.

Hope you find the plot again soon. You might then find a way to do
something better with your life than trolling. Over to you for the last
word, I've got better things to do on a Friday evening.

Sigh. I only posted originally to see if anyone knew what was happening
on the civil action.

--

Rob

leandr42 wrote:

JNugent wrote:
leandr42 wrote:
JNugent

Allegedly. He has a certificate to say he didn't do it.
Really? You have evidence for that?

If there's been (sufficient) evidence, he'd have been prosecuted. He
wasn't...

Er...

prosecute v.tr. 1 institute legal proceedings against (a person).
[COD, other dictionaries have pretty much identical wording]

"ALL CHARGES have been dropped..."
"Alexander Grosset, of Bridge of Gaur, Rannoch, was charged in May..."

So he was prosecuted (proceedings were instituted) and the prosecution
was (much later) abandoned.

On reflection, correct.

I should have used the word "tried".

I've heard of people who were wrongly accused, the case was
subsequently dropped, and they were disappointed not to get all the
facts out and prove their innocence.

I'd rather not be prosecuted at all for things I haven't done -
wouldn't you?

If I'd been very publicly but wrongly accused of a nasty little offence
then I might wish to set the record straight. He is a man of some public
standing, who was known to be against the event and whose reputation has
suffered as a result of the accusation. In that situation, if I had
nothing to do with it, I might well want my name publicly cleared - not
proceeding definitely hasn't done that.

That would be enough for me.

Going to court is unpredictable. The chairman of the bench might be a Simon
Mason (or a Doug) on a bad day.

We know there was enough evidence to charge him.

How do you think you "know" that?

Er, because the newspaper article says so? If you don't like a local
newspaper as a source, there are plenty more, how about The Times? Not
the newspaper of record it once was, but still pretty authoritative on
such things IMO.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6328018.ece

No, no, no...

The charges were dropped, which seems to indicate that the charges were
ill-advised, hasty, based on faulty perceptions of the evidence", or all
three (and maybe more).

IOW, there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge him. It was just that someone
(wrongly) thought that there was.

[snip rest of stuff predicated on the (presumably) wrongly-brought charges
having (presumably correctly) been dropped]

Yes, but you're one of those who "argues" for life-long driving bans
for being involved - perhaps even passively - in any traffic incident
in which a cyclist was also involved, aren't you? For you, is seems
that the idea of guilt is associated with just anything that might be
to a cyclist's disadvantage.

You've really lost it, haven't you. You don't seem to know what
prosecute means, and I've never argued for anything of the kind in my
life

Please accept my apologies.

I had thought (when I composed the post to which you were responding) that I
was responding to one of Simon Mason's posts.

Sorry - my fault.

"The police said they had no plans to charge anyone else in connection
with the sabotage." [The Times again]

This is police code for "we think we got the right man, we're not going
to look for anybody else".

Do you not perceive a danger in that way of looking at things?

I don't know about him, but sport on the highway should not be
facilitated.

So you'd effectively put an end to the various road closures that
facilitate the hundred or more marathons, half-marathons and sundry
other road races that take place in this country every year?

Yes.
They can be held in places other than on the road.

I doubt it. To start with, we're talking about road racing

....which is a completely contrived concept.

If someone contrived a new "sport" of "motorway cycle racing" or "expressway
cycle racing", would you seriously expect stretches of the M40 or A34 to be
closed in order for it to take place?

Where on earth would you hold a road race for 34,000 people (London
Marathon) or 54,000 (Great North Run). These events take over wide
streets. (Hint: you couldn't do it on a motor racing circuit. They're no
wider than the streets used for these events, so the competitors would
fill them. In big events, it can take upwards of half an hour for all
the competitors to cross the line. If you did it at Silverstone (3 mile
lap, one of the longer ones I believe) the leaders - who will run a mile
roughly every 5 minutes - will have completed 1 lap before half the
field has crossed the start line. Or rather they wouldn't, they'd be
hopelessly and frustratingly trying to get past people running in silly
costumes at the back of the field. And going to London to run a 26 mile
route is a big thing for lots of people, I think a lot less people would
want to run 9 laps of Silverstone. The London Marathon raised over £40m
last year.. A lot of charities would be very unhappy if it was stopped,
or had much reduced numbers).

Ah... you're a fan of the old hopping, skipping, running, jumping, standing
round for a bit then starting again.

There's a few off road ones, but the large majority have at least
some road closures particularly round the start/finish line, it
simply wouldn't be safe otherwise. These events get probably millions
of people involved in physical activity and raise a lot for charity.

And?

Health problems arising from lack of exercise are a serious issue in
this country and these events get people moving.

And stop many others from moving.

And the amount they
raise for charity is enormous. They're almost always held on Sundays,
and in most places (highlands of Scotland excepted) there are easy
alternative routes, so the negative economic impact must be small.
You're entitled to your opinion that roads should not be closed,

That's very magnanimous of you.

event of any size is not possible without using public roads and is not
safe without road closures, so you're arguing that road racing should
end in the UK.

Yes. That's right.

Which would be a pity as we have some people who are
rather good at it.

I'm sure I don't ned to remind you that there are other things that people
are good at which we would not facilitate. The fact that some people are
"good at it" (WTMM) is not enough.

And the rest of the world, who have similar
arrangements for similar events would think we were very strange.

How about sporting events that are not on the road but require road
closures because of the number of people they attract. I believe
there are a lot of road closures when there is (was?) a grand prix at
Silverstone.

Planning issues. I agree that there is a case for restricting the size
of *any* event if it causes undue traffic pressure in the locality. It
is in fact one of the things that the planning authority *must*
consider and take into account before the development even takes place.

Ah, so the planners should have anticipated how big the All England
Tennis Club's championship was going to get when it started (if they had
planners in those days).

It would have been better if they had been able to.

Are the more recent developments at Silverstone as far back in history as that?

Or the event should be limited in size. I
should think the roads in that area can cope with less than half of what
they actually get, even with closures.

Yes - the phrase I used was "undue traffic pressure". You can't prevent all
and any traffic congestion without closing the facility completely, and
that's not what I suggested.

Try applying for planning permission for a supermarket. See what the
authority's officers say about traffic generation and capacities. Applicants
cannot just do as they like. Why the proprietors of sports establishments get
more favourable treatment is a puzzle.

It's so easy to be liberal with other peoples' rights and/or money,
isn't it?

What on earth has that got to do with enjoying a music festival I've
been to in a Cotswold village where they close the road because it's the
only flat bit of land on which to hold a public gathering? And people
have rights, not just motorists. The rights of different interests are
taken into account when deciding if a road can be closed.

You don't seem to understand basic terminology on the Alexander Grosset
issue, and you're just a curmudgeon about road closures who wants to
stop people having a good time and raising money for charity.

People should have their good times in appropriate places.

Hope you find the plot again soon. You might then find a way to do
something better with your life than trolling. Over to you for the last
word, I've got better things to do on a Friday evening.

So did I.

mileburner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
mileburner wrote:

I think that is a matter which ought to be decided largely by public
opinion. After all, the roads belong to everyone.

But not for exclusive use by anyone (emergencies excepted).

It is only exclusive use for a short period of time and it is a kind
gesture for the wider community to allow a select group to use it.

The same applies to marches, protests, carnivals, even street markets.

But not cyclists, because nobody likes them.


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

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.


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

"mileburner" wrote in
:

However, if road closures are banned for cycling sports events, it
seems only reasonable that that closures be banned for *all* sports
events.

I agree.

But exceptions could be made only with the agreement of the local road
users. If they are consulted and are in agreement, then it would be
reasonable to allow the roads to be closed to other traffic. If there is
significant opposition to road closures, then the event should take place
elsewhere or not at all. Roads are not playgrounds.

I believe this should apply to any sporting event on public roads involving
cars, bicycles or runners. Not that it would make me very popular with
people interested in marathons!