Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning

On 15/03/2015 12:02, wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:54:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Where to start with that statement...

How about starting with the tenet that a person under 10 is innocent until proved guilty,

The statement I was referring to was not directly about the age of
criminal responsibility (and you've snipped it), but OK, we'll work on
the basis you prefer.

We should "[start] with the tenet that a person under 10 is innocent
until proved guilty"?

No need. *Everyone* is innocent unless proved guilty (or admitting
guilt). Even drunken 41-yr-old drivers.

and then examine how a person under 10 can commit the criminal offence of cycling on the footway when parliament has made it quite clear that children under 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility.

You are being deliberately obtuse, which is one of the techniques you
sometimes use.

Let's do this by analogy and reductio.

Is murder a criminal offence?

There are three possible answers to that question ("yes", "no" or "I
don't know"), but I'll do you the favour of assuming you will opt for "yes".

Now... for a bonus point... does murder cease to be a crime if it is
committed by someone below the age of criminal responsibility?

Take your time and answer the question (that is, the question I asked,
not some other question which I have not asked) as carefully and as
accurately as you can, using not only your obvious extensive knowledge
of English criminal law but also the undoubted common sense you have
sometimes been observed to possess.

On 15/03/2015 14:51, wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 1:12:54 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:54:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Where to start with that statement...

How about starting with the tenet that a person under 10 is innocent until proved guilty,

As is everyone.

and then examine how a person under 10 can commit the criminal offence of cycling on the footway

Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835
Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.
If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by
the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of
foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass,
sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any
truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether
any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to
suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;. . . every person
so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every
such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding level 2 on the
standard scale, over and above the damages occasioned thereby.

The offence is absolute, anyone riding a bicycle on a footpath commits
a criminal act whether they be 5 or 50.

No they don't. The riding on the footway must be wilful.

So do you reckon that it is possible to do cycle along a footway
non-wilfully?

If so, please explain, and then you might wish to try to distinguish
whatever circumstance you dream up as between cyclists on the footway
and drivers on the footway (the offence covers both things, of course).

IOW, if it is possible to ride a bicycle along a footway other than
wilfully, why isn't the defence "I didn't mean to do it" available to
those who drive motorcycles or vans along the footway non-wilfully?

Think carefully...

when parliament has made it quite clear that children under 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility.

You are conflating the crime and the perpetrator. The crime is riding
on the footpath.

Parliament has not decided a child under 10 cannot commit an offence,
only that they cannot be found responsible for doing so.

I never claimed that Parliament had decided that a child under 10 cannot commit an offence.

Yes, you did.

You said so several posts back in this thread.

My claim was specific to a criminal offence.

"Children and Young Persons Act 1933
50 Age of criminal responsibility.
It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten
years can be guilty of any offence. "
It doesn't mean the crime goes away whether it be cycling on a
footpath or murder. It merely means the miscreant, if under 10,
cannot be brought to trial for the offence even when it is clear they
committed it.

Yes it does. It is not a crime for a child under 10 to cycle on the footway. It may or may not be an offence, but that is a different matter,

In what way is it "different"?

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 3:09:43 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

So do you reckon that it is possible to do cycle along a footway
non-wilfully?

Yes.

If so, please explain, and then you might wish to try to distinguish
whatever circumstance you dream up as between cyclists on the footway
and drivers on the footway (the offence covers both things, of course).

When I wrote that I was thinking specifically of a snow covered highway where the carriageway is indistinguishable from the footway. I later considered a rider who has lost control of their vehicle, such as when a motorist pulls out ahead of them without noticeable warning.

IOW, if it is possible to ride a bicycle along a footway other than
wilfully, why isn't the defence "I didn't mean to do it" available to
those who drive motorcycles or vans along the footway non-wilfully?

Think carefully...

when parliament has made it quite clear that children under 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility.

You are conflating the crime and the perpetrator. The crime is riding
on the footpath.

Parliament has not decided a child under 10 cannot commit an offence,
only that they cannot be found responsible for doing so.

I never claimed that Parliament had decided that a child under 10 cannot commit an offence.

Yes, you did.

You said so several posts back in this thread.

Did I? If I did I may have erred.

My claim was specific to a criminal offence.

"Children and Young Persons Act 1933
50 Age of criminal responsibility.
It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten
years can be guilty of any offence. "
It doesn't mean the crime goes away whether it be cycling on a
footpath or murder. It merely means the miscreant, if under 10,
cannot be brought to trial for the offence even when it is clear they
committed it.

Yes it does. It is not a crime for a child under 10 to cycle on the footway. It may or may not be an offence, but that is a different matter,

In what way is it "different"?

The child has not committed a crime. (Please keep up).

On 15/03/2015 19:14, wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 3:09:43 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

So do you reckon that it is possible to do cycle along a footway
non-wilfully?

Yes.

If so, please explain, and then you might wish to try to distinguish
whatever circumstance you dream up as between cyclists on the footway
and drivers on the footway (the offence covers both things, of course).

When I wrote that I was thinking specifically of a snow covered highway where the carriageway is indistinguishable from the footway.

In such a contrived "case" as that, you's also have to allow that an HGV
driver (perhaps one of those skip-hire drivers on piece work) might
"non-wilfully" do the same thing in snow.

It doesn't sound like much of a case, does it?

I later considered a rider who has lost control of their vehicle, such as when a motorist pulls out ahead of them without noticeable warning.

Indeed, just as a driver may mount a footway when the vehicle is out of
contriol (following a heart attack, for instance, or a violent swerve to
avoid a cyclist who has come across a traffic-light junction through a
red light).

IOW, if it is possible to ride a bicycle along a footway other than
wilfully, why isn't the defence "I didn't mean to do it" available to
those who drive motorcycles or vans along the footway non-wilfully?

Think carefully...

That was too hard, perhaps. Or maybe just too inconvenient.

when parliament has made it quite clear that children under 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility.

You are conflating the crime and the perpetrator. The crime is riding
on the footpath.

Parliament has not decided a child under 10 cannot commit an offence,
only that they cannot be found responsible for doing so.

I never claimed that Parliament had decided that a child under 10 cannot commit an offence.

Yes, you did.
You said so several posts back in this thread.

Did I? If I did I may have erred.

My claim was specific to a criminal offence.

And the distinction is... what?

"Children and Young Persons Act 1933
50 Age of criminal responsibility.
It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten
years can be guilty of any offence. "

"...*any* offence...".

It doesn't mean the crime goes away whether it be cycling on a
footpath or murder. It merely means the miscreant, if under 10,
cannot be brought to trial for the offence even when it is clear they
committed it.

Yes it does. It is not a crime for a child under 10 to cycle on the footway. It may or may not be an offence, but that is a different matter,

Where does the word "crime" (or the alternative, "criminal") appear in
the provision that you quoted above?

Please note that a chapter title or part number (Acts are usually
divided up into parts each containing a number of Sections) is not part
of the provision. It is simply an aid to navigation.

In what way is it "different"?

The child has not committed a crime. (Please keep up).

We were speaking of situations where it is not even in dispute that an
offence has been committed. Do keep up.

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 10:26:00 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Think carefully...

That was too hard, perhaps. Or maybe just too inconvenient.

Not hard or inconvenient. Simply a red herring from you. I have never said that a motor vehicle driver cannot drive on the footway non-wilfully.

[,,,]

My claim was specific to a criminal offence.

And the distinction is... what?

One is a criminal act, the other is not. Obviously.

"Children and Young Persons Act 1933
50 Age of criminal responsibility.
It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten
years can be guilty of any offence. "

"...*any* offence...".

It doesn't mean the crime goes away whether it be cycling on a
footpath or murder. It merely means the miscreant, if under 10,
cannot be brought to trial for the offence even when it is clear they
committed it.

Yes it does. It is not a crime for a child under 10 to cycle on the footway. It may or may not be an offence, but that is a different matter,

Where does the word "crime" (or the alternative, "criminal") appear in
the provision that you quoted above?

See above,

Please note that a chapter title or part number (Acts are usually
divided up into parts each containing a number of Sections) is not part
of the provision. It is simply an aid to navigation.

In what way is it "different"?

The child has not committed a crime. (Please keep up).

We were speaking of situations where it is not even in dispute that an
offence has been committed. Do keep up.

Still not criminal if committed by a child under 10.

On 15/03/2015 22:53, wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 10:26:00 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Think carefully...

That was too hard, perhaps. Or maybe just too inconvenient.

Not hard or inconvenient. Simply a red herring from you. I have never said that a motor vehicle driver cannot drive on the footway non-wilfully.

You have snipped far too much for any of the above to be understood in
correct context. Or any context.

[,,,]

My claim was specific to a criminal offence.

And the distinction is... what?

One is a criminal act, the other is not. Obviously.

And even if there were such a distinction to be drawn, what difference
would it make (especially bearing in mind the statutory provision you
quoted)?

"Children and Young Persons Act 1933
50 Age of criminal responsibility.
It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten
years can be guilty of any offence. "

"...*any* offence...".

[ ... ]

... It is not a crime for a child under 10 to cycle on the footway. It may or may not be an offence, but that is a different matter,

Where does the word "crime" (or the alternative, "criminal") appear in
the provision that you quoted above?

See above,

"Above" where?


What do you understand the phrase "any offence" to mean?

That it only means criminal offences? Or only non-criminal offences? Or
all offences whether you are pleased to call them "criminal" or not?

Or is there some other, even more far-fetched, definition you would
prefer to apply?

Please note that a chapter title or part number (Acts are usually
divided up into parts each containing a number of Sections) is not part
of the provision. It is simply an aid to navigation.

In what way is it "different"?

The child has not committed a crime. (Please keep up).

We were speaking of situations where it is not even in dispute that an
offence has been committed. Do keep up.

Still not criminal if committed by a child under 10.

Rubbish.

You've had all this explained to you.

Still thou mistakest.

Or else commit thy knaveries wilfully.

Murder isn't a crime if committed by a child under 10?

From whence do you say you derive this definition of "crime" being
dependent on the age of the offender?

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:20:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 4:44:44 PM UTC, Judith wrote:

If Parliament had wanted to permit one class of cyclists to use the pavements
then they would have made it clear in the law.

Are you claiming that parliament has not made it clear that a person under 10 is not committing a criminal offence by cycling on the pavement?

Why not comment on the post I actually made rather than what you think I made.
here it is again for you (I had forgotten your reading skills were so poor):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have already pointed out that what Boateng said was not "guidance"
whatsoever.

It has no legal basis whatsoever.

If Parliament had wanted to permit one class of cyclists to use the pavements
then they would have made it clear in the law.

They didn't.

It is illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavements.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Still checking windscreens for slime, are you?)

--

, Bertie Wooster/******'s real name is Tom Crispin.
He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people who were involved with
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists can't see what a tosser he is.
He is obsessed with the personal finances of other posters.
He is on step 2 of the stalking path.

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 20:25:48 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

snip


You stated 'there are no problems' I point out that you are wrong,
conflicts and crashes between cyclists and pedestrians on shared use
paths are common, some have even ended in fatalities, usually the
pedestrian.


I am sure that you are right - and I'd bet that the majority of such incidents
do not make it in to the accident stats

"Bod" wrote in message ...

On 14/03/2015 20:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:19, Bod wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:06, Bod wrote:
On 14/03/2015 16:44, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:43:41 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
wrote:

snip


You are only telling part of the story. Going by the guidance put
forward
by the two ministers, it seems clear that the intention of parliament
was
to give the police powers to deal with cyclists who cycle on the
pavement in a way which poses a danger or annoyance to pedestrians.

Paul Boateng specifically said that the law was not aimed at
'responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of
fear of
the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users', and
Robert Goodwill reiterated that guidance.


I have already pointed out that what Boateng said was not "guidance"
whatsoever.

It has no legal basis whatsoever.

If Parliament had wanted to permit one class of cyclists to use the
pavements
then they would have made it clear in the law.

They didn't.

It is illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavements.

Hope this helps.

Not on shared pathways, where, miraculously, there are no problems.
You're one of the drama queens in this ng.

there are problems, such as this one:
http://road.cc/content/news/75569-te...clist-southend



And how many people are killed or seriously injured by vehicles on the
roads every day?
You've found *one* instance. Not exactly carnage on shared pathways,
is it.


You stated 'there are no problems' I point out that you are wrong,
conflicts and crashes between cyclists and pedestrians on shared use
paths are common, some have even ended in fatalities, usually the
pedestrian.

You *are* a drama queen........ and ICMFP ;-)


Cyclists SOP. When losing an argument, always revert to
insults.http://www.theduckshoot.com/does-thi...-a-paedophile/

On 17/03/2015 10:53, Tarcap wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message ...

On 14/03/2015 20:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:19, Bod wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:06, Bod wrote:
On 14/03/2015 16:44, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:43:41 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
wrote:

snip


You are only telling part of the story. Going by the guidance put
forward
by the two ministers, it seems clear that the intention of
parliament
was
to give the police powers to deal with cyclists who cycle on the
pavement in a way which poses a danger or annoyance to pedestrians.

Paul Boateng specifically said that the law was not aimed at
'responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of
fear of
the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users',
and
Robert Goodwill reiterated that guidance.


I have already pointed out that what Boateng said was not "guidance"
whatsoever.

It has no legal basis whatsoever.

If Parliament had wanted to permit one class of cyclists to use the
pavements
then they would have made it clear in the law.

They didn't.

It is illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavements.

Hope this helps.

Not on shared pathways, where, miraculously, there are no problems.
You're one of the drama queens in this ng.

there are problems, such as this one:
http://road.cc/content/news/75569-te...clist-southend




And how many people are killed or seriously injured by vehicles on the
roads every day?
You've found *one* instance. Not exactly carnage on shared pathways,
is it.


You stated 'there are no problems' I point out that you are wrong,
conflicts and crashes between cyclists and pedestrians on shared use
paths are common, some have even ended in fatalities, usually the
pedestrian.

You *are* a drama queen........ and ICMFP ;-)


Cyclists SOP. When losing an argument, always revert to
insults.http://www.theduckshoot.com/does-thi...-a-paedophile/

I speak for my area, where even the police cyclists cycle on the path
sometimes. Nobody gets hurt or killed, nobody complains about these
friendly plods. It's actually refreshing that they mingle and chat with
people.