Loz

And wheat. And barley. And grapes. And cacti. Ban the lot.

Can we have a new section where lazy people just post links to outside articles with absolutely no comment attached? We could call it 'Reddit'.

But nicotine is not tobacco.

What do you use to record the images? Does it come with suitable software?

Pay edcam no notice - he/she is taking the p...

jfjgleeson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Except next year it could be a 'single floor' Quickfit or Tesco Metro! OK, enough hyperbole...

That's because even Blair knew that socialism doesn't get votes.

I know it's not been a great series for you lot, but that must have hurt. Second amazing Faulkner innings I've had the pleasure to have watched. The guy is perfect for last minute power hitting.

Is the computer industry really part of the 'creatives' set? Video games, yes, but the rest of us don't really seem to fit in the category.

1) Take hard disk out. Beat to death with a hammer 2) Flog the rest on eBay as spare parts/repair job.

El Pibe Wrote: -------------------------------------------------- > Hardly. Looks more like belittling some 0/10 > twattish trolling to me. That was the effect I was aiming for. The OP left him/her self wide open to a good belittling.

Naah. Wrong one, speedbird.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Promoting your business AND slagging off your potential clients .. in the same place. Ha ha. A 'professional illustrator' complaining about people being too middle class?? We'll have the Reiki practitioners complaining about hippies next.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do so many drivers want to kill me? They read the EDF?? :))

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't you work in some area of law Loz? Eh? No! Whatever gave you that idea? Besides, I know too many lawyer jokes ("not enough sand!! ha ha"). Usually I'm an IT consultant, though currently I'm on a career break and I'm a ski/snowboard instructor.

But surely once a FPN is issued, then it is a direct legal challenge to the Highways Act? That's the bit I don't get. You are asking the court to excuse you from infringing the terms of the law as it is written, because of a ministers policy, even though the letter of the law says you are in the wrong.

But surely 'failure to apply policy' is vastly different to a ministerial edict that conflicts with the law as it is written? Doesn't that come under separation of powers? This is an interesting topic - is anyone out there a barrister/criminal lawyer who can shed light on this?

> Sorry, I must be a hardcore cyclist then. I though that was a given? :)

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do love that clip, and the show it's taken from. I've posted it a couple of times in the past, but > some of the hardcore cyclists couldn't even see the funny ironic side of that. Is it from Monkey Dust? I loved that programme; it was so darkly brilliant and funny. But I don't remember ever seeing that one.

Interesting read, but mostly similar to stuff I've read of challenging parking tickets and traffic FPNs. The interesting paras were: The position is perhaps not entirely clear cut, but I suspect that the Home Office statement doesn?t affect the ability of the police to issue FPNs for cycling on the pavement. As I?ve said, generally the courts won?t interfere with prosecutorial decisions ? and that probably includes decisions to issue FPNs. If the decision to issue a FPN contravenes a clear policy, then in some cases the position might be different. But the Home Office statement seems far too general to amount to a clear policy on the issuing of FPNs to cyclists. (E.g. R (Mondelly) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, above, paras. 37-42) If I was a cyclist, I'd expect to know where I stand, not rely on some vague pronouncement by the transport minister that may or may not stand up in a court.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You claimed the description of a motor-vehicle as > lethal machinery was hyperbolic and emotive, I was > merely proving that it is an accurate description. Just because it is syntactically and technically correct (and I never said it wasn't), doesn't exclude it from being hyperbolic and emotive. It's a bit like the Daily Mail calling the MRSA 'a lethal drug' - technically correct, but woefully over-emotive.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A Ministerial statement is policy and policy is > law Loz, you should know that. I defer to your legal knowledge, LD, but does that actually stand up in a court of law? There have been plenty of ministerial statements and policies of late that have been challenged in court.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Definition of Lethal: > a : of, relating to, or causing death > b : capable of causing death > > Definition of machine: > : a piece of equipment with moving parts that does work when it is given power from electricity, > gasoline, etc. > : a vehicle (such as a car or motorcycle) Nice try at finding a definition of 'machine' to specifically exclude a bicycle, LD, but a bicycle is a machine as well. And can be - and is - lethal.

I disagree with politician 'issuing guidance' which actually contradicts the law as it is written. They should change the law if it needs changing. Saying that the law can be ignored sometimes leaves everyone not knowing what the true legal position is.

ultraburner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lady D is spot on; "lethal machinery" is a good description. No, 'lethal machinery' is one of those over-emotional phrases pressure groups like to use. They think it's terribly clever, whilst everyone else thinks they are being emotionally blackmailed and react accordingly. It's a bit like the posters in LD's post. Lots of cyclists will think they are terribly clever, but actually, the posters are just terrible... and more than a little amateurish. The last one in particular looked like it was done by someone using photoshop for the very first time. They fail to convey any succinct point. The only one that was anywhere near having a visual impact was the HGV one, but even then it can be seen in different ways (as I noted above). People (in general) won't respond to them.