The law is the law

walkingbootweather

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

I for one will sleep safely in my bed knowing there will be zero tolerance for such miscreant behaviour. :roll:

meanredspider

I sometime despair about the judgement of some of our coppers. This is ridiculous.

I was stopped a few years ago for speeding on an empty (I mean, completely empty in both directions) section of the A9 dual near Inverness. In the car with me was my 13 year old son. We'd been in Glasgow (180 miles away) for a month where my son had an 11-hour operation, he was (newly) wheelchair bound, and had just finished a 3-day session on chemotherapy. He needed the toilet. After listening to the officers in the car, I admitted that I'd been going too quickly but explained, without making excuses, the situation with my son. They said they'd put it in the report. A speeding ticket turned up. When I asked the procurator fiscal if they'd taken the situation into account, they said they'd been nothing in the report about my son. They dropped the ticket as "not being in the public interest" (an English traffic police friend said they'd have been crapping themselves about a headline of "Cops Pull Dad in Cancer Mercy Dash")

Ian.B

What annoys me is the police turning up in force to enforce stopping at ASL junctions in the rush hour, all standing by their van which is parked on the pavement for the duration.

rick_chasey

Stupid law.

pblakeney

No laws for under 10s.

Big_Paul

Compare that to our local plod, we have a public transport strike and the cops say they WILL NOT be enforcing bus lanes, the law remains but they won't enforce it.

Belfast will be a dangerous pace to cycle on Friday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-31813576

The Rookie

PBlakeney wrote:

No laws for under 10s.

Yes there are, being below the age of criminal responsibility doesn't make the act legal - when trying to be knowledgeable its best to have some knowledge!

Of course from that bland and one sided report we don't know what actually happened and I suspect it's quite likely the officers version tells a different story, but of course the press won't wait for the second side and it will probably then be a non story.

For example she may have been riding some way away from the parents, riding in a reckless manner amongst similar aged young children and the parents reacted negatively when asked to keep her riding a bit more sensible, that would still fit the reported 'facts' without the hyperbole.

pblakeney

Y

The Rookie wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

No laws for under 10s.

Yes there are, being below the age of criminal responsibility doesn't make the act legal - when trying to be knowledgeable its best to have some knowledge!

Of course from that bland and one sided report we don't know what actually happened and I suspect it's quite likely the officers version tells a different story, but of course the press won't wait for the second side and it will probably then be a non story.

For example she may have been riding some way away from the parents, riding in a reckless manner amongst similar aged young children and the parents reacted negatively when asked to keep her riding a bit more sensible, that would still fit the reported 'facts' without the hyperbole.

Being below the age of responsibility may not make the act legal but it does make the law redundant.
I made a short comment that I didn't think needed full explanation. Fill in the blanks at your convenience.

Your story may fit the reports but it certainly adds hyperbole.

rick_chasey

The Rookie wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

No laws for under 10s.

Yes there are, being below the age of criminal responsibility doesn't make the act legal - when trying to be knowledgeable its best to have some knowledge!

Of course from that bland and one sided report we don't know what actually happened and I suspect it's quite likely the officers version tells a different story, but of course the press won't wait for the second side and it will probably then be a non story.

For example she may have been riding some way away from the parents, riding in a reckless manner amongst similar aged young children and the parents reacted negatively when asked to keep her riding a bit more sensible, that would still fit the reported 'facts' without the hyperbole.

If a 10 yr old is tearing it up there's still no reason to get police involved.

It's a stupid law that no-one can cycle on the pavement.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's a stupid law that no-one can cycle on the pavement.

Rick wants to ride on the pavement.
Does the big bad road scare you?

awavey

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

No laws for under 10s.

Yes there are, being below the age of criminal responsibility doesn't make the act legal - when trying to be knowledgeable its best to have some knowledge!

Of course from that bland and one sided report we don't know what actually happened and I suspect it's quite likely the officers version tells a different story, but of course the press won't wait for the second side and it will probably then be a non story.

For example she may have been riding some way away from the parents, riding in a reckless manner amongst similar aged young children and the parents reacted negatively when asked to keep her riding a bit more sensible, that would still fit the reported 'facts' without the hyperbole.

If a 10 yr old is tearing it up there's still no reason to get police involved.

It's a stupid law that no-one can cycle on the pavement.

well for kids under 10 maybe,but I took slight issue with the overgrown ninja clothed youth barrelling towards me in the dark on the pavement the other week, felt smidgen bit bad after I swore very loudly at him when he apologised....but still if he wants to ride his mtb round at night, he should get some lights and be on the road, or not ride like a complete <insert expletive> around people walking on the pavement.

meanredspider

Whatever the situation, it's a lot of fuss about nothing. Seriously, what harm is a little kid going to do anyway? I thought it was interesting the discussion on R4 the other day (Safe Streets guy and Stop Killing Cyclists guy IIRC) The latter pointed out that one pedestrian had been killed by a cyclist in the last 4 years versus 3000 cyclists in the last year killed or seriously injured on the roads. You're something like 400x more likely to be killed than to kill a pedestrian. So we should keep everything in proportion.

The Rookie

PBlakeney wrote:

Y

The Rookie wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

No laws for under 10s.

Yes there are, being below the age of criminal responsibility doesn't make the act legal - when trying to be knowledgeable its best to have some knowledge!

Of course from that bland and one sided report we don't know what actually happened and I suspect it's quite likely the officers version tells a different story, but of course the press won't wait for the second side and it will probably then be a non story.

For example she may have been riding some way away from the parents, riding in a reckless manner amongst similar aged young children and the parents reacted negatively when asked to keep her riding a bit more sensible, that would still fit the reported 'facts' without the hyperbole.

Being below the age of responsibility may not make the act legal but it does make the law redundant.
I made a short comment that I didn't think needed full explanation. Fill in the blanks at your convenience.

Your story may fit the reports but it certainly adds hyperbole.

The law may well be redundant, and that would have been accurate, saying no laws wasn't true (Jamie Bulger incident springing to mind).

Personally I'd be in favour of changing the law to allow younger people to ride on the pavement, upto say 10 (end of primary school give or take) with some applied restrictions to make it sensible, the law on footpath use (pavement is the wrong expression, as the road is a pavement after all) is very out of date, as strictly speaking pushchairs and prams aren't allowed either.

First.Aspect

I learned to ride my bike on the pavement and in the park, like every other kid in the 70s and 80s.

The circumstances were that the child was riding at walking pace, on a "leash" held by her father. Take a look at the photos of her bike in the press. Its virtually a toy.

The statute was drafted together with guidance. The guidance is supposed to give some meaning to the wording and application of the statute. If it is then applied contrary to the guidance, it is not being applied correctly. So, bluntly, not a simple as "the law is the law". Had this gone to court, even setting aside the child's age, there is a high probability that it would have been dismissed. So I do not accept that the policeman was simply doing his job and applying the law.

The PC applied utterly no judgement whatsoever in this case and his force has now apologised to the family.

The Rookie

First Aspect wrote:

The circumstances were that the child was riding at walking pace, on a "leash" held by her father. Take a look at the photos of her bike in the press. Its virtually a toy.

In the stage managed photo for the benefit of the story yes, how you know it was at the time of the incident is beyond me, of course the press and people with a vested interest never lie do they?

First Aspect wrote:

The statute was drafted together with guidance. The guidance is supposed to give some meaning to the wording and application of the statute. If it is then applied contrary to the guidance, it is not being applied correctly. So, bluntly, not a simple as "the law is the law". Had this gone to court, even setting aside the child's age, there is a high probability that it would have been dismissed. So I do not accept that the policeman was simply doing his job and applying the law.

Totally wrong on two grounds, guidance issued by government departments is often actually incorrect and has to be modified as it conflicts with what the law actually says (yes the departments get it wrong), it also doesn't over ride the law anyway.

Secondly the guidance issued was for the issuing of fixed penalties, as none was issued it wasn't contrary to guidance.

Next you'll be saying the national enquirer is a serious piece of investigative journalism, in reality we don't know what happened and you are being gullible enough to believe one side of events from a hardly unbiased source written by a journalist who wants to sell papers, me I prefer to wait for facts, but if you want to have a vigilante justice I'll hang you now for getting your response wrong, I presume you'll be fine with that?

pblakeney

"Lincolnshire Police apologised and said: "Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal.

"However, common sense obviously prevails and in the case of young children officers should use their discretion and offer the most appropriate advice for the circumstances.""

We need draw no more conclusions.

First.Aspect

The Rookie wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

The circumstances were that the child was riding at walking pace, on a "leash" held by her father. Take a look at the photos of her bike in the press. Its virtually a toy.

In the stage managed photo for the benefit of the story yes, how you know it was at the time of the incident is beyond me, of course the press and people with a vested interest never lie do they?

First Aspect wrote:

The statute was drafted together with guidance. The guidance is supposed to give some meaning to the wording and application of the statute. If it is then applied contrary to the guidance, it is not being applied correctly. So, bluntly, not a simple as "the law is the law". Had this gone to court, even setting aside the child's age, there is a high probability that it would have been dismissed. So I do not accept that the policeman was simply doing his job and applying the law.

Totally wrong on two grounds, guidance issued by government departments is often actually incorrect and has to be modified as it conflicts with what the law actually says (yes the departments get it wrong), it also doesn't over ride the law anyway.

Secondly the guidance issued was for the issuing of fixed penalties, as none was issued it wasn't contrary to guidance.

Next you'll be saying the national enquirer is a serious piece of investigative journalism, in reality we don't know what happened and you are being gullible enough to believe one side of events from a hardly unbiased source written by a journalist who wants to sell papers, me I prefer to wait for facts, but if you want to have a vigilante justice I'll hang you now for getting your response wrong, I presume you'll be fine with that?

Mate, it was the same bike. The child was 4 years old. 4 ffs.

My understanding is that because we are in a common law system and court decisions set precedence, if the guidance is constantly ignored, it has to be changed because the law has become the interpretation as applied in the courts. In this case, the courts have confirmed that the guidance does still apply and the statute should be interpreted in light of the guidance.

Had the father and said 4 year old continued, the PC would have issued a FPN. You are therefore I think mistaken in arguing that just because he didn't actually apply an unreasonable FPN but merely caused a member of the public to stop doing something under the threat of doing so, the PC hadn't misapplied the law. The law was applied inappropriately in this case, because that member of the public faced a choice of changing a reasonable behaviour or being fined for it. The mis-application of the law caused that change of behaviour.

First.Aspect

Oh, and laws are drafted by parliament. That's what its there for. The guidance notes are also drafted by parliament.

Not a "government department".

But I agree that the national enquirer is not a serious news outlet.

greg66_tri_v2.0

The Rookie wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

The circumstances were that the child was riding at walking pace, on a "leash" held by her father. Take a look at the photos of her bike in the press. Its virtually a toy.

In the stage managed photo for the benefit of the story yes, how you know it was at the time of the incident is beyond me, of course the press and people with a vested interest never lie do they?

First Aspect wrote:

The statute was drafted together with guidance. The guidance is supposed to give some meaning to the wording and application of the statute. If it is then applied contrary to the guidance, it is not being applied correctly. So, bluntly, not a simple as "the law is the law". Had this gone to court, even setting aside the child's age, there is a high probability that it would have been dismissed. So I do not accept that the policeman was simply doing his job and applying the law.

Totally wrong on two grounds, guidance issued by government departments is often actually incorrect and has to be modified as it conflicts with what the law actually says (yes the departments get it wrong), it also doesn't over ride the law anyway.

Secondly the guidance issued was for the issuing of fixed penalties, as none was issued it wasn't contrary to guidance.

Next you'll be saying the national enquirer is a serious piece of investigative journalism, in reality we don't know what happened and you are being gullible enough to believe one side of events from a hardly unbiased source written by a journalist who wants to sell papers, me I prefer to wait for facts, but if you want to have a vigilante justice I'll hang you now for getting your response wrong, I presume you'll be fine with that?

Don't be such a tw@t.

The Rookie

First Aspect wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

The circumstances were that the child was riding at walking pace, on a "leash" held by her father. Take a look at the photos of her bike in the press. Its virtually a toy.

In the stage managed photo for the benefit of the story yes, how you know it was at the time of the incident is beyond me, of course the press and people with a vested interest never lie do they?

First Aspect wrote:

The statute was drafted together with guidance. The guidance is supposed to give some meaning to the wording and application of the statute. If it is then applied contrary to the guidance, it is not being applied correctly. So, bluntly, not a simple as "the law is the law". Had this gone to court, even setting aside the child's age, there is a high probability that it would have been dismissed. So I do not accept that the policeman was simply doing his job and applying the law.

Totally wrong on two grounds, guidance issued by government departments is often actually incorrect and has to be modified as it conflicts with what the law actually says (yes the departments get it wrong), it also doesn't over ride the law anyway.

Secondly the guidance issued was for the issuing of fixed penalties, as none was issued it wasn't contrary to guidance.

Next you'll be saying the national enquirer is a serious piece of investigative journalism, in reality we don't know what happened and you are being gullible enough to believe one side of events from a hardly unbiased source written by a journalist who wants to sell papers, me I prefer to wait for facts, but if you want to have a vigilante justice I'll hang you now for getting your response wrong, I presume you'll be fine with that?

Mate, it was the same bike. The child was 4 years old. 4 ffs.

My understanding is that because we are in a common law system and court decisions set precedence, if the guidance is constantly ignored, it has to be changed because the law has become the interpretation as applied in the courts. In this case, the courts have confirmed that the guidance does still apply and the statute should be interpreted in light of the guidance.

Had the father and said 4 year old continued, the PC would have issued a FPN. You are therefore I think mistaken in arguing that just because he didn't actually apply an unreasonable FPN but merely caused a member of the public to stop doing something under the threat of doing so, the PC hadn't misapplied the law. The law was applied inappropriately in this case, because that member of the public faced a choice of changing a reasonable behaviour or being fined for it. The mis-application of the law caused that change of behaviour.

This is all ONE side of the story, I didn't say it wasn't the same child on the same bike I said it was s staged photo, people seem to have trouble reading what I write and interpreting it to mean something clearly not said!

And guidance is not WRITTEN by parliament it is written by government departments, there have been many cases where the guidance issued is wrong in law and had to be corrected.

Manc33

Papers please.

Check out "Community Support vs. Real Police" (Mitchell & Webb) can't post it, has swearing.

pblakeney

The Rookie wrote:

This is all ONE side of the story

Can't you read?
The Police force in question have already apologised for the idiot policeman's actions.
Accept that he acted like a muppet.

meanredspider

The Highway Code is the most obvious example of guidance. In this case though I think it is wrong (correct maybe but wrong) in that is clearly states you must not cycle on footpaths.

As for this specific case, I obviously wasn't there but I can't think of any reason why the Police would have needed to get involved except maybe in a situation where the child was in danger. If I'd have been the father in this instance, I'd simply have ignored the PC to see where it led.

First.Aspect

Right, okay, I was talking about the introductory parts of statues and, now that I think of it, some EU legislation. You are talking about guidance notes equivalent for example to planning guidance. So, yes a government department run by parliament does draft those. However I still understand that those are "correct" until they aren't. Rookie seems to think that they should somehow be discarded, ignored or merely regarded as optional, becuase sometimes they are changed.

Guidance can be re-issued if the law isn't working as parliament intended. Guidance can change if the law is being applied in the courts consistently in contradiction to it.

In this case, we are talking about neither of these. The guidance in question was issued in a letter (and has subsequently been re-iterated) by a minister who is ultimately in charge of all policing. The guidance echoes the sentiments of a consultation paper, based on which parliament voted to change the law in 1999 to allow a middle ground of FPNs in the interests of "flexibility" of enforcement.

The application of a FPN is supposed to satisfy, amongst other things, the "public interest test" applied by the court (guidance in relation to which, I understand, is prepared by the CPS). To the best I can understand this situation, therefore, the letter from the said minister was an attempt to articulate that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute (or apply a FPN, which in theory requires the same evidentiary standard) cyclists who take to the footway for fear of their own safety.

"The law" in the UK is not just what is written in an act of paraliament. It is (although I may be corrected here) the totality of how justice is applied. In the case of a statute, it is the written word, plus the application of it in practice. For a tort like murder, "the law" is the collection of caselaw to say that it is against the law to mirder someone, but it is not codeified in any statute.

I also maintain that you have to be catastrophically out of touch with reality to regard a 4 year girl old riding a bike with stabilizers at a walking pace to be a threat to safety, or that it would be in any way in the public interest to prosecute either the child or their parents for doing so. If it isn't in the public interest, the law hasn't been applied correctly.

Rookie can we next have your thoughts why Hitler was actually a good bloke?

The Rookie

PBlakeney wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

This is all ONE side of the story

Can't you read?
The Police force in question have already apologised for the idiot policeman's actions.
Accept that he acted like a muppet.

Yes I can read, and they often do, even if they've done nothing wrong, it's called PR.

Remember when the Met said De Menezes was shot after hurdling the barrier and running for the train as well?

First.Aspect

The Rookie wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

This is all ONE side of the story

Can't you read?
The Police force in question have already apologised for the idiot policeman's actions.
Accept that he acted like a muppet.

Yes I can read, and they often do, even if they've done nothing wrong, it's called PR.

Remember when the Met said De Menezes was shot after hurdling the barrier and running for the train as well?

Words fail me.

rick_chasey

You lot are all complicating it.

Police don't need to get invoked with a child riding a bike on the pavement.


If the law says they should it's a stupid law and should be changed.

End of.

Manc33

This falls under Statute Law which requires consent of the governed to be enforceable.

Ergo you can't just "get done" under it, you do yourself because you don't know legalese, or that there even is another legal language they use against you.

The law isn't the law, only if it is Common Law, involving unlawful crimes.

Something has to be unlawful to constitute it being a crime. Everything else that falls under "Statute Law" isn't unlawful or criminal, because no harm or loss is caused to any third parties. For example you not wearing your seatbelt in your car you paid for driving on roads you paid for with a VED you paid for and only you are involved with it. How many people know you can just tell the cop to stop harassing you and you won't be accepting any offers or forming a contract with him? Thats what it is, an offer to admit your "guilt", you don't have to. Why do you think you always have to sign something too, in these situations, because if you didn't they couldn't prosecute you. You signing it is the only reason they can and it is not unlawful to refuse to sign, you only have to ask that one basic question, did anyone come to any harm or loss.

Then we get the usual "You could fly through the windscreen and hurt someone" when they can't even show one case of it happening. As with a lot of laws then it is based on "what if" as opposed to actual crime. For a start you can't be prosecuted for not doing something. Impossible, unless you buy into the Statute Law crap and basically incriminate yourself, that's the real crime, not even knowing this stuff.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

This falls under Statute Law which requires consent of the governed to be enforceable.

Ergo you can't just "get done" under it, you do yourself because you don't know legalese, or that there even is another legal language they use against you.

The law isn't the law, only if it is Common Law, involving unlawful crimes.

Something has to be unlawful to constitute it being a crime. Everything else that falls under "Statute Law" isn't unlawful or criminal, because no harm or loss is caused to any third parties. For example you not wearing your seatbelt in your car you paid for driving on roads you paid for with a VED you paid for and only you are involved with it. How many people know you can just tell the cop to stop harassing you and you won't be accepting any offers or forming a contract with him? Thats what it is, an offer to admit your "guilt", you don't have to. Why do you think you always have to sign something too, in these situations, because if you didn't they couldn't prosecute you. You signing it is the only reason they can and it is not unlawful to refuse to sign, you only have to ask that one basic question, did anyone come to any harm or loss.

Then we get the usual "You could fly through the windscreen and hurt someone" when they can't even show one case of it happening. As with a lot of laws then it is based on "what if" as opposed to actual crime. For a start you can't be prosecuted for not doing something. Impossible, unless you buy into the Statute Law crap and basically incriminate yourself, that's the real crime, not even knowing this stuff.

And you can fuck right off, with your arrant Freeman on the Land bullsh!t nonsense. Go on, off you fuck.

Manc33

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

And you can fark right off, with your arrant Freeman on the Land bullsh!t nonsense. Go on, off you fark.

I am talking about the differences between Common Law and Statute Law.

God knows what you're talking about.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

And you can fark right off, with your arrant Freeman on the Land bullsh!t nonsense. Go on, off you fark.

I am talking about the differences between Common Law and Statute Law.

No, you're talking sh!t.