Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Albrecht
Posts: 75
Joined: 26 Jul 2022, 8:47pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Albrecht »

Jdsk wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 3:29pmI'm not sure why legal procedure in the US is relevant.
What's the title for a court appointed or Legal Aid lawyer in the UK?

Obviously he was brought in for the manslaughter case and did not call in a cycling expert.
Albrecht wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 3:23pmNot that I am suggesting that your average American is a large, bad tempered, obstinate bovine creature, with poor eyesight and limited mobility.
Only 42% are.

Typical of America, the jaywalking Black man in the Bloomsberg story got hit with a cop's bullet and a 80+ year old Chinaman with one's night stick, not a car. I think the anti-jaywalking laws are more about protecting citizens from the police.

I read another BBC story recently, of a distinguished British historian, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, who tried to cross the road while in Atlanta, Georgia for the conference of the American Historical Association. He ended up having his kicked his legs from under him, pinned him to the ground by 5 cops, and his box of peppermints confiscated.

Good God, that's outrageous.

I mean, it's perfectly acceptable for 5 police officers to assault a historian and keep him in the cells for eight hours, but to steal a gentleman's peppermints ... how dare they!
Last edited by Albrecht on 8 Aug 2022, 8:16pm, edited 2 times in total.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by thirdcrank »

Jdsk wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 3:39pm
I think that's the review that I've cited several times:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ety-review

It includes a discussion of Alliston and of Porter's views. And that quote describing the anachronism comes from it.

Jonathan
Thanks for that. I've had a look at it but I cannot claim to have read it in any detail. It looks like a comprehensive review of the history of the subject, with more recent comments from what we now term stakeholders. I can't see that it takes things forward.

A few random notes on what I picked up:

Repeated references to observations that juries are reluctant to convict for manslaughter, with not much analysis of why that may be so. Strange that there seems to be little on that important issue. Did none on those eminent judges have an opinion or did they keep schtum?

Lawyers must use a different definition of "objective" to mine eg Para 6.7

Reference is made to the value of the Highway Code 14.6 without making the imo obvious suggestion that reference to the HC could be included in the statutory definition of the relevant offences. AIUI, that's the approach in some European jurisdictions.
==================================================

PS In view of the current state of traffic policing, I'm surprised she took submissions in that quarter. I suppose I'm surprised she found somebody who felt qualified to comment
cycle tramp
Posts: 3479
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by cycle tramp »

Albrecht wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 12:00pm
It's a particular type of aggressive, self-centred male that spoil things for everyone. I don't, however, know if you are one or responsible rider. They almost got us barred from towpaths for using them as their private velodrome.
If it helps its not limited to cycling, certainly back in my motorcycling days, there were a fair few, mostly on mid range and high performance sports motorcycles, which generally angered most other road users and if my memory recalls, a large amount of the daily mail and express readers of that time...
..if there is a plus side, its that these types get bored quickly and in a few years time, will be off to damage the reputation of another sector of humanity..

...equally however I do wonder if the industry itself isn't partly to blame... if the motorcycle industry didn't build racing bikes there would be nothing race on, and perhaps if the cycle industry focused on things like practically and service intervals, then we may have attracted a few less self centred (and possibly emotionally stunted?) bicycle users.
It's time to go :-)
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by mjr »

Jdsk wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 3:21pm
mjr wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 12:23pm
Bonefishblues wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 1:50pm
Mr Briggs patiently explained that he knew this was a very rare occurrence. His motivation is to try to reduce the impact, distress and confusion caused to the bereaved after the event because the CPS has to decide what and how to prosecute - and all they have is this anachronism to apply.
How is it anachronistic, please? It's not much like finding a smartphone in a Da Vinci drawing, is it?

Old law is not necessarily bad law. After all, the law currently in force that requires one to ride/drive on the left is from the 1830s. Or would you like us to be rid of [url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen3cc1415/52/1]the law forbidding roadside judgment of damages(section 15) (eg "you hit his car, so now must pay him £1000, by order of the police") and requiring such cases to be heard by a court (section 1), usually the defendant's county court (section 4), which is from the 1260s?
17.4:
The use of a historic offence aimed at carriage driving does not fit with the modern approach to road safety; it is difficult to define, is not objective in scope and does not allow for a transparent and consistent sentencing practice focused on culpability and harm. Moreover, the maximum sentence available does not appropriately reflect the harm in cases involving serious injury or death.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... report.PDF
Ah, it "does not fit with the modern approach to road safety" which seems to be to worry about absolute numbers rather than rates and to let the less vulnerable road user off with a slap on the wrist while the more vulnerable one lies in hospital or the morgue. So Pete Owens is right and Mr Shapps is arguing for greater leniency while trying to look the hard man to the gutter press.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by thirdcrank »

I've had another look at the review by Laura Thomas (as linked by Jdsk) and though superfically broad, I'd characterise it as shallow.

Unless my "Find on page" feature isn't working, this review makes no mention of the Law Commission review into the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and in particular its recommendations on the s 35 Furious Driving offence. I think that's what the learned friends call a regrettable lacuna.

The following is the the longest paragraph in the final section of this review headed "18 Impact."
Any change in legislation must consider its effect. Whilst this does not necessarily
fall within the scope of my brief and I am not carrying out a regulatory impact
assessment, there are some general comments I would make about impact. I
consider that this legislative change would have a positive effect on all road users.
As one barrister put it; “I would like to think that it [a change in legislation] would
have a positive impact purely and simply on the basis of cyclists being well aware
that if they were to ride in a careless or dangerous manner and were unfortunate
enough to kill someone they know they are going to be up against it...I would like to
think that it would have a positive impact for people to think 'I am going to slow
down, I'm not going to do anything stupid because actually it could be me putting
myself before the court system.’”
One way and another, the author has avoided the big issue ie that the system as a whole contrives to avoid making drivers think in the way suggested in that final sentence. Not part of the brief, of course, so it can conveniently be ignored. But why throw in the bit I've quoted "which does not necessarily fall within the scope of my brief."

I find it hard to avoid the feeling that this "independent" review was guided by the predetermined conclusion that new "dangerous driving" offences were needed. Without saying anything to rattle drivers
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

thirdcrank wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 7:17pm...
One way and another, the author has avoided the big issue ie that the system as a whole contrives to avoid making drivers think in the way suggested in that final sentence. Not part of the brief, of course, so it can conveniently be ignored. But why throw in the bit I've quoted "which does not necessarily fall within the scope of my brief."
...
Because she wanted to mention the possible effect on impacts and considered it relevant at that point in the review. Including "the system as a whole" on the other hand would be massively outside the scope of what she was asked to do.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

thirdcrank wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 7:17pmI find it hard to avoid the feeling that this "independent" review was guided by the predetermined conclusion that new "dangerous driving" offences were needed.
Why the quotation marks around independent? What are you suggesting?

Thanks

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by thirdcrank »

Had I been writing that, I'd have begun with an explanation of where I was heading, rather than pull it out of the hat at the very end.

People have blamed Grant Schapps for this but it was commissioned by an earlier nonentity (shurely junior transport minister) with responsibility for cycling. Jesse Norman.

Except for the fact that it pulls together a lot of material I think the value of that document in minimal. Putting it at its highest.
==================================================
PS Re "independent"

It can mean different things. In this context I think it means it's not been completed by a government employee. I see from the writer's credentials that they are something of an insider. I suspect it's used by the transport ministry here as a title because it adds superficial credibility to their document
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

thirdcrank wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 7:17pm ...
I find it hard to avoid the feeling that this "independent" review was guided by the predetermined conclusion that new "dangerous driving" offences were needed. Without saying anything to rattle drivers
Jdsk wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 7:30pmWhy the quotation marks around independent? What are you suggesting?
thirdcrank wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 7:43pmPS Re "independent"

It can mean different things. In this context I think it means it's not been completed by a government employee. I see from the writer's credentials that they are something of an insider. I suspect it's used by the transport ministry here as a title because it adds superficial credibility to their document
Thanks.

But I wasn't asking what independent can mean or why the government used that word for this review. I was asking why you had put it in quotation marks.

If I'd put it in quotation marks in that way I'd expect the reader to conclude that I was saying that it wasn't independent.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

thirdcrank wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 7:43pmExcept for the fact that it pulls together a lot of material I think the value of that document in minimal. Putting it at its highest.
I found its assembly of the current state of the law, analysis of recent cases and opinions of experts to be very helpful.

You had raised the reluctance to convict on charges of manslaughter. The report addresses that precise problem with a feasible solution.

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by thirdcrank »

Jdsk wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 7:49pm
Thanks.

But I wasn't asking what independent can mean or why the government used that word for this review. I was asking why you had put it in quotation marks.

If I'd put it in quotation marks in that way I'd expect the reader to conclude that I was saying that it wasn't independent.

Jonathan
And thanks in turn for your opinion.

If I my return to the "Impact" section I quoted above. The review includes various comments from practitioners about the procedural problems connected with eg s 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, manslaughter, and the absence of an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling and fair enough. For an anonymous barrister to opine qua barrister on their hopes for the result of legislation seems to me improper. imo They are using their professional standing to give credibility to their opinions as eg dog walkers, whatever. OTOH Martin Porter QC presents himself openly as a cyclist.
Albrecht
Posts: 75
Joined: 26 Jul 2022, 8:47pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Albrecht »

cycle tramp wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 4:38pmIf it helps its not limited to cycling, certainly back in my motorcycling days, there were a fair few
Oh, yes. For several decades. I was one.

But I'd say it's a slightly different crew on bikes, more like 'roid rage gym rats.

Mods and Rockers was where the whole idea of "Moral Panics and Folk Devils" solidified, and become part of sociology (Stanley Cohen, 1972). This was/is a case of a moral panic over a virtually non-existent folk devil.
...equally however I do wonder if the industry itself isn't partly to blame...
I think so. It's been dominated by a similar mentality on the product design, marketing and especially at the retail chain level focused on performance, or pretend performance, over the last 40 years until recently, rather than solid or classy transport like the Dutch, German, Japanese etc bikes still. But that's a long discussion for a different topic about the history of changing image of cyclists and cycling.
Albrecht
Posts: 75
Joined: 26 Jul 2022, 8:47pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Albrecht »

thirdcrank wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 8:04pmFor an anonymous barrister to opine qua barrister on their hopes for the result of legislation seems to me improper. imo
Dare say someone will explain it better for me but it often comes across that the mentality of legal practitioners is one of deliberately creating compromised situations that they can all exploit at a later date, while billing copiously for it.

I remember an archaic definition of sophistication which came out as something like "unnecessary complication". I've had the misfortune to have to deal with a few and they appeared to be resistant of the most simple, straightforward and bleedingly obvious.

I hold out no good hope for any development. As a good rule, things just get worse so best to leave alone as much as possible.
A man walked into a bar with his alligator and asked the bartender, "Do you serve lawyers here?".
"Sure do," replied the bartender.
"Good," said the man. "Give me a beer, and I'll have a lawyer for my 'gator."
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

Albrecht wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 8:47pm
thirdcrank wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 8:04pmFor an anonymous barrister to opine qua barrister on their hopes for the result of legislation seems to me improper. imo
Dare say someone will explain it better for me but it often comes across that the mentality of legal practitioners is one of deliberately creating compromised situations that they can all exploit at a later date, while billing copiously for it.
I recommend reading the report. As above I found it a very useful summary and explanation of many of the issues discussed in this thread.

Jonathan

PS: And there are many examples of improvements to legislation, both ancient and modern. And there's a school of thought describing how more of the freedoms that we now take for granted came about through courts than through big politics.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by thirdcrank »

I have now read the report, although I didn't pay much attention to the stuff about other countries which just seemed to be make-weight.

I used the "find on page" for the Law Commission stuff just to confirm that I hadn't seen anything about it while reading. Apart from the obvious significance of that to this subject, it must call into question the thoroughness of the rest. It seems comprehensive, but how is anybody to be sure?

I suppose on fundamental thing is that different ministries have their fingers in the pie. Presumably, assault is under the aegis - whatever that is - of the Home Office, while the transport ministry wants to control the road traffic act.
Post Reply