Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post Reply
Bonefishblues
Posts: 10977
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Bonefishblues »

mjr wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 12:23pm
Bonefishblues wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 1:50pm
awavey wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 12:34pm I mean no one complains that the laws on being drunk on a highway actually source from the 1872 licensing act do they ?
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

Ask Mr Briggs
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 »

Bonefishblues wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 1:37pm
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 the law forbidding roadside judgment of damages

Ask Mr Briggs
Mr Briggs seems incorrect in many ways, some understandable after what he's been through.

Nevertheless, I suggest not repeating his wild assertions unless one is willing to support them. The laws on manslaughter and furious driving are not anachronistic and should be applied rigorously to all drivers and riders. The current special-case law giving greater leniency to motorists is what's anachronistic, coming from the "car as god" late 1900s, and should be reformed.
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.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 10977
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Bonefishblues »

mjr wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 1:49pm
Bonefishblues wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 1:37pm
mjr wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 12:23pm
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 the law forbidding roadside judgment of damages

Ask Mr Briggs
Mr Briggs seems incorrect in many ways, some understandable after what he's been through.

Nevertheless, I suggest not repeating his wild assertions unless one is willing to support them. The laws on manslaughter and furious driving are not anachronistic and should be applied rigorously to all drivers and riders. The current special-case law giving greater leniency to motorists is what's anachronistic, coming from the "car as god" late 1900s, and should be reformed.
Thank you for your advice. Humbly, I will ignore it since he seemed the very epitome of rationality when being interviewed and I really don't hold with trying to suppress information honestly given, simply because one might not agree with it.
pete75
Posts: 16356
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by pete75 »

Bonefishblues wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 1:37pm
Ask Mr Briggs
The best comment I've seen about the Alliston/Briggs case.

https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/e ... es-3568550
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

pete75 wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 2:16pm The best comment I've seen about the Alliston/Briggs case.

https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/e ... es-3568550
It's hard to believe that the author has read the sentencing remarks:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... liston.pdf

And it reads as if he or she might also have misunderstood "right of way".

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

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Albrecht »

Bonefishblues wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 2:10pmThank you for your advice. Humbly, I will ignore it since he seemed the very epitome of rationality when being interviewed and I really don't hold with trying to suppress information honestly given, simply because one might not agree with it.
I've never once heard him admit that and say that, rationally, if only she'd used the pedestrian crossing instead of trying to run out in front of traffic, none of this and all the appending costs and distractions would have happened.

Or argue for jaywalking laws, which would also reduce far more pedestrian deaths.

Why aren't we discussing that? The UK's a radical outlier in that aspect.
Jdsk wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 2:22pmIt's hard to believe that the author has read the sentencing remarks:
I'd read it. But also I'm mindful that ours is an adversarial legal system not one which decide what it "right", unlike others on the continent, and what counts is what it presented, and how things are argued out in court. He didn't have expert representation of his own, so I'm not sure it's entirely right.

Long ago, long before Alley-catting, I road a real old fashioned racing bike on the road (it did actually have a front brake). Personally, I thought it was unsafe for road use, and sold it on quickly. Thankfully, the fad for fixes appears to have died down.

The whole thing, including the judge's summary, is all a bit "mods and rockers" all over again.
Last edited by Albrecht on 8 Aug 2022, 2:44pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 10977
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Bonefishblues »

Albrecht wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 2:25pm
Bonefishblues wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 2:10pmThank you for your advice. Humbly, I will ignore it since he seemed the very epitome of rationality when being interviewed and I really don't hold with trying to suppress information honestly given, simply because one might not agree with it.
Not really. It's just a well honed facade. He's been going through the 5 stages of grieving in public, and in his denial just can't admit it was all his wife's own fault.

I've never once heard him admit that and say that, rationally, if only she'd used the pedestrian crossing instead of trying to run out in front of traffic, none of this and all the appending costs and distractions would have happened.

Or argue for jaywalking laws, which would also reduce far more pedestrian deaths.

Why aren't we discussing that? The UK's a radical outlier in that aspect.
Yesterday you couldn't remember their surname, today your expertise and insight mave significantly developed, I must say.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

Albrecht wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 2:25pm
Bonefishblues wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 2:22pmIt's hard to believe that the author has read the sentencing remarks:
I'd read it. But also I'm mindful that ours is an adversarial legal system not one which decide what it "right", unlike others on the continent, and what counts is what it presented, and how things are argued out in court. He didn't have expert representation of his own, so I'm not sure it's entirely right.
...
Alliston was defended by Mark Wyeth, QC.
"Mark is a highly persuasive jury advocate and leader in the fields of murder and manslaughter cases involving complex law and young defendants."
https://www.5pb.co.uk/print/pdf/node/161

Porter's expert commentary includes serious concerns about the prosecution but makes no suggestion of lack of expertise in the defence.
https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/201 ... trial.html

To the best of my knowledge there was no appeal.

Jonathan
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20697
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Vorpal »

Jaywalking laws are at best, impractical in the UK, where pedestrians have a legal right to use public rights of way, such as roads and paths. Only special roads, such as motorways, place limitations upon these rights.

Also, Jaywalking laws don't help pedestrians. If they did, the US would have a better pedestrian safety record.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eets-safer
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by thirdcrank »

It's possible to debate the meaning of "anachronism" but the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 as a whole is antiquated, out-of-date, no longer fit for purpose and overdue for revision. Evidence of this includes the fact that the Law Commission has been labouring away for ages trying to revise it.

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/offences-agai ... -violence/

As I've posted before, they'd decided to recommend the retention of the s 35 offence, presumably reworded, but that was before the Alliston case so they may have had a further review or not. There's no clock on this type of thing

Again as I've posted before, this act wasn't new in 1861 but merely a consolidation of the bits and pieces of different legislation then
separately in force on the subject. Put another way, this Act was never an integrated whole,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_ ... _Acts_1861
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

mjr wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 12:23pm
Bonefishblues wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 1:50pm
awavey wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 12:34pm I mean no one complains that the laws on being drunk on a highway actually source from the 1872 licensing act do they ?
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

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

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Albrecht »

Vorpal wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 3:01pmAlso, Jaywalking laws don't help pedestrians. If they did, the US would have a better pedestrian safety record.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eets-safer
Quite to the contrary, can you imagine how many more times worse pedestrian safety records would be, had they not had jaywalking laws.

It'd be worse than the problems they have with bison in the national parks.

Not that I am suggesting that your average American is a large, bad tempered, obstinate bovine creature, with poor eyesight and limited mobility.
Jdsk wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 2:54pmAlliston was defended by Mark Wyeth, QC.
"Mark is a highly persuasive jury advocate and leader in the fields of murder and manslaughter cases involving complex law and young defendants."
https://www.5pb.co.uk/print/pdf/node/161
But not road traffic cycling incidents. It was noted at the time, they didn't call an expert witness.

As your own given second link confirms,
"There is no record that Alliston had his own expert to give evidence or that the risk of tipping over the handlebars was considered."
Wyeth was the equivalent of a public defender in the USA.
Last edited by Albrecht on 8 Aug 2022, 3:42pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

Albrecht wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 3:23pm Wyeth was the equivalent of a public defender in the USA.
I'm not sure why legal procedure in the US is relevant.

Wyeth was a QC at the time of the trial. In many states of the USA there are many less experienced lawyers acting as public defenders. That wouldn't be "equivalent".

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

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by thirdcrank »

Here's Mark Wyeth's entry about himself.

https://www.wtchambers.com/mark-wyeth

Although it's anonymised (?) I presume the "Bike Boy" case refers to this one.
2017 saw Mark defending in the very high profile ‘bike boy’ case [R –v- X] at the Central Criminal Court (‘Old Bailey’) in which he secured an acquittal for manslaughter for his client and as a result of which case the law in this area went under Government Review and was ultimately reformed recently. Mark was a consultee on that Government review and was interviewed extensively in the media concerning the legal issues in the aftermath of the verdict including several with the BBC and Sky News . (My emphasis)
Does anybody know anything about the bit I've highlighted?
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

thirdcrank wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 3:35pm Here's Mark Wyeth's entry about himself.

https://www.wtchambers.com/mark-wyeth

Although it's anonymised (?) I presume the "Bike Boy" case refers to this one.
2017 saw Mark defending in the very high profile ‘bike boy’ case [R –v- X] at the Central Criminal Court (‘Old Bailey’) in which he secured an acquittal for manslaughter for his client and as a result of which case the law in this area went under Government Review and was ultimately reformed recently. Mark was a consultee on that Government review and was interviewed extensively in the media concerning the legal issues in the aftermath of the verdict including several with the BBC and Sky News . (My emphasis)
Does anybody know anything about the bit I've highlighted?
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
Post Reply