What next.... Mute Singers???

Can you believe this....

Found on another group

http://tinyurl.com/hfq3u
--

Simon Isaacs

"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote"
George Jean Nathan (1882-1955)

ROT13 me....

Simon Isaacs wrote:

|| Can you believe this....
||
|| Found on another group
||
|| http://tinyurl.com/hfq3u

My favourite quote from the article: "Prosecutor Peter Love asked Pc Austin
if he had noticed anything about Aziz. Pc Austin replied: "I did - he didn't
have any eyes, Your Worships."

Priceless.

--
Rich
==============================

Take out the obvious to email me.

Richard Brookman <[email protected]> uttered
summat worrerz funny about:
> My favourite quote from the article: "Prosecutor Peter Love asked Pc
> Austin if he had noticed anything about Aziz. Pc Austin replied: "I
> did - he didn't have any eyes, Your Worships."
>
> Priceless.

"Magistrates must decide whether Aziz's driving fell far below what would be
expected of a careful and competent driver and whether it would be obvious
to such a driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Mr Gascoyne added: "The question you will have to ask yourself is whether
being blind makes this driving dangerous, bearing in mind that the driving
wasn't dangerous.""

It's loonacy such as this that keeps thousands of lawyers, solicitors and
baristers along with their goafers in work... still it's only tax payers who
are sucking the mop.

Lee

On or around Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:54:08 +0100, Simon Isaacs
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Can you believe this....
>
>Found on another group
>
>http://tinyurl.com/hfq3u

feckinell.

and feckin' lawyers, too:

<<Mr Gascoyne added: "The question you will have to ask yourself is whether
being blind makes this driving dangerous, bearing in mind that the driving
wasn't dangerous.">>

they have evidence that the bloke was blind, they have evidence that he
crossed a double-white line, and was being directed by a banned driver.

how TF that doesn't add up to "dangerous" I've no idea.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Brevis esse laboro, Obscurus fio" (it is when I struggle to be
brief that I become obscure) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Ars Poetica, 25

In message <[email protected]>
Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On or around Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:54:08 +0100, Simon Isaacs
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >Can you believe this....
> >
> >Found on another group
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/hfq3u
>
> feckinell.
>
> and feckin' lawyers, too:
>
> <<Mr Gascoyne added: "The question you will have to ask yourself is whether
> being blind makes this driving dangerous, bearing in mind that the driving
> wasn't dangerous.">>
>
> they have evidence that the bloke was blind, they have evidence that he
> crossed a double-white line, and was being directed by a banned driver.
>
> how TF that doesn't add up to "dangerous" I've no idea.

£150+ an hour *always* adds up.....

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:54:08 +0100, Simon Isaacs
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Can you believe this....
>>
>> Found on another group
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/hfq3u
>
> feckinell.
>
> and feckin' lawyers, too:
>
> <<Mr Gascoyne added: "The question you will have to ask yourself is
> whether being blind makes this driving dangerous, bearing in mind
> that the driving wasn't dangerous.">>
>
> they have evidence that the bloke was blind, they have evidence that
> he crossed a double-white line, and was being directed by a banned
> driver.
>
> how TF that doesn't add up to "dangerous" I've no idea.

The line he crossed was reported as a hazard line not a double white. AFAIR a
hazard is a warning not a virtual/legal impenetrable barrier.

--
Don't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it!

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

"Lee_D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard Brookman <[email protected]> uttered
> summat worrerz funny about:
> > My favourite quote from the article: "Prosecutor Peter Love asked Pc
> > Austin if he had noticed anything about Aziz. Pc Austin replied: "I
> > did - he didn't have any eyes, Your Worships."
> >
> > Priceless.
>
> "Magistrates must decide whether Aziz's driving fell far below what would
be
> expected of a careful and competent driver and whether it would be obvious
> to such a driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
> Mr Gascoyne added: "The question you will have to ask yourself is whether
> being blind makes this driving dangerous, bearing in mind that the driving
> wasn't dangerous.""
>

I wouldn't have thought a driver without insurance would be considered to be
"careful and competent". No insurance company would have taken him on if he
had declared these disabilities.

Martin

> It's loonacy such as this that keeps thousands of lawyers, solicitors and
> baristers along with their goafers in work... still it's only tax payers
who
> are sucking the mop.
>
> Lee
>
>

Austin Shackles wrote:

><<Mr Gascoyne added: "The question you will have to ask yourself is whether
>being blind makes this driving dangerous, bearing in mind that the driving
>wasn't dangerous.">>
>
>they have evidence that the bloke was blind, they have evidence that he
>crossed a double-white line, and was being directed by a banned driver.
>
>how TF that doesn't add up to "dangerous" I've no idea.
>
>

And, AIUI, in order to get a driving licence you must be able to read a
number plate at a given distance. With no eyes this chap couldn't have
read one at ANY distance.

A colleague suggests that they (or at least one of them had :^) )had
been watching "See No Evil, Hear No Evil"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098282/

Lizzy

LizzyTaylor wrote:
> Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>> <<Mr Gascoyne added: "The question you will have to ask yourself is
>> whether
>> being blind makes this driving dangerous, bearing in mind that the
>> driving
>> wasn't dangerous.">>
>>
>> they have evidence that the bloke was blind, they have evidence that he
>> crossed a double-white line, and was being directed by a banned driver.
>>
>> how TF that doesn't add up to "dangerous" I've no idea.
>>
>>
>
> And, AIUI, in order to get a driving licence you must be able to read a
> number plate at a given distance. With no eyes this chap couldn't have
> read one at ANY distance.
>
> A colleague suggests that they (or at least one of them had :^) )had
> been watching "See No Evil, Hear No Evil"
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098282/
>
> Lizzy

or Blind Fury
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096945/

Stuart

On Tuesday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Austin Shackles" wrote:

> On or around Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:54:08 +0100, Simon Isaacs
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >Can you believe this....
> >
> >Found on another group
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/hfq3u
>
> feckinell.
>
> and feckin' lawyers, too:
>
> <<Mr Gascoyne added: "The question you will have to ask yourself is whether
> being blind makes this driving dangerous, bearing in mind that the driving
> wasn't dangerous.">>
>
> they have evidence that the bloke was blind, they have evidence that he
> crossed a double-white line, and was being directed by a banned driver.
>
> how TF that doesn't add up to "dangerous" I've no idea.

There's a lot of laws being broken in that instance: no licence, no
insurance, just for a start. Whether the technicalities make the banned
driver liable for supervising, I wouldn't care to guess; it's not as if
it was a learner driver. Some of this sounds like an edge case, but
would you want to be liable for the driving mistakes of somebody else?

As for "dangerous", there's a legal definition of the offence of
"dangerous driving", and that quote is one of the distinctions that can
matter. It's the sort of careful explanation of the law that judges have
to give.



--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."

LizzyTaylor wrote:
> Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>> <<Mr Gascoyne added: "The question you will have to ask yourself is
>> whether
>> being blind makes this driving dangerous, bearing in mind that the
>> driving
>> wasn't dangerous.">>
>>
>> they have evidence that the bloke was blind, they have evidence that he
>> crossed a double-white line, and was being directed by a banned driver.
>>
>> how TF that doesn't add up to "dangerous" I've no idea.
>>
>>
>
> And, AIUI, in order to get a driving licence you must be able to read a
> number plate at a given distance. With no eyes this chap couldn't have
> read one at ANY distance.
>
SG: There is no test of anything at the time you apply for a driving
license. Eye sight is tested immediately before you take the practical
driving test (i.e. just before you get into the car with the examiner)
and should have been checked by a driving instructor prior to lesson 1.
The ability to read a number plate at the prescribed distance is an
ongoing legal requirement so even if the driver was sighted at the time
of passing the test they can't continue to drive once blind.

Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 96 and Motor Vehicles (Driving Licenses)
Regulations 1996 Reg. 36 & schedule 8 apply.

Although I haven't seen a license application form for a while I would
expect there to be some find of questions about disabilities, but hey,
with this pc government maybe they've been removed so as not to offend
anyone

<removes ADI(Car) hat and continues drinking beer>


> A colleague suggests that they (or at least one of them had :^) )had
> been watching "See No Evil, Hear No Evil"
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098282/
>
> Lizzy


--
Regards

Steve G

SteveG wrote:
> LizzyTaylor wrote:

>> And, AIUI, in order to get a driving licence you must be able to read
>> a number plate at a given distance. With no eyes this chap couldn't
>> have read one at ANY distance.
>>
> SG: There is no test of anything at the time you apply for a driving
> license. Eye sight is tested immediately before you take the practical
> driving test (i.e. just before you get into the car with the examiner)
> and should have been checked by a driving instructor prior to lesson 1.

Exactly, in order to get your full licence you have to be able to see,
and to apply for your provisional licence you have to declare that you
can see.


Lizzy