3
What’s driving Cycling Mikey, Britain’s most hated cyclist?
(www.thetimes.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
3 points (80.0% liked)
United Kingdom
4051 readers
254 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-mobile-phones
Maybe you should have included the entire quotation:
I've bolded the parts you accidentally skipped when quoting, maybe next time quote a source that isn't disagreeing with you?
Unlikely doesn’t mean it can’t happen. It also says “exceptional circumstances”. That’s two caveats that explicitly confirm that they can do EXACTLY what I wrote, if it suits them.
Perhaps you should read the case law you're quoting, because the exceptional circumstances are quite well laid out.
Very clearly I have read it more carefully than you have, considering you’re continuing to misunderstand it.
Are you deflecting to arguing minutiae because you’re unable to refute my actual argument?
If you had actually read it, you'd understand that the extenuating circumstances (aka suspicion of drink driving) are what makes those decisions exceptional.
If you had actually any understanding of case law, you'd know to read the full decisions.
But since you're clearly just perpetuating nonsense, I myself will discontinue arguing with it.
I have read it. I have also read several cases which cite it. Citations of legal precedent aren't specific, they don’t have to have the original circumstances in common with the original case to use it as a precedent. Any ruling made in such a case can be used as precedent, for example, in British Pregnancy Advocacy Service v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 2019, Pinner v Everett was cited in reference to how the phrase “first day of the pregnancy” should be interpreted, because Pinner v Everett contains precedent about how natural language should be interpreted.
It is completely understandable that you don’t know how legal precedent works, but I’d politely suggest that you should avoid getting into arguments about it on the internet, at least not without properly learning more about it first.