Daily Mail Convicted of obstructing an accredited person and a public order offence.
Idiot. All he had to say was to the scammer man was he had parked up to take his mandated break and couldn’t move now by law until his break was over. If he said it ever so politely with a knowing smile and he would have been fine.
And we, being f*cking idiots, have been telling posters that courts can't sentence drivers to a course.
And we, being f*cking idiots, have been telling posters that courts can't sentence drivers to a course.
Where, in the link, is there a reference to a Court imposing the course?
That would be the bit that says "Read More Driver who taunted speed camera with sign saying 'No photographs please' as he flicked V-sign is ordered to so road safety course"
Generally, we are here to offer legal advice, rather than teach posters how to read. In general, text based online forums are not ideally suited for such a task, regardless of their overall purpose.
That would be the bit that says "Read More Driver who taunted speed camera with sign saying 'No photographs please' as he flicked V-sign is ordered to so road safety course"
Generally, we are here to offer legal advice, rather than teach posters how to read. In general, text based online forums are not ideally suited for such a task, regardless of their overall purpose.
Um, could I gently point out that the "read more" article relates to a different case to the "grandfather of 14" who blocked a speed camera van, and if you actually do the "read more" bit, you can see that it wasn't a court which ordered the driver with the "no photographs please" sign in that case to do a road safety course. Instead, as we'd expect, they were offered it by the police to avoid penalty points.
The "grandfather of 14" who blocked a speed camera van was not ordered by the court to do a road safety course, but given 120 hours community service and ordered to pay costs and compensation.
*Whoosh" - the issue is p*ss-poor "journalism.
"Read More" implies that it is more about the same case, and the headline quoted is within the article originally linked, although it concerns a different case. That however is not the point at issue.
The point is that the Daily Fail claimed that a driver had been "ordered" to do a road safety course. I forget whether I was responding to DWMB2's post regarding the same moronic lie, or whether I picked up on it on my own and our posts simply crossed, but to the extent that the claim is not simply meaningless gibberish, i.e. to the extent that an offender can meaningfully be "ordered" to complete some form of restitutional justice, it must have been ordered by a court upon conviction. Obviously, he was not ordered by a court to complete the course, as he was not "ordered" to do it at all. He was merely offered it as an out of court disposal.
Funny x 1
View List