Daily Fail |
Daily Fail |
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 14:25
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
How not to report a decriminalised case - try and not be confused:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-5...s-520-fine.html |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 21:42
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
So the adjudicator was wrong when he said:
Jack said that had our defence been hinging on our second argument — that we had only ventured into the bus lane as long as necessary to pick up a passenger — we would have lost. |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 22:11
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
So the adjudicator was wrong when he said: Jack said that had our defence been hinging on our second argument — that we had only ventured into the bus lane as long as necessary to pick up a passenger — we would have lost. Depends on what the video showed. If the "few metres" to get to the left hand turn was a few metres and not 20-40 (or more) yes, probably wrong. But if, in the judgement of the adjudicator, they stayed for longer then needed in the bus lane, then the exemption would fail. That is a decision the adjudicator is entitled to make. Reading between the lines in the report, I've got the feeling that they managed to get the adjudicator on their side, to get some sympathy and Jack went out of his way to find something to hang cancellation on. In that respect they were lucky, some of the more burkish adjudicators would have tossed their photos as inconclusive and relied on the council's evidence. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 20:15 |