It's an interesting development, and detecting atmospheric composition is something they've wanted to do for years, but the experience of the detection of phosphine on Venus shows that we need to be very, very careful about such claims.
(Phosphine was detected on Venus three or four years ago by a team led from Cardiff. Some mistakes were found in their work, and it was widely discredited. Since then, other work has shown that phosphine *is* in the Venusian atmosphere. I detect not phosphine, but not-detected-here syndrome in many scientists, sadly.)
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Quite. Shoplifting causes firms to raise prices, which impacts regular folk.
Look out for the whining in the Guardian about “shopping deserts” when shops close and exclusion. Because the next thing coming down the road is automated access to the shop.
If you Face ID as a shop lifter, the store won’t let you in. Automatically.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Quite. Shoplifting causes firms to raise prices, which impacts regular folk.
Wasn't there debate in the 1990s, started by a CoE bishop I seem to recall, about whether shoplifting from a huge supermarket chain was the ultimate 'victimless crime'?
Some more holiday quizzery and abbreviated totalitarian statuary. Where is this eagle that definitely looks like it’s lost something from its talons?
Berlin again? Isn’t it the slightly neutered denazified Deutschesrepublik eagle? No idea where tho
There are several of them and they adorn one the last (huge) surviving temples to Nazism. This eagles head is the surviving bit of an eagle that bestrode the globe on top of said temple.
I actually quite like Nazi architecture. And some of the Fash-Futurist architecture in Italy is superb - clean-limbed neo-classicism with a hint of urgent modernity
Nazi art is, however, generally dreck
Same on the Far Left, eg the USSR. The Soviets put up some impressively monumental/grandiose buildings but Socialist Realism is commonly meh
Believing that children should have enough food to eat?
Or refusing to tax the super-rich while 4.2 million kids live in poverty?
Good morning
He's right and start by impossible a 50% tax on all football transfers
Why football transfers? We should be careful not just to target that which is highly visible. Football probably isn't a main driver of the problems we have in this country so targeting it would probably fall into the "useless populism" category.
Over 1 billion would have been raised in the last transfer window
Assuming the economic activity continued in the same way given the existence of said tax
Premier League is linked to about 100k full time jobs, 5% of all UK tax and 3% of UK GDP.
Lets kill it off just as it is under threat from Saudi, why not?
Taxing transfers more wouldn't kill it off either.
I'm suspicious of BigG's plan, but we shouldn't exaggerate the downsides either.
50% tax? So to buy a player from a German club which wants to receive £20m a Prem club has to pay £40m? Yes, that kills off the Premier League as the number one global football club competition within 5 years.
The qualifier changes the statement. Knocks it off number 1? Agreed. "Kills it off" unqualified? Disagree.
Is it a bad thing that the Premier League is no longer the number one league in the world? Who would lose out? Personally I enjoyed football far more when it was less global; the players in the league were likely to stay the players in the league, and transfers in and out of the country were a rarity. And more importantly, attending a game was affordable. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that fans of clubs in the German league or Spanish league have it worse than we do as a result of their leagues not being the number one global league.
Except that German fans DO complain - and loudly - about exactly this. Because the EPL is so much richer, due to global appeal, it buys all the best German players - and others of course - meaning that only wealthy Bayern can compete for the international stars (eg Kane)
Which means that Bayern become even richer, and they win every single year, thereby ruining the German league and German football
This is a profound lament often heard in German football. So you are completely wrong
This is two separate issues though. Best indigenous players going abroad - not convinved that is anything to lament too much. It happened in the 80s and 90s with Lineker, Gascoigne and Platt. Didn't make English football any worse. One club winning every year is a problem, but I'm not convinved it's a result of a game less awash with cash.
Believing that children should have enough food to eat?
Or refusing to tax the super-rich while 4.2 million kids live in poverty?
Good morning
He's right and start by impossible a 50% tax on all football transfers
Why football transfers? We should be careful not just to target that which is highly visible. Football probably isn't a main driver of the problems we have in this country so targeting it would probably fall into the "useless populism" category.
Over 1 billion would have been raised in the last transfer window
Assuming the economic activity continued in the same way given the existence of said tax
Premier League is linked to about 100k full time jobs, 5% of all UK tax and 3% of UK GDP.
Lets kill it off just as it is under threat from Saudi, why not?
Taxing transfers more wouldn't kill it off either.
I'm suspicious of BigG's plan, but we shouldn't exaggerate the downsides either.
50% tax? So to buy a player from a German club which wants to receive £20m a Prem club has to pay £40m? Yes, that kills off the Premier League as the number one global football club competition within 5 years.
The qualifier changes the statement. Knocks it off number 1? Agreed. "Kills it off" unqualified? Disagree.
Is it a bad thing that the Premier League is no longer the number one league in the world? Who would lose out? Personally I enjoyed football far more when it was less global; the players in the league were likely to stay the players in the league, and transfers in and out of the country were a rarity. And more importantly, attending a game was affordable. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that fans of clubs in the German league or Spanish league have it worse than we do as a result of their leagues not being the number one global league.
Except that German fans DO complain - and loudly - about exactly this. Because the EPL is so much richer, due to global appeal, it buys all the best German players - and others of course - meaning that only wealthy Bayern can compete for the international stars (eg Kane)
Which means that Bayern become even richer, and they win every single year, thereby ruining the German league and German football
This is a profound lament often heard in German football. So you are completely wrong
This is two separate issues though. Best indigenous players going abroad - not convinved that is anything to lament too much. It happened in the 80s and 90s with Lineker, Gascoigne and Platt. Didn't make English football any worse. One club winning every year is a problem, but I'm not convinved it's a result of a game less awash with cash.
On the last point, this is definitely the case in Germany
It’s got to the point where German fans are actively questioning the much-lauded 50+1 ownership structure of German clubs
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Quite. Shoplifting causes firms to raise prices, which impacts regular folk.
Wasn't there debate in the 1990s, started by a CoE bishop I seem to recall, about whether shoplifting from a huge supermarket chain was the ultimate 'victimless crime'?
That sounds like a CofE bishop. Fucking idiots, the whole bloody shower.
I see the Government are still digging deeper and deeper holes for themselves over the Asylum Centre at Scampton.
Having been served with an order by the Local Authority to cease any intrusive works on the former airbase which might damage heritage including listed buildings, the Government have had their contractors continue work and have now refused to allow Inspectors access to the site so they can check what is being done. They are basically saying it is none of the Council's business.
The thing is, I think using these sites is a good idea. But this Givernment seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one.
Have they come across any Georgian era Labrador graves yet? Not that we'd ever know.
More than half of voters say there are no circumstances in which they would consider backing the Conservatives at the next election, according to a survey.
The polling, by YouGov, suggests the party is seen as too right-wing on the issues that matter most to the public. While voters shared Tory concerns on issues such as trans rights and illegal migration, they were aligned with Labour in areas they cared most about, including spending on public services.
Another YouGov poll recorded Rishi Sunak’s lowest approval rating since he became prime minister, with only 26 per cent of voters having a favourable opinion. Just under 40 per cent of Conservative voters in 2019 said they had an unfavourable view of Sunak and the party.
The YouGov research attempted to gauge voter attitudes by asking them on a scale of one to ten to say how closely they agreed with a number of statements. It then asked them — on the same scale — to say where they thought the main political parties stood.
For example, while respondents supported increased spending in areas such as health, education and policing, the only areas where they thought the Tories would spend more was defence, which was low down voters’ list of priorities.
Overall, voters characterised themselves as 4.6 out of ten on a scale where zero was left-wing and ten was right-wing. They placed Sir Keir Starmer as 3.9 per cent on the same scale and Sunak on 7.3 per cent — suggesting they saw Starmer’s values as more closely aligned with their own.
The poll, for the strategy consultancy WPI, found that 54 per cent of voters would “definitely” not support the Conservatives at the next election compared with 32 per cent who said the same of Labour.
"More than half of voters say there are no circumstances in which they would consider backing the Conservatives at the next election."
Remind me, how many considered they couldn't vote Conservative at the last election?
(Spoiler alert: 56.4%.....)
More than that even.
The Conservatives got the support of 29.3% of registered voters. So 70.7% decided they could't vote for them.
I wonder how many of that 70.7%, like me, were on a plane to Panama that day?
I well remember logging on to the airport wifi when the plane landed, reading the exit poll and punching the air, to the bewildment of a couple of Frogs next to me, who, when I explained, quizzed me about what it meant for "le Brexeeet".
I am sure there are many many reasons why people were not voting Conservative that day. But it does render the '54% would not vote Conservative' headline rather pointless.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Sadly the solution I expect to see is that impacted stores will be rendered unprofitable and get closed down with nothing to replace it...
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Quite. Shoplifting causes firms to raise prices, which impacts regular folk.
Wasn't there debate in the 1990s, started by a CoE bishop I seem to recall, about whether shoplifting from a huge supermarket chain was the ultimate 'victimless crime'?
That sounds like a CofE bishop. Fucking idiots, the whole bloody shower.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Quite. Shoplifting causes firms to raise prices, which impacts regular folk.
Wasn't there debate in the 1990s, started by a CoE bishop I seem to recall, about whether shoplifting from a huge supermarket chain was the ultimate 'victimless crime'?
That sounds like a CofE bishop. Fucking idiots, the whole bloody shower.
IIRC he got upset when someone suggested that stealing from the collecting plate is church was an even more victimless crime.
Some more holiday quizzery and abbreviated totalitarian statuary. Where is this eagle that definitely looks like it’s lost something from its talons?
Berlin again? Isn’t it the slightly neutered denazified Deutschesrepublik eagle? No idea where tho
There are several of them and they adorn one the last (huge) surviving temples to Nazism. This eagles head is the surviving bit of an eagle that bestrode the globe on top of said temple.
How is it that the eagle looks like Mitch McConnell?
Tech stuff update. Transition from the hated Microsoft to the hated Apple has been a huge success. Still some things I keep getting wrong in MacOS, a few "why doesn't it do that" questions, but is has been significantly more robust than Windows11. And the Macbook 14 hardware is both beautiful and robust.
So for the first time ever I am awaiting the Apple event later today. A business requirement for a new phone (and to invest before our September year end) means I will be jumping straight onto the new iPhone as a pre-order. Which is about as fanboi as it gets.
Believing that children should have enough food to eat?
Or refusing to tax the super-rich while 4.2 million kids live in poverty?
Good morning
He's right and start by impossible a 50% tax on all football transfers
Why football transfers? We should be careful not just to target that which is highly visible. Football probably isn't a main driver of the problems we have in this country so targeting it would probably fall into the "useless populism" category.
Over 1 billion would have been raised in the last transfer window
Assuming the economic activity continued in the same way given the existence of said tax
Premier League is linked to about 100k full time jobs, 5% of all UK tax and 3% of UK GDP.
Lets kill it off just as it is under threat from Saudi, why not?
Taxing transfers more wouldn't kill it off either.
I'm suspicious of BigG's plan, but we shouldn't exaggerate the downsides either.
50% tax? So to buy a player from a German club which wants to receive £20m a Prem club has to pay £40m? Yes, that kills off the Premier League as the number one global football club competition within 5 years.
The qualifier changes the statement. Knocks it off number 1? Agreed. "Kills it off" unqualified? Disagree.
Is it a bad thing that the Premier League is no longer the number one league in the world? Who would lose out? Personally I enjoyed football far more when it was less global; the players in the league were likely to stay the players in the league, and transfers in and out of the country were a rarity. And more importantly, attending a game was affordable. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that fans of clubs in the German league or Spanish league have it worse than we do as a result of their leagues not being the number one global league.
Except that German fans DO complain - and loudly - about exactly this. Because the EPL is so much richer, due to global appeal, it buys all the best German players - and others of course - meaning that only wealthy Bayern can compete for the international stars (eg Kane)
Which means that Bayern become even richer, and they win every single year, thereby ruining the German league and German football
This is a profound lament often heard in German football. So you are completely wrong
This is two separate issues though. Best indigenous players going abroad - not convinved that is anything to lament too much. It happened in the 80s and 90s with Lineker, Gascoigne and Platt. Didn't make English football any worse. One club winning every year is a problem, but I'm not convinved it's a result of a game less awash with cash.
On the last point, this is definitely the case in Germany
It’s got to the point where German fans are actively questioning the much-lauded 50+1 ownership structure of German clubs
It's definitely the case that less money has lead to one club's dominance? How?
I suppose the top echelons of the Premier League are more egalitarian now was the case in the days when Man U won two years out of three. But less egalitarian than the days of League Division 1 when the money was spread rather more evenly.
I see the latest centrist psychosis is over our 'exclusion' from a plan to connect Europe and India by building a railway across Saudi Arabia, even though the consensus of most transport experts is that the project doesn't make obvious economic sense.
More than half of voters say there are no circumstances in which they would consider backing the Conservatives at the next election, according to a survey.
The polling, by YouGov, suggests the party is seen as too right-wing on the issues that matter most to the public. While voters shared Tory concerns on issues such as trans rights and illegal migration, they were aligned with Labour in areas they cared most about, including spending on public services.
Another YouGov poll recorded Rishi Sunak’s lowest approval rating since he became prime minister, with only 26 per cent of voters having a favourable opinion. Just under 40 per cent of Conservative voters in 2019 said they had an unfavourable view of Sunak and the party.
The YouGov research attempted to gauge voter attitudes by asking them on a scale of one to ten to say how closely they agreed with a number of statements. It then asked them — on the same scale — to say where they thought the main political parties stood.
For example, while respondents supported increased spending in areas such as health, education and policing, the only areas where they thought the Tories would spend more was defence, which was low down voters’ list of priorities.
Overall, voters characterised themselves as 4.6 out of ten on a scale where zero was left-wing and ten was right-wing. They placed Sir Keir Starmer as 3.9 per cent on the same scale and Sunak on 7.3 per cent — suggesting they saw Starmer’s values as more closely aligned with their own.
The poll, for the strategy consultancy WPI, found that 54 per cent of voters would “definitely” not support the Conservatives at the next election compared with 32 per cent who said the same of Labour.
"More than half of voters say there are no circumstances in which they would consider backing the Conservatives at the next election."
Remind me, how many considered they couldn't vote Conservative at the last election?
(Spoiler alert: 56.4%.....)
More than that even.
The Conservatives got the support of 29.3% of registered voters. So 70.7% decided they could't vote for them.
I wonder how many of that 70.7%, like me, were on a plane to Panama that day?
I well remember logging on to the airport wifi when the plane landed, reading the exit poll and punching the air, to the bewildment of a couple of Frogs next to me, who, when I explained, quizzed me about what it meant for "le Brexeeet".
You were so scared of Corbyn you fled to Panama just in case?
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Quite. Shoplifting causes firms to raise prices, which impacts regular folk.
Look out for the whining in the Guardian about “shopping deserts” when shops close and exclusion. Because the next thing coming down the road is automated access to the shop.
If you Face ID as a shop lifter, the store won’t let you in. Automatically.
Believing that children should have enough food to eat?
Or refusing to tax the super-rich while 4.2 million kids live in poverty?
Good morning
He's right and start by impossible a 50% tax on all football transfers
Why football transfers? We should be careful not just to target that which is highly visible. Football probably isn't a main driver of the problems we have in this country so targeting it would probably fall into the "useless populism" category.
Over 1 billion would have been raised in the last transfer window
Assuming the economic activity continued in the same way given the existence of said tax
Premier League is linked to about 100k full time jobs, 5% of all UK tax and 3% of UK GDP.
Lets kill it off just as it is under threat from Saudi, why not?
Taxing transfers more wouldn't kill it off either.
I'm suspicious of BigG's plan, but we shouldn't exaggerate the downsides either.
50% tax? So to buy a player from a German club which wants to receive £20m a Prem club has to pay £40m? Yes, that kills off the Premier League as the number one global football club competition within 5 years.
The qualifier changes the statement. Knocks it off number 1? Agreed. "Kills it off" unqualified? Disagree.
Is it a bad thing that the Premier League is no longer the number one league in the world? Who would lose out? Personally I enjoyed football far more when it was less global; the players in the league were likely to stay the players in the league, and transfers in and out of the country were a rarity. And more importantly, attending a game was affordable. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that fans of clubs in the German league or Spanish league have it worse than we do as a result of their leagues not being the number one global league.
Except that German fans DO complain - and loudly - about exactly this. Because the EPL is so much richer, due to global appeal, it buys all the best German players - and others of course - meaning that only wealthy Bayern can compete for the international stars (eg Kane)
Which means that Bayern become even richer, and they win every single year, thereby ruining the German league and German football
This is a profound lament often heard in German football. So you are completely wrong
This is two separate issues though. Best indigenous players going abroad - not convinved that is anything to lament too much. It happened in the 80s and 90s with Lineker, Gascoigne and Platt. Didn't make English football any worse. One club winning every year is a problem, but I'm not convinved it's a result of a game less awash with cash.
On the last point, this is definitely the case in Germany
It’s got to the point where German fans are actively questioning the much-lauded 50+1 ownership structure of German clubs
It's definitely the case that less money has lead to one club's dominance? How?
I suppose the top echelons of the Premier League are more egalitarian now was the case in the days when Man U won two years out of three. But less egalitarian than the days of League Division 1 when the money was spread rather more evenly.
Oh really?
The old First Division period from 1975 - 1990 saw Liverpool win 10/15 titles which is the same 2/3 ratio, with 2 going to Everton (also from Liverpool of course).
In a 15 year period only 3 title winners weren't from Merseyside, 1 each for Forest, Villa and Arsenal.
As a child from Merseyside in the 80s, the only question with football was "red or blue" - both as to who did you support and who would win, and there was only one club each meant as red or blue and it certainly wasn't Man City or Man Utd. I was nearly 8 the first time a club other than Liverpool or Everton won the league and that was quite a shock.
The change to Manchester clubs dominating instead of Merseyside ones doing so is quite depressing, but its not without precedent.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
This is an interesting analysis of the Trump New York tax fraud case starting very soon. Slightly long - 15 minutes, however it covers:
1 - The Trump side has managed to opt out of a jury by not responding in time 2 years ago, so the whole thing is summary decisions by a Judge. 2 - This is the NY District Attorney, who have a history of savage outcomes. 3 - They are not just going for 'fraudulent borrowing' (eg by Trump quoting his apartment as 30k sqft not 10k sq ft), but for "gains resulting from fraudulent borrowing' (technical term 'disgorgement' - like our 'proceeds of crime'?). Indicative clawbacks are of the order of hundreds of millions. 4 - Interesting commentary on what I think is the NY version of the difference between Statute Law and Common Law of Equity. 5 - Trump and his childrens' ability to do business in NY in question.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
This is the kind of stuff that will destroy the Tories for a generation IMO. People are seeing a breakdown of civil society and no realistic punishment for the wrong doers. If I was in the government I'd be reading out the riot act to every single police officer in the land and every single magistrate and judge in the land to both catch and convict the thieves, if legislation is necessary to update sentencing guidelines then I'd also be pushing that through as well.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
This is the kind of stuff that will destroy the Tories for a generation IMO. People are seeing a breakdown of civil society and no realistic punishment for the wrong doers. If I was in the government I'd be reading out the riot act to every single police officer in the land and every single magistrate and judge in the land to both catch and convict the thieves, if legislation is necessary to update sentencing guidelines then I'd also be pushing that through as well.
I see the latest centrist psychosis is over our 'exclusion' from a plan to connect Europe and India by building a railway across Saudi Arabia, even though the consensus of most transport experts is that the project doesn't make obvious economic sense.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
This is the kind of stuff that will destroy the Tories for a generation IMO. People are seeing a breakdown of civil society and no realistic punishment for the wrong doers. If I was in the government I'd be reading out the riot act to every single police officer in the land and every single magistrate and judge in the land to both catch and convict the thieves, if legislation is necessary to update sentencing guidelines then I'd also be pushing that through as well.
You forgot the funding for the courts ...
Nah, stop prosecuting stupid "crimes" and the courts suddenly become less clogged up. The police and CPS have focussed on easy to convict crimes like online hate messaging etc... because they're playing the numbers game. Stop chasing those and court time becomes available for actual crime as well as policing resources for crime that affects real people.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Quite. Shoplifting causes firms to raise prices, which impacts regular folk.
Wasn't there debate in the 1990s, started by a CoE bishop I seem to recall, about whether shoplifting from a huge supermarket chain was the ultimate 'victimless crime'?
That sounds like a CofE bishop. Fucking idiots, the whole bloody shower.
Unless you have an actual quote from an actual Bishop?
(I can think of Bishops who might raise the point to provoke a debate - especially those with an emphasis on work amongst the poor, such as +Stanley-Booth Clibborn or +David Sheppard, but I've never heard of it.)
I would not expect such comments now since emergency food services are far more widespread, though I would expect Bishops to skewer the Home Secretary on some of her more Neanderthal policies.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
This is the kind of stuff that will destroy the Tories for a generation IMO. People are seeing a breakdown of civil society and no realistic punishment for the wrong doers. If I was in the government I'd be reading out the riot act to every single police officer in the land and every single magistrate and judge in the land to both catch and convict the thieves, if legislation is necessary to update sentencing guidelines then I'd also be pushing that through as well.
You forgot the funding for the courts ...
Nah, stop prosecuting stupid "crimes" and the courts suddenly become less clogged up. The police and CPS have focussed on easy to convict crimes like online hate messaging etc... because they're playing the numbers game. Stop chasing those and court time becomes available for actual crime as well as policing resources for crime that affects real people.
The problem is not so much court time for shop lifting as defacto decriminalisation.
If you look at the sentencing guidelines for magistrates, they can’t actually do much. It’s a rotating door system.
The police were never the big deterrent to shop lifting - that was shop assistants and security guards.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
This is the kind of stuff that will destroy the Tories for a generation IMO. People are seeing a breakdown of civil society and no realistic punishment for the wrong doers. If I was in the government I'd be reading out the riot act to every single police officer in the land and every single magistrate and judge in the land to both catch and convict the thieves, if legislation is necessary to update sentencing guidelines then I'd also be pushing that through as well.
You forgot the funding for the courts ...
And prison/probation capacity.
And police capacity, presumably.
Can't find it right now, but there was an article a while back saying that the Conservatives were no longer on the big-small state scale, but we're the party of the sh/t state; too stingy to fund services properly, but incapable of cutting things completely. So we've had years of salami slicing, until we're left with that useless knot at the end.
That dishonesty- that we can have more without paying more- was one of the roots of BoJo's triumphs 2016-19. It's now the root of the incoming (possibly swervable, probably not) disaster for Sunak.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
It is desperately sad to see America in this state.
And terrifying as to what comes next.
When the terrorists carried out 9/11, this sort of division in American society was precisely what they were hoping to achieve. It's odd how so many Americans have done exactly what they were hoping for, by becoming so divided.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
This is the kind of stuff that will destroy the Tories for a generation IMO. People are seeing a breakdown of civil society and no realistic punishment for the wrong doers. If I was in the government I'd be reading out the riot act to every single police officer in the land and every single magistrate and judge in the land to both catch and convict the thieves, if legislation is necessary to update sentencing guidelines then I'd also be pushing that through as well.
You forgot the funding for the courts ...
And the prisons.
Too often even if a case eventually makes it to court, and the accused is convicted again they end up with a suspended sentence or some other nonsense and are back on the streets.
So today I crossed that invisible boundary that runs across Europe and left lands where salad is mostly cucumber and am back where it's mostly lettuce.
It is desperately sad to see America in this state.
And terrifying as to what comes next.
RNC now launching an impeachment trial into Biden which will dig and dig and dig until they find something they can say Aha! to. They don't have anything now, but hope to.
American Fascism needs its enemy. And the best enemy is always the enemy within. The union won't be safe from liberals and whore women and uppity coloreds until God Fearing Christians like DJT take control and dish out some of God's justice.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
It is desperately sad to see America in this state.
And terrifying as to what comes next.
When the terrorists carried out 9/11, this sort of division in American society was precisely what they were hoping to achieve. It's odd how so many Americans have done exactly what they were hoping for, by becoming so divided.
If OBL had just founded Twitter instead of masterminding various terrorist attacks he could have lived and dined wherever he wanted instead of being forced into various caves and compounds...
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
It's absolutely routine for Councils to have no memory whatsoever as to what they installed 2 years ago, never mind 20 or 30 years ago; they just don't keep records. It's a general lack of professionalism around the whole thing.
I recently put in a FOI request to Worcestershire Council with a question about chicane barriers they had installed on their walking / cycling paths since 2010, and they did not even remember the ones their Highways Cabinet Member had been all over the local paper about his pride in having used to block access in 2021.
It is also entirely routine for all kinds of unenforceable signs to be stuck up unlawfully without the necessary Traffic Regulation Order being done to make them effective, or for the signs to be unlawful themselves (ie non-approved designs or combinations), or for unauthorised bodies (eg Town Councils) to stick them up unapproved because Mrs Shufflebotham had a moan.
The whole thing has been a complete shambles for a number of decades.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
She did not push the cyclist into the road. Who knows whether the fact that it was not a shared path vs the judge's clear and incorrect instruction that it was shared would have influenced the jurors?
Rather than wishing to reopen the debate I want to know why the council and police didn't give honest answers.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
She did not push the cyclist into the road. Who knows whether the fact that it was not a shared path vs the judge's clear and incorrect instruction that it was shared would have influenced the jurors?
Rather than wishing to reopen the debate I want to know why the council and police didn't give honest answers.
I'm surprised there's not been an appeal, I'd have thought the judge giving false information in the summing up would be grounds for a mistrial?
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
This is the kind of stuff that will destroy the Tories for a generation IMO. People are seeing a breakdown of civil society and no realistic punishment for the wrong doers. If I was in the government I'd be reading out the riot act to every single police officer in the land and every single magistrate and judge in the land to both catch and convict the thieves, if legislation is necessary to update sentencing guidelines then I'd also be pushing that through as well.
it’s also dangerous long term for us all. When Labour get in and they can’t sort this out (and I don’t see them doing it, indeed they could be worse) then voters will reach for a more radical alternative, in despair
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
She did not push the cyclist into the road. Who knows whether the fact that it was not a shared path vs the judge's clear and incorrect instruction that it was shared would have influenced the jurors?
Rather than wishing to reopen the debate I want to know why the council and police didn't give honest answers.
I'm surprised there's not been an appeal, I'd have thought the judge giving false information in the summing up would be grounds for a mistrial?
There has been an appeal and she lost it. But the council clarification didn't come out until after the appeal. The whole thing stinks.
It is desperately sad to see America in this state.
And terrifying as to what comes next.
When the terrorists carried out 9/11, this sort of division in American society was precisely what they were hoping to achieve. It's odd how so many Americans have done exactly what they were hoping for, by becoming so divided.
Not just the terrorists. It is also what the Russians wanted.
State pensions may rise less than expected as ministers consider adjusting the “triple lock” to save more than £600 million.
Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, is considering a tweak to the formula that would strip out bonus payments from the earnings figure used to calculate the state pension, which would reignite debate about the future of the triple lock policy.
While No 10 has insisted that the government is committed to the triple lock, Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, acknowledged that it was “not sustainable” in the long term because of spiralling costs.
The triple lock guarantees that the state pension, at present £203.85, will rise by the highest of inflation, earnings or 2.5 per cent. The Office for National Statistics revealed today that average weekly earnings rose by 8.5 per cent in three months to July, meaning pensioners had been in line for a rise of more than £17 a week.
However, the Treasury is said to be looking at using a lower figure of 7.8 per cent to trip out the effect of one-off bonuses given to more than a million NHS staff and civil servants over the summer.
One senior Treasury source said that excluding bonuses from the triple lock calculation was now under active consideration. “It is something that is naturally being looked at given the wider economic situation,” they said.“Officials are drawing up policy proposals for ministers, but at this point no final decision has been taken.”
After the ONS said that these bonuses had “affected” the headline 8.5 per cent rate, another Treasury source said that this had “distorted” the triple lock. “We have to look at it, the bonuses have distorted it,” they said.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that using the lower figure would save £630 million and cost many pensioners about £75 a year.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
She did not push the cyclist into the road. Who knows whether the fact that it was not a shared path vs the judge's clear and incorrect instruction that it was shared would have influenced the jurors?
Rather than wishing to reopen the debate I want to know why the council and police didn't give honest answers.
Seems it couldn't be proven either way. She was seen to gesture wildly and the cyclist to recoil and fall.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
She did not push the cyclist into the road. Who knows whether the fact that it was not a shared path vs the judge's clear and incorrect instruction that it was shared would have influenced the jurors?
Rather than wishing to reopen the debate I want to know why the council and police didn't give honest answers.
I'm surprised there's not been an appeal, I'd have thought the judge giving false information in the summing up would be grounds for a mistrial?
The other aspect of this that I'm uneasy about - and suspect you may agree? - is that the prosecution would never have been made without CCTV footage, shared online. I dislike this from a civil liberty perspective.
If there was no CCTV footage I'd bet my house that the driver would have been blamed. (Incorrectly, of course.)
These days we are always looking for someone to blame instead of accepting that sometimes in life accidents happen.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
She did not push the cyclist into the road. Who knows whether the fact that it was not a shared path vs the judge's clear and incorrect instruction that it was shared would have influenced the jurors?
Rather than wishing to reopen the debate I want to know why the council and police didn't give honest answers.
Sh/t state council, if I remember rightly.
From memory, part of that pavement was shared use and the boundary between shared and pedestrians only didn't have a sign. Either because there never was one, or because it vanished at some point.
Joe Trippi, a Democrat who has worked on presidential campaigns over five election cycles, said all incumbent presidents over the past decade were nearly tied with their rivals in September of the year before the election.
“I’ve seen this movie over and over and over,” he said. “Every sitting president has been sitting exactly in the same place — in a dead heat.”
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
She did not push the cyclist into the road. Who knows whether the fact that it was not a shared path vs the judge's clear and incorrect instruction that it was shared would have influenced the jurors?
Rather than wishing to reopen the debate I want to know why the council and police didn't give honest answers.
Sh/t state council, if I remember rightly.
From memory, part of that pavement was shared use and the boundary between shared and pedestrians only didn't have a sign. Either because there never was one, or because it vanished at some point.
No. The council have now said:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
This statement could easily have been given in court.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
State pensions may rise less than expected as ministers consider adjusting the “triple lock” to save more than £600 million.
Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, is considering a tweak to the formula that would strip out bonus payments from the earnings figure used to calculate the state pension, which would reignite debate about the future of the triple lock policy.
While No 10 has insisted that the government is committed to the triple lock, Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, acknowledged that it was “not sustainable” in the long term because of spiralling costs.
The triple lock guarantees that the state pension, at present £203.85, will rise by the highest of inflation, earnings or 2.5 per cent. The Office for National Statistics revealed today that average weekly earnings rose by 8.5 per cent in three months to July, meaning pensioners had been in line for a rise of more than £17 a week.
However, the Treasury is said to be looking at using a lower figure of 7.8 per cent to trip out the effect of one-off bonuses given to more than a million NHS staff and civil servants over the summer.
One senior Treasury source said that excluding bonuses from the triple lock calculation was now under active consideration. “It is something that is naturally being looked at given the wider economic situation,” they said.“Officials are drawing up policy proposals for ministers, but at this point no final decision has been taken.”
After the ONS said that these bonuses had “affected” the headline 8.5 per cent rate, another Treasury source said that this had “distorted” the triple lock. “We have to look at it, the bonuses have distorted it,” they said.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that using the lower figure would save £630 million and cost many pensioners about £75 a year.
So today I crossed that invisible boundary that runs across Europe and left lands where salad is mostly cucumber and am back where it's mostly lettuce.
Cucumbers in cream is one of the greatest culinary inventions ever. Almost completely unknown in the UK - unless you have Polish friends - it is ubiquitous in many Central European countries. Cucumbers, cream, sugar and vinegar with local variations. Just superb.
@rcs1000 has given me 20/1 on Con 3rd in mid Beds.
I can't work out who has the best bet there which probably means it is fair. I am looking forward to @Icarus's feedback from his visit on Sunday or from anyone else, after which that might seem foolish, but for whom????
I see the Government are still digging deeper and deeper holes for themselves over the Asylum Centre at Scampton.
Having been served with an order by the Local Authority to cease any intrusive works on the former airbase which might damage heritage including listed buildings, the Government have had their contractors continue work and have now refused to allow Inspectors access to the site so they can check what is being done. They are basically saying it is none of the Council's business.
The thing is, I think using these sites is a good idea. But this Givernment seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one.
Have they come across any Georgian era Labrador graves yet? Not that we'd ever know.
The Grave was going to be moved but I think there was some protest about that. Not something I am really that bothered about so not followed it.
So today I crossed that invisible boundary that runs across Europe and left lands where salad is mostly cucumber and am back where it's mostly lettuce.
Cucumbers in cream is one of the greatest culinary inventions ever. Almost completely unknown in the UK - unless you have Polish friends - it is ubiquitous in many Central European countries. Cucumbers, cream, sugar and vinegar with local variations. Just superb.
I've not heard of that. Similar to cucumber with yoghurt I guess?
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
So today I crossed that invisible boundary that runs across Europe and left lands where salad is mostly cucumber and am back where it's mostly lettuce.
Cucumbers in cream is one of the greatest culinary inventions ever. Almost completely unknown in the UK - unless you have Polish friends - it is ubiquitous in many Central European countries. Cucumbers, cream, sugar and vinegar with local variations. Just superb.
I've not heard of that. Similar to cucumber with yoghurt I guess?
Yep. I assume so. I know of variants from Poland, Hungary, the Baltics and Romania. I assume Tzatziki is a variant or might even be the original recipe, later modified.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
So today I crossed that invisible boundary that runs across Europe and left lands where salad is mostly cucumber and am back where it's mostly lettuce.
Cucumbers in cream is one of the greatest culinary inventions ever. Almost completely unknown in the UK - unless you have Polish friends - it is ubiquitous in many Central European countries. Cucumbers, cream, sugar and vinegar with local variations. Just superb.
One inventive place in Budapest made a salad out of cucumber cut three different ways
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
Many cyclists now have dashcams, or cams anyway, including the cyclist with the reversing car at the start of this thread.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
She did not push the cyclist into the road. Who knows whether the fact that it was not a shared path vs the judge's clear and incorrect instruction that it was shared would have influenced the jurors?
Rather than wishing to reopen the debate I want to know why the council and police didn't give honest answers.
I'm ignoring the first question, and not reopening that beyond noting that the Jury briefing was careful and the verdict unanimous.
I can't answer that last question in less length than a header, beyond what I commented above.
But the review is interesting - normally from a normal Council I would expect a sticky plaster (eg a pedestrian cage along the kerb to 'keep pedestrians out of the way'), move on and hope that no one notices.
The safety issue here is road design that places vulnerable road users too close to traffic moving at high speed (ie 30mph+), and a need to separate the two (or three if we count mobility infra and pedestrian infra as separate items). I think 30mph is the speed limit.
In modern terms and to meet current standards you either:
a) - Slow the traffic down to 20mph and reduce it enough to a minority of <1000 movements per day to allow safe mixing.
(Probably won't work on a ring-road.)
b) - Protect within the road corridor, which means a 0.5m physical buffer and appropriate width mobility lane and footway or shared path on a 30mph limit. It goes without saying that the limit needs to be firmly enforced at 30mph - otherwise a wider buffer (eg 1m for 40mph) is needed appropriate to the higher actual speed.
(Might not work depending on the road design, or may require the reallocation of space from a traffic or parking lane.)
c) Reconsider at a network level, which I think is what I think should happen here as most of the solution.
That would involve moving either motor traffic or mobility (ie cycles, powerchairs, scooters etc) traffic to different networks designed for their use going to everywhere they need to go. It should also involve the improvement of the footway to adequate standards - which probably means 2m unobstructed plus a 0.5m buffer.
There are also elements of redesign needed on the ring road to calm it down / reduce speeds - if it stays where it is.
This principle is called "unravelling" or "separating" modes, and there is an unpronounceable Dutch word for it.
(Sometimes done here to a limited extent, but the road design profession still needs a thorough re-education.)
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
I was talking generally and indeed the police often appeal for dash cam evidence
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
Many cyclists now have dashcams, or cams anyway, including the cyclist with the reversing car at the start of this thread.
Well maybe us pedestrians should wear them as well I guess so we can document the crappy riding of so many cyclists....only whats the point we cant identify crappy cyclists because no number plates. All my travel now is either public transport or walking. I used to ride a motorcycle cars were a worry it is true but nowhere near the arsehole cyclist fear as a pedestrian.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
I was talking generally and indeed the police often appeal for dash cam evidence
How many volunteer dashcam footage that shows them to be in the wrong whether they are car drivers, motorcyclists or cyclists
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
This is the kind of stuff that will destroy the Tories for a generation IMO. People are seeing a breakdown of civil society and no realistic punishment for the wrong doers. If I was in the government I'd be reading out the riot act to every single police officer in the land and every single magistrate and judge in the land to both catch and convict the thieves, if legislation is necessary to update sentencing guidelines then I'd also be pushing that through as well.
You forgot the funding for the courts ...
Nah, stop prosecuting stupid "crimes" and the courts suddenly become less clogged up. The police and CPS have focussed on easy to convict crimes like online hate messaging etc... because they're playing the numbers game. Stop chasing those and court time becomes available for actual crime as well as policing resources for crime that affects real people.
Hate online is stupid to prosecute?
Tell that to the teenagers who have committed suicide.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
The 79 year old lady was killed by a motor vehicle in too close proximity that did not have time or space to avoid. Given a properly designed and constructed road corridor, or other alternative, she would not have fallen in the carriageway.
Designing risk out is a better option than hoping everyone's behaviour is perfect imo - because none of us are and we all make mistakes.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
The 79 year old lady was killed by a motor vehicle in too close proximity that did not have time or space to avoid. Given a properly designed and constructed road corridor, or other alternative, she would not have fallen in the carriageway.
Which is probably true, my comment was addressed at flatlander who used emotive phrasing of her being pushed into the road which wasn't true. Personally I think cyclists shouldn't be allowed to mix with pedestrians. If they want to ride a bike keep it on the road.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
(Snip)
There was no ****ing ambiguity. You really have to be a fully paid-up member to the lycra brigade to think that path is, in any way, a cycle path. Even if for some reason the council said it was, you would be foolish to treat it as such, given the street furniture immediately beyond where this incident happened. As a cyclist, or pedestrian, or driver, you need to be able to recognise dangerous situations even if you think you are in the right.
This verdict really pi**ed me off. Yes, the accused should not have acted as she did. But the cyclist should not have been on the pavement there, either; at least not with the idea to stop to allow the pedestrian past. As someone who spent a long time on crutches in the past, I'm aware how considerate people could be. And also, in some cases, how inconsiderate...
I know that road reasonably well, having cycled, walked and run it. I'd normally choose to cycle along the road there, but if I was on the pavement at that place and saw an elderly lady coming towards me, I'd pull up and stop.
This was a tragedy, but the woman in jail was far from the only causal factor. And if the judge said it was a shared path, he was utterly wrong - in practice *and* morally.
@rcs1000 has given me 20/1 on Con 3rd in mid Beds.
That's a very interesting bet. For choice you have the value in my view, but anything involving Smithsons and LDs tends to be well priced.
I reckon it being fairly close to a 3 way tie. OGH reckons that could put the Cons back, but equally it could put Con 3rd, particularly with the farcical behaviour of Nadine over the summer.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
This is the kind of stuff that will destroy the Tories for a generation IMO. People are seeing a breakdown of civil society and no realistic punishment for the wrong doers. If I was in the government I'd be reading out the riot act to every single police officer in the land and every single magistrate and judge in the land to both catch and convict the thieves, if legislation is necessary to update sentencing guidelines then I'd also be pushing that through as well.
You forgot the funding for the courts ...
Nah, stop prosecuting stupid "crimes" and the courts suddenly become less clogged up. The police and CPS have focussed on easy to convict crimes like online hate messaging etc... because they're playing the numbers game. Stop chasing those and court time becomes available for actual crime as well as policing resources for crime that affects real people.
Actually, in fairness, this got me thinking. This gives us a generous number of 200K hate crimes of *all* kinds pa in England. Not just online.
That's out of about 6-7 million crimes a year in E&W.
And most of the hate crime is racism. Then disabilkity, and religion, with gender coming a long way last.
That's not going to make much of a dent one way or an other. So we needn't worry about online hate messaging as the cause of not prosecuting shoplifters.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Of course they do. So long as it's not at a level of genuine inconvenience to their bottom line companies will put it down as the price of doing business.
That's bad, but part of general sense of crapness.
On this Biden impeachment inquiry stuff, is McCarthy just really dumb or something? I get he's beholden to the extreme wing (such as that is a thing, there doesn't appear to be much separating 90% of them from one another), but why say something like this less than 2 weeks ago, when it would be pretty clear by that point if he had the votes at that point, and if he was going to have to do otherwise?
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
But always before shops have been allowed to stop shoplifters, now they cant because of insurance and health and safety. Also before the police might actually turn up. It is no longer shoplifting now but systemized looting because shops arent allowed to do anything. Desertification is already occuring in the us because of much the same reasons where shops are pulling out of areas. It will be coming here too before long
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Quite. Shoplifting causes firms to raise prices, which impacts regular folk.
Wasn't there debate in the 1990s, started by a CoE bishop I seem to recall, about whether shoplifting from a huge supermarket chain was the ultimate 'victimless crime'?
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
I was talking generally and indeed the police often appeal for dash cam evidence
How many volunteer dashcam footage that shows them to be in the wrong whether they are car drivers, motorcyclists or cyclists
To the police, probably none, but Ashley Neal's Youtube channel does invite viewers to send clips where they have been wrong. For instance:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfrErqb29yc
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
The 79 year old lady was killed by a motor vehicle in too close proximity that did not have time or space to avoid. Given a properly designed and constructed road corridor, or other alternative, she would not have fallen in the carriageway.
Designing risk out is a better option than hoping everyone's behaviour is perfect imo - because none of us are and we all make mistakes.
We do not always have the ability to fully 'design out risk' for a host of reasons: for one thing, what is too much risk, or too little? How much does a million pounds' worth of alterations buy in terms of lives? (Yes, there is an answer to this...)
Imagine that cyclist had come across a woman pushing a pram. Would she have expected to get past the woman and pram without stopping, given the width of the pavement? Or would she have expected the woman to dive into the road to let her past? Because that is the way some cyclists treat pedestrians.
It's sad to say, and I may get shouted down for this, but the lady who tragically died *did* share some of the blame for what happened.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
The 79 year old lady was killed by a motor vehicle in too close proximity that did not have time or space to avoid. Given a properly designed and constructed road corridor, or other alternative, she would not have fallen in the carriageway.
Designing risk out is a better option than hoping everyone's behaviour is perfect imo - because none of us are and we all make mistakes.
We do not always have the ability to fully 'design out risk' for a host of reasons: for one thing, what is too much risk, or too little? How much does a million pounds' worth of alterations buy in terms of lives? (Yes, there is an answer to this...)
Imagine that cyclist had come across a woman pushing a pram. Would she have expected to get past the woman and pram without stopping, given the width of the pavement? Or would she have expected the woman to dive into the road to let her past? Because that is the way some cyclists treat pedestrians.
It's sad to say, and I may get shouted down for this, but the lady who tragically died *did* share some of the blame for what happened.
Hmp! A unicyclist once expected me to dive into the road to let him past. No brakes either.
But of course that sort of situation only leads to confusion - people stepping the same way by mistake and colliding. The cyclist keeping coming gives no time at all for errors to be sorted out.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
But always before shops have been allowed to stop shoplifters, now they cant because of insurance and health and safety. Also before the police might actually turn up. It is no longer shoplifting now but systemized looting because shops arent allowed to do anything. Desertification is already occuring in the us because of much the same reasons where shops are pulling out of areas. It will be coming here too before long
did anyone have:
-it's health and safety gone mad -things were better in my youth -it's the end of everything we hold dear
on their bingo cards?
Don't be so pathetic....20 years ago if you were sighted shop lifting security would grab you....now they cant because of liability insurance and health and safety......do you deny that as even your favourite rag the guardian admits thats true...
20 years ago the police would turn up to deal with that person security had caught shoplifting....even your favourite rag admits it
Shops are shutting because they can no longer make a profit due to organised shoplifting....these shops are usually in poorer areas forcing the poorer people to have to travel and adding cost to shopping....even the guardian admits it
I guess you don't care if the poor have to travel further to shop because the local shops have shuttered as no longer viable
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
I was talking generally and indeed the police often appeal for dash cam evidence
How many volunteer dashcam footage that shows them to be in the wrong whether they are car drivers, motorcyclists or cyclists
To the police, probably none, but Ashley Neal's Youtube channel does invite viewers to send clips where they have been wrong. For instance:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfrErqb29yc
The British Sub-Aqua Club magazine used to have a section at the back called something like "How I nearly died," with people's stories of problems they got into whilst scuba diving. It was *very* good for learning how you could descend the well of mistakes.
One was a man who stopped at a decompression stop at something like five metres. But there was a heavy swell, and he did not decompress properly as the buoy he was holding onto was going up and down, and he got the bends.
One that was not in there, was the time a friend broke his ankle jumping down from the rescue helicopter after his buddy for a suspected (not real, thankfully) case of the bends..
Comments
(Phosphine was detected on Venus three or four years ago by a team led from Cardiff. Some mistakes were found in their work, and it was widely discredited. Since then, other work has shown that phosphine *is* in the Venusian atmosphere. I detect not phosphine, but not-detected-here syndrome in many scientists, sadly.)
If you Face ID as a shop lifter, the store won’t let you in. Automatically.
Nazi art is, however, generally dreck
Same on the Far Left, eg the USSR. The Soviets put up some impressively monumental/grandiose buildings but Socialist Realism is commonly meh
Best indigenous players going abroad - not convinved that is anything to lament too much. It happened in the 80s and 90s with Lineker, Gascoigne and Platt. Didn't make English football any worse.
One club winning every year is a problem, but I'm not convinved it's a result of a game less awash with cash.
On the last point, this is definitely the case in Germany
It’s got to the point where German fans are actively questioning the much-lauded 50+1 ownership structure of German clubs
If you can handle the image of Jean Simmons as Nadine and Brando as Boris. Which I absolutely cannot.
I suppose the top echelons of the Premier League are more egalitarian now was the case in the days when Man U won two years out of three. But less egalitarian than the days of League Division 1 when the money was spread rather more evenly.
https://x.com/carolvorders/status/1701371983802278226
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1701617950992531505
The old First Division period from 1975 - 1990 saw Liverpool win 10/15 titles which is the same 2/3 ratio, with 2 going to Everton (also from Liverpool of course).
In a 15 year period only 3 title winners weren't from Merseyside, 1 each for Forest, Villa and Arsenal.
The change to Manchester clubs dominating instead of Merseyside ones doing so is quite depressing, but its not without precedent.
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
See:
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/people/shared-cycle-path-and-pavement-changes-planned-following-death-of-cyclist-4243401
1 - The Trump side has managed to opt out of a jury by not responding in time 2 years ago, so the whole thing is summary decisions by a Judge.
2 - This is the NY District Attorney, who have a history of savage outcomes.
3 - They are not just going for 'fraudulent borrowing' (eg by Trump quoting his apartment as 30k sqft not 10k sq ft), but for "gains resulting from fraudulent borrowing' (technical term 'disgorgement' - like our 'proceeds of crime'?). Indicative clawbacks are of the order of hundreds of millions.
4 - Interesting commentary on what I think is the NY version of the difference between Statute Law and Common Law of Equity.
5 - Trump and his childrens' ability to do business in NY in question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCYqaJCEuTg
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Related, consider this shared path: https://goo.gl/maps/n8QpuiR72EQnvHXa6
Two questions:
- Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
- At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
And terrifying as to what comes next.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Priest-s-shoplifting-sermon-is-slammed-559394.php
Unless you have an actual quote from an actual Bishop?
(I can think of Bishops who might raise the point to provoke a debate - especially those with an emphasis on work amongst the poor, such as +Stanley-Booth Clibborn or +David Sheppard, but I've never heard of it.)
I would not expect such comments now since emergency food services are far more widespread, though I would expect Bishops to skewer the Home Secretary on some of her more Neanderthal policies.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
If you look at the sentencing guidelines for magistrates, they can’t actually do much. It’s a rotating door system.
The police were never the big deterrent to shop lifting - that was shop assistants and security guards.
Health and safety law etc has seen that off.
And police capacity, presumably.
Can't find it right now, but there was an article a while back saying that the Conservatives were no longer on the big-small state scale, but we're the party of the sh/t state; too stingy to fund services properly, but incapable of cutting things completely. So we've had years of salami slicing, until we're left with that useless knot at the end.
That dishonesty- that we can have more without paying more- was one of the roots of BoJo's triumphs 2016-19. It's now the root of the incoming (possibly swervable, probably not) disaster for Sunak.
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
Too often even if a case eventually makes it to court, and the accused is convicted again they end up with a suspended sentence or some other nonsense and are back on the streets.
Labour lead the Conservatives by 2% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (10 September):
Labour 33% (–)
Conservative 31% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 26% (+1)
Reform UK 6% (+1)
Green 4% (–)
Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 26-27 August
https://x.com/redfieldwilton/status/1701626731503763461?s=46
American Fascism needs its enemy. And the best enemy is always the enemy within. The union won't be safe from liberals and whore women and uppity coloreds until God Fearing Christians like DJT take control and dish out some of God's justice.
God Bless Gilead.
The judge's sentencing remarks are published here, with the emphasis on the actions of the defendant, not the nature of the path:
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-grey-got-three-years
It's absolutely routine for Councils to have no memory whatsoever as to what they installed 2 years ago, never mind 20 or 30 years ago; they just don't keep records. It's a general lack of professionalism around the whole thing.
I recently put in a FOI request to Worcestershire Council with a question about chicane barriers they had installed on their walking / cycling paths since 2010, and they did not even remember the ones their Highways Cabinet Member had been all over the local paper about his pride in having used to block access in 2021.
It is also entirely routine for all kinds of unenforceable signs to be stuck up unlawfully without the necessary Traffic Regulation Order being done to make them effective, or for the signs to be unlawful themselves (ie non-approved designs or combinations), or for unauthorised bodies (eg Town Councils) to stick them up unapproved because Mrs Shufflebotham had a moan.
The whole thing has been a complete shambles for a number of decades.
Rather than wishing to reopen the debate I want to know why the council and police didn't give honest answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0silSyYFPM
Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, is considering a tweak to the formula that would strip out bonus payments from the earnings figure used to calculate the state pension, which would reignite debate about the future of the triple lock policy.
While No 10 has insisted that the government is committed to the triple lock, Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, acknowledged that it was “not sustainable” in the long term because of spiralling costs.
The triple lock guarantees that the state pension, at present £203.85, will rise by the highest of inflation, earnings or 2.5 per cent. The Office for National Statistics revealed today that average weekly earnings rose by 8.5 per cent in three months to July, meaning pensioners had been in line for a rise of more than £17 a week.
However, the Treasury is said to be looking at using a lower figure of 7.8 per cent to trip out the effect of one-off bonuses given to more than a million NHS staff and civil servants over the summer.
One senior Treasury source said that excluding bonuses from the triple lock calculation was now under active consideration. “It is something that is naturally being looked at given the wider economic situation,” they said.“Officials are drawing up policy proposals for ministers, but at this point no final decision has been taken.”
After the ONS said that these bonuses had “affected” the headline 8.5 per cent rate, another Treasury source said that this had “distorted” the triple lock. “We have to look at it, the bonuses have distorted it,” they said.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that using the lower figure would save £630 million and cost many pensioners about £75 a year.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pension-triple-lock-bill-rises-wage-growth-inflation-kpwsssp6x
If there was no CCTV footage I'd bet my house that the driver would have been blamed. (Incorrectly, of course.)
These days we are always looking for someone to blame instead of accepting that sometimes in life accidents happen.
From memory, part of that pavement was shared use and the boundary between shared and pedestrians only didn't have a sign. Either because there never was one, or because it vanished at some point.
The unsupervised animal charged at Agnes Donaldson and killed her pet in front of her two-year-old great-niece
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/12/american-xl-bully-owner-banned-pets-mauling-attack/ (£££)
“I’ve seen this movie over and over and over,” he said. “Every sitting president has been sitting exactly in the same place — in a dead heat.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/us/politics/biden-campaign-age-approval.html
Treasury may strip out bonuses from yearly wage growth in last year when calculating average earnings, in bid to cut spending
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/12/state-pension-treasury-government-triple-lock-increase/ (£££)
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
This statement could easily have been given in court.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
It is not sustainable and will have to change no matter who is in power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qbg1iuySNA
Times Radio talks to RUSI thinktank boss.
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
It's now the largest city after the capital in a small country but was once the industrial hub of a larger country.
Its claim to fame is that its residents defeated the army of Suleiman the magnificent a long long time ago.
Where am I?
Oh, and a gypsy band had just turned up in the main square to give its unique rendition of Hello Dolly.
I can't answer that last question in less length than a header, beyond what I commented above.
But the review is interesting - normally from a normal Council I would expect a sticky plaster (eg a pedestrian cage along the kerb to 'keep pedestrians out of the way'), move on and hope that no one notices.
The safety issue here is road design that places vulnerable road users too close to traffic moving at high speed (ie 30mph+), and a need to separate the two (or three if we count mobility infra and pedestrian infra as separate items). I think 30mph is the speed limit.
In modern terms and to meet current standards you either:
a) - Slow the traffic down to 20mph and reduce it enough to a minority of <1000 movements per day to allow safe mixing.
(Probably won't work on a ring-road.)
b) - Protect within the road corridor, which means a 0.5m physical buffer and appropriate width mobility lane and footway or shared path on a 30mph limit. It goes without saying that the limit needs to be firmly enforced at 30mph - otherwise a wider buffer (eg 1m for 40mph) is needed appropriate to the higher actual speed.
(Might not work depending on the road design, or may require the reallocation of space from a traffic or parking lane.)
c) Reconsider at a network level, which I think is what I think should happen here as most of the solution.
That would involve moving either motor traffic or mobility (ie cycles, powerchairs, scooters etc) traffic to different networks designed for their use going to everywhere they need to go. It should also involve the improvement of the footway to adequate standards - which probably means 2m unobstructed plus a 0.5m buffer.
There are also elements of redesign needed on the ring road to calm it down / reduce speeds - if it stays where it is.
This principle is called "unravelling" or "separating" modes, and there is an unpronounceable Dutch word for it.
(Sometimes done here to a limited extent, but the road design profession still needs a thorough re-education.)
Tell that to the teenagers who have committed suicide.
Designing risk out is a better option than hoping everyone's behaviour is perfect imo - because none of us are and we all make mistakes.
This verdict really pi**ed me off. Yes, the accused should not have acted as she did. But the cyclist should not have been on the pavement there, either; at least not with the idea to stop to allow the pedestrian past. As someone who spent a long time on crutches in the past, I'm aware how considerate people could be. And also, in some cases, how inconsiderate...
I know that road reasonably well, having cycled, walked and run it. I'd normally choose to cycle along the road there, but if I was on the pavement at that place and saw an elderly lady coming towards me, I'd pull up and stop.
This was a tragedy, but the woman in jail was far from the only causal factor. And if the judge said it was a shared path, he was utterly wrong - in practice *and* morally.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8537/CBP-8537.pdf
That's out of about 6-7 million crimes a year in E&W.
And most of the hate crime is racism. Then disabilkity, and religion, with gender coming a long way last.
That's not going to make much of a dent one way or an other. So we needn't worry about online hate messaging as the cause of not prosecuting shoplifters.
That's bad, but part of general sense of crapness.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy made clear to Breitbart News on Friday that if House Republicans move forward with an impeachment inquiry into Democrat President Joe Biden, the move would come not as an announcement from him or anyone else, but from a formal vote on the floor of the House.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/09/01/mccarthy-details-impeachment-inquiry-process-if-we-move-forward-would-occur-vote-house-floor/amp/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfrErqb29yc
Imagine that cyclist had come across a woman pushing a pram. Would she have expected to get past the woman and pram without stopping, given the width of the pavement? Or would she have expected the woman to dive into the road to let her past? Because that is the way some cyclists treat pedestrians.
It's sad to say, and I may get shouted down for this, but the lady who tragically died *did* share some of the blame for what happened.
But of course that sort of situation only leads to confusion - people stepping the same way by mistake and colliding. The cyclist keeping coming gives no time at all for errors to be sorted out.
20 years ago the police would turn up to deal with that person security had caught shoplifting....even your favourite rag admits it
Shops are shutting because they can no longer make a profit due to organised shoplifting....these shops are usually in poorer areas forcing the poorer people to have to travel and adding cost to shopping....even the guardian admits it
I guess you don't care if the poor have to travel further to shop because the local shops have shuttered as no longer viable
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/27/shoplifting-out-of-control-forget-police-stores-need-to-up-their-game
Is an example
One was a man who stopped at a decompression stop at something like five metres. But there was a heavy swell, and he did not decompress properly as the buoy he was holding onto was going up and down, and he got the bends.
One that was not in there, was the time a friend broke his ankle jumping down from the rescue helicopter after his buddy for a suspected (not real, thankfully) case of the bends..