Drivers show support for zoo wolf death protest

Gazette: Kala Dowsett, 49, with fellow campaigners Susanne Darling with Simba, Rob Lambert, Michael Fletcher and Sylvia Talbert. Kala Dowsett, 49, with fellow campaigners Susanne Darling with Simba, Rob Lambert, Michael Fletcher and Sylvia Talbert.

AN animal rights campaigner said her protest outside Colchester Zoo prompted positive responses.

Kala Dowsett, 49, led a demonstration outside the zoo on Saturday in the wake of the death of three escaped wolves.

Mrs Dowsett, of Stanstead Road, Halstead, said eight people protested, but many thought the demo had been cancelled after she took down a Facebook page following threats.

She said: “We had quite a bit of response from people driving past and tooting and giving the thumbs-up.

“We were disappointed no one from the zoo came to speak to us.

“We need answers as to why one wolf was tranquillised and three had to be shot.

“The zoo does a very good job on most things and we weren’t there to stop people going in or cause trouble.”

Mrs Dowsett said police who made sure the protest went peacefully were fantastic.

Zoo marksmen shot three wolves dead after they got out of their enclosure on Tuesday morning.

Bosses said they were struggling to comprehend how they broke through the steel perimeter fence.

They say the wolves had to be shot dead because they could not be sure tranquiliser darts would be effective.

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:01am Wed 4 Dec 13

Say It As It Is OK? says...

Nine months ago Colchester Zoo were on a marketing winner with their Stand Tall (Giraffe) public relations promotion.

Not so tall now! They have made a complete mess of this whole episode and the continued silence from the Zoo just confirms they must have something to hide!
Nine months ago Colchester Zoo were on a marketing winner with their Stand Tall (Giraffe) public relations promotion. Not so tall now! They have made a complete mess of this whole episode and the continued silence from the Zoo just confirms they must have something to hide! Say It As It Is OK?

9:28am Wed 4 Dec 13

pinkteapot says...

I'm not sure that three police officers were necessary...
I'm not sure that three police officers were necessary... pinkteapot

10:10am Wed 4 Dec 13

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Get a job!
Get a job! Ritchie_Hicks

10:11am Wed 4 Dec 13

Mr Honest says...

You stupid sad woman. Go and get a job. What purpose did you serve other than waste police time?
You stupid sad woman. Go and get a job. What purpose did you serve other than waste police time? Mr Honest

10:21am Wed 4 Dec 13

totallyfootball says...

Take a look at the picture, someone with no purpose in life trying to justify her being! I don't know what else the zoo could do, wait until the wolves attacked someone? Get a life, or more importantly a job!
Take a look at the picture, someone with no purpose in life trying to justify her being! I don't know what else the zoo could do, wait until the wolves attacked someone? Get a life, or more importantly a job! totallyfootball

10:42am Wed 4 Dec 13

Catchedicam says...

Judging by the comments on here, its a good job that some people actually care about others and other creatures.
Judging by the comments on here, its a good job that some people actually care about others and other creatures. Catchedicam

12:11pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Bert_Stimpson says...

The demo was on Saturday. Kala is probably a high-flying investment banker in the city during the week (without the hat obviously). Resurrect the Colchester 3. FREE SWAMPY.
The demo was on Saturday. Kala is probably a high-flying investment banker in the city during the week (without the hat obviously). Resurrect the Colchester 3. FREE SWAMPY. Bert_Stimpson

12:51pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Save the Tower says...

Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law. Save the Tower

1:21pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Catchedicam says...

Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
[quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation. Catchedicam

1:24pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7] Ritchie_Hicks

1:27pm Wed 4 Dec 13

wardyt says...

pinkteapot wrote:
I'm not sure that three police officers were necessary...
They were probably milking the overtime.
[quote][p][bold]pinkteapot[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure that three police officers were necessary...[/p][/quote]They were probably milking the overtime. wardyt

3:44pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Greatchef says...

IF!! and its only an IF!! these wolves had attacked somebody, a child etc im sure the same idiots would be up in arms saying why didnt the Zoo do any thing!! They should have shot them!!!!!!!!!
IF!! and its only an IF!! these wolves had attacked somebody, a child etc im sure the same idiots would be up in arms saying why didnt the Zoo do any thing!! They should have shot them!!!!!!!!! Greatchef

3:46pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Greatchef wrote:
IF!! and its only an IF!! these wolves had attacked somebody, a child etc im sure the same idiots would be up in arms saying why didnt the Zoo do any thing!! They should have shot them!!!!!!!!!
Do you mean the wolves or the protesters?!
[quote][p][bold]Greatchef[/bold] wrote: IF!! and its only an IF!! these wolves had attacked somebody, a child etc im sure the same idiots would be up in arms saying why didnt the Zoo do any thing!! They should have shot them!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Do you mean the wolves or the protesters?! Ritchie_Hicks

3:47pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Fellulah69 says...

Its a horrible horrible thing that happened, but had the wolves got to an estate and attacked anyone, maybe a child, there would still have been a protest. The long and the short of it is that no matter what the outcome was, the zoo would be damned. Lets not forget the enclosure had been tampered with but nobody seems to care where that person is or whether they could do it again. Im pretty sure given the relationships between zoo keepers and their animals, that shooting the wolves was not their first choice!!! By the way lady, your teapot wants its cosy back!!!!!
Its a horrible horrible thing that happened, but had the wolves got to an estate and attacked anyone, maybe a child, there would still have been a protest. The long and the short of it is that no matter what the outcome was, the zoo would be damned. Lets not forget the enclosure had been tampered with but nobody seems to care where that person is or whether they could do it again. Im pretty sure given the relationships between zoo keepers and their animals, that shooting the wolves was not their first choice!!! By the way lady, your teapot wants its cosy back!!!!! Fellulah69

4:07pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Catchedicam says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement... Catchedicam

4:17pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
You should probably read it again as you're still wrong.

Also, take a look at the gov.uk website which explains it a little more simply.

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence"

https://www.gov.uk/h
ighway-code/introduc
tion
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...[/p][/quote]You should probably read it again as you're still wrong. Also, take a look at the gov.uk website which explains it a little more simply. "Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence" https://www.gov.uk/h ighway-code/introduc tion Ritchie_Hicks

4:30pm Wed 4 Dec 13

romantic says...

It is a shame that the zoo has not released any pictures of the damaged fence. This seems to be quite central to the issue, really. Did the wolves escape because the fence had been damaged by somebody, or was it routine checking which had not been done? A wolf is pretty big, but can also tunnel deep down. Did they manage to squeeze underneath? Or was it deliberate damage in some misguided attempt to "free the wolf spirit"?

As zoos go, Colchester is one of the better ones around, and this has not done it any favours. The Winter months are already harder for them, as fewer people visit then anyway. They would be better to come clean about it. Somebody there must know, and somebody must have pictures. They gained lots of good publicity with all the giraffes and it is a shame to now mar it by appearing not to have a plausible explanation.
It is a shame that the zoo has not released any pictures of the damaged fence. This seems to be quite central to the issue, really. Did the wolves escape because the fence had been damaged by somebody, or was it routine checking which had not been done? A wolf is pretty big, but can also tunnel deep down. Did they manage to squeeze underneath? Or was it deliberate damage in some misguided attempt to "free the wolf spirit"? As zoos go, Colchester is one of the better ones around, and this has not done it any favours. The Winter months are already harder for them, as fewer people visit then anyway. They would be better to come clean about it. Somebody there must know, and somebody must have pictures. They gained lots of good publicity with all the giraffes and it is a shame to now mar it by appearing not to have a plausible explanation. romantic

5:13pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Mail Member 4 Colchester says...

Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie.
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...[/p][/quote]I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie. Mail Member 4 Colchester

5:21pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Route88 says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
If you read the first paragraph from the RTA 1988 which you have quoted it clearly states that failure to observe a provision of the Highway Code 'shall not of itself render the person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind'. What can however happen is that a failure to observe a provision can be used in evidence under other legislation to 'establish or negative liability'. In short a failure to observe the Highway Code is not a criminal offence.
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]If you read the first paragraph from the RTA 1988 which you have quoted it clearly states that failure to observe a provision of the Highway Code 'shall not of itself render the person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind'. What can however happen is that a failure to observe a provision can be used in evidence under other legislation to 'establish or negative liability'. In short a failure to observe the Highway Code is not a criminal offence. Route88

5:38pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Geetee6 says...

Kala (mis spelt name) but guess the cap....or wolley hat fits in this case. But fine if you live that far away from the zoo! Those of us who live closer NAND not least with young children! although saddened by their death accept that they had to be shot for the safety off all. Sad also having paid many visits to the zoo over a number of years. It's would have been interetsing listening to "Karla's" views had somebody have been attacked! So yes, get real please and find something more productive to society to do.
Kala (mis spelt name) but guess the cap....or wolley hat fits in this case. But fine if you live that far away from the zoo! Those of us who live closer NAND not least with young children! although saddened by their death accept that they had to be shot for the safety off all. Sad also having paid many visits to the zoo over a number of years. It's would have been interetsing listening to "Karla's" views had somebody have been attacked! So yes, get real please and find something more productive to society to do. Geetee6

6:10pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Catchedicam says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
You should probably read it again as you're still wrong.

Also, take a look at the gov.uk website which explains it a little more simply.

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence"

https://www.gov.uk/h

ighway-code/introduc

tion
You clearly are unable to even understand what you are quoting. Let me state it slightly more simply, which you may have the mental capacity to comprehend. The highway code is NOT law, you CAN NOT be prosecuted for not following the highway code, or is that still to difficult for you?
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...[/p][/quote]You should probably read it again as you're still wrong. Also, take a look at the gov.uk website which explains it a little more simply. "Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence" https://www.gov.uk/h ighway-code/introduc tion[/p][/quote]You clearly are unable to even understand what you are quoting. Let me state it slightly more simply, which you may have the mental capacity to comprehend. The highway code is NOT law, you CAN NOT be prosecuted for not following the highway code, or is that still to difficult for you? Catchedicam

6:30pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
You should probably read it again as you're still wrong.

Also, take a look at the gov.uk website which explains it a little more simply.

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence"

https://www.gov.uk/h


ighway-code/introduc


tion
You clearly are unable to even understand what you are quoting. Let me state it slightly more simply, which you may have the mental capacity to comprehend. The highway code is NOT law, you CAN NOT be prosecuted for not following the highway code, or is that still to difficult for you?
It's a shame you took to slinging insults. Meanwhile, back to the adult conversation.

I never said the Highway Code is law. I said that it isn't advisory, which is what you referred to in your original post. The Highway Code is used within legislation and forms very important part of Road Traffic law, as per my first quote. It is also accepted as the legal bases for deciding liability in motor vehicle insurance claims. Looks up the work 'legislation' in a theasuarus.

Secondly, as quoted, the legal system and the UK Government accept that the Highway Code forms many parts of the legal requirements of motorists, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence in some cases. If that doesn't form part of law, I don't know what does.

I am, of course, willing to accept that I am wrong and you are right and let other readers make their own decisions. Feel free to mud sling a response, but please quote some reliable sources to support your point of view.
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...[/p][/quote]You should probably read it again as you're still wrong. Also, take a look at the gov.uk website which explains it a little more simply. "Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence" https://www.gov.uk/h ighway-code/introduc tion[/p][/quote]You clearly are unable to even understand what you are quoting. Let me state it slightly more simply, which you may have the mental capacity to comprehend. The highway code is NOT law, you CAN NOT be prosecuted for not following the highway code, or is that still to difficult for you?[/p][/quote]It's a shame you took to slinging insults. Meanwhile, back to the adult conversation. I never said the Highway Code is law. I said that it isn't advisory, which is what you referred to in your original post. The Highway Code is used within legislation and forms very important part of Road Traffic law, as per my first quote. It is also accepted as the legal bases for deciding liability in motor vehicle insurance claims. Looks up the work 'legislation' in a theasuarus. Secondly, as quoted, the legal system and the UK Government accept that the Highway Code forms many parts of the legal requirements of motorists, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence in some cases. If that doesn't form part of law, I don't know what does. I am, of course, willing to accept that I am wrong and you are right and let other readers make their own decisions. Feel free to mud sling a response, but please quote some reliable sources to support your point of view. Ritchie_Hicks

6:31pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Mail Member 4 Colchester wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie.
Yes, I remember thinking "what an idiot" then, as well.
[quote][p][bold]Mail Member 4 Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...[/p][/quote]I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie.[/p][/quote]Yes, I remember thinking "what an idiot" then, as well. Ritchie_Hicks

6:53pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Catchedicam says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
You should probably read it again as you're still wrong.

Also, take a look at the gov.uk website which explains it a little more simply.

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence"

https://www.gov.uk/h



ighway-code/introduc



tion
You clearly are unable to even understand what you are quoting. Let me state it slightly more simply, which you may have the mental capacity to comprehend. The highway code is NOT law, you CAN NOT be prosecuted for not following the highway code, or is that still to difficult for you?
It's a shame you took to slinging insults. Meanwhile, back to the adult conversation.

I never said the Highway Code is law. I said that it isn't advisory, which is what you referred to in your original post. The Highway Code is used within legislation and forms very important part of Road Traffic law, as per my first quote. It is also accepted as the legal bases for deciding liability in motor vehicle insurance claims. Looks up the work 'legislation' in a theasuarus.

Secondly, as quoted, the legal system and the UK Government accept that the Highway Code forms many parts of the legal requirements of motorists, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence in some cases. If that doesn't form part of law, I don't know what does.

I am, of course, willing to accept that I am wrong and you are right and let other readers make their own decisions. Feel free to mud sling a response, but please quote some reliable sources to support your point of view.
The 'reliable source' is in the words itself The Highway CODE.. not The Highway LAW. the highway code is a simple guide to appropriate rules of the highway, it is not law.. only ACTS of parliament duly authorised by the Monarch can be LAW a minor publication by a government quango can never be LAW. So go away and read up about the difference, as clearly if you think that is the LAW you are a hazard if you are out on your own.
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...[/p][/quote]You should probably read it again as you're still wrong. Also, take a look at the gov.uk website which explains it a little more simply. "Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence" https://www.gov.uk/h ighway-code/introduc tion[/p][/quote]You clearly are unable to even understand what you are quoting. Let me state it slightly more simply, which you may have the mental capacity to comprehend. The highway code is NOT law, you CAN NOT be prosecuted for not following the highway code, or is that still to difficult for you?[/p][/quote]It's a shame you took to slinging insults. Meanwhile, back to the adult conversation. I never said the Highway Code is law. I said that it isn't advisory, which is what you referred to in your original post. The Highway Code is used within legislation and forms very important part of Road Traffic law, as per my first quote. It is also accepted as the legal bases for deciding liability in motor vehicle insurance claims. Looks up the work 'legislation' in a theasuarus. Secondly, as quoted, the legal system and the UK Government accept that the Highway Code forms many parts of the legal requirements of motorists, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence in some cases. If that doesn't form part of law, I don't know what does. I am, of course, willing to accept that I am wrong and you are right and let other readers make their own decisions. Feel free to mud sling a response, but please quote some reliable sources to support your point of view.[/p][/quote]The 'reliable source' is in the words itself The Highway CODE.. not The Highway LAW. the highway code is a simple guide to appropriate rules of the highway, it is not law.. only ACTS of parliament duly authorised by the Monarch can be LAW a minor publication by a government quango can never be LAW. So go away and read up about the difference, as clearly if you think that is the LAW you are a hazard if you are out on your own. Catchedicam

6:58pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
You should probably read it again as you're still wrong.

Also, take a look at the gov.uk website which explains it a little more simply.

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence"

https://www.gov.uk/h




ighway-code/introduc




tion
You clearly are unable to even understand what you are quoting. Let me state it slightly more simply, which you may have the mental capacity to comprehend. The highway code is NOT law, you CAN NOT be prosecuted for not following the highway code, or is that still to difficult for you?
It's a shame you took to slinging insults. Meanwhile, back to the adult conversation.

I never said the Highway Code is law. I said that it isn't advisory, which is what you referred to in your original post. The Highway Code is used within legislation and forms very important part of Road Traffic law, as per my first quote. It is also accepted as the legal bases for deciding liability in motor vehicle insurance claims. Looks up the work 'legislation' in a theasuarus.

Secondly, as quoted, the legal system and the UK Government accept that the Highway Code forms many parts of the legal requirements of motorists, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence in some cases. If that doesn't form part of law, I don't know what does.

I am, of course, willing to accept that I am wrong and you are right and let other readers make their own decisions. Feel free to mud sling a response, but please quote some reliable sources to support your point of view.
The 'reliable source' is in the words itself The Highway CODE.. not The Highway LAW. the highway code is a simple guide to appropriate rules of the highway, it is not law.. only ACTS of parliament duly authorised by the Monarch can be LAW a minor publication by a government quango can never be LAW. So go away and read up about the difference, as clearly if you think that is the LAW you are a hazard if you are out on your own.
lol
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...[/p][/quote]You should probably read it again as you're still wrong. Also, take a look at the gov.uk website which explains it a little more simply. "Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence" https://www.gov.uk/h ighway-code/introduc tion[/p][/quote]You clearly are unable to even understand what you are quoting. Let me state it slightly more simply, which you may have the mental capacity to comprehend. The highway code is NOT law, you CAN NOT be prosecuted for not following the highway code, or is that still to difficult for you?[/p][/quote]It's a shame you took to slinging insults. Meanwhile, back to the adult conversation. I never said the Highway Code is law. I said that it isn't advisory, which is what you referred to in your original post. The Highway Code is used within legislation and forms very important part of Road Traffic law, as per my first quote. It is also accepted as the legal bases for deciding liability in motor vehicle insurance claims. Looks up the work 'legislation' in a theasuarus. Secondly, as quoted, the legal system and the UK Government accept that the Highway Code forms many parts of the legal requirements of motorists, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence in some cases. If that doesn't form part of law, I don't know what does. I am, of course, willing to accept that I am wrong and you are right and let other readers make their own decisions. Feel free to mud sling a response, but please quote some reliable sources to support your point of view.[/p][/quote]The 'reliable source' is in the words itself The Highway CODE.. not The Highway LAW. the highway code is a simple guide to appropriate rules of the highway, it is not law.. only ACTS of parliament duly authorised by the Monarch can be LAW a minor publication by a government quango can never be LAW. So go away and read up about the difference, as clearly if you think that is the LAW you are a hazard if you are out on your own.[/p][/quote]lol Ritchie_Hicks

7:14pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Mail Member 4 Colchester says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Mail Member 4 Colchester wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie.
Yes, I remember thinking "what an idiot" then, as well.
Are you actually really suggesting, that it is legal to burn down a town centre building? Are you even more stupid than somebody who merely forgets which one of their many user names they are using at the time? It's political correctness gone mad, to allow that.
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mail Member 4 Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...[/p][/quote]I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie.[/p][/quote]Yes, I remember thinking "what an idiot" then, as well.[/p][/quote]Are you actually really suggesting, that it is legal to burn down a town centre building? Are you even more stupid than somebody who merely forgets which one of their many user names they are using at the time? It's political correctness gone mad, to allow that. Mail Member 4 Colchester

7:23pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Mail Member 4 Colchester wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Mail Member 4 Colchester wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie.
Yes, I remember thinking "what an idiot" then, as well.
Are you actually really suggesting, that it is legal to burn down a town centre building? Are you even more stupid than somebody who merely forgets which one of their many user names they are using at the time? It's political correctness gone mad, to allow that.
you've totally misquoted what I said
[quote][p][bold]Mail Member 4 Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mail Member 4 Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...[/p][/quote]I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie.[/p][/quote]Yes, I remember thinking "what an idiot" then, as well.[/p][/quote]Are you actually really suggesting, that it is legal to burn down a town centre building? Are you even more stupid than somebody who merely forgets which one of their many user names they are using at the time? It's political correctness gone mad, to allow that.[/p][/quote]you've totally misquoted what I said Ritchie_Hicks

8:07pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Catchedicam says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Mail Member 4 Colchester wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Mail Member 4 Colchester wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie.
Yes, I remember thinking "what an idiot" then, as well.
Are you actually really suggesting, that it is legal to burn down a town centre building? Are you even more stupid than somebody who merely forgets which one of their many user names they are using at the time? It's political correctness gone mad, to allow that.
you've totally misquoted what I said
lol everyone seems to Ritchie, but as you misquote yourself is that surprising?
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mail Member 4 Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mail Member 4 Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...[/p][/quote]I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie.[/p][/quote]Yes, I remember thinking "what an idiot" then, as well.[/p][/quote]Are you actually really suggesting, that it is legal to burn down a town centre building? Are you even more stupid than somebody who merely forgets which one of their many user names they are using at the time? It's political correctness gone mad, to allow that.[/p][/quote]you've totally misquoted what I said[/p][/quote]lol everyone seems to Ritchie, but as you misquote yourself is that surprising? Catchedicam

8:09pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Bkess you. Merry Christmas!
Bkess you. Merry Christmas! Ritchie_Hicks

8:15pm Wed 4 Dec 13

thehappyholly89 says...

The point being they shot the wolves because they had left the vacinity of the zoo as they were a danger to the public?? So why on earth if they thought they were any danger did they keep the zoo open and let vulnerable adults and childer wonder round the zoo evan though they were discovered missing before opening time??
The point being they shot the wolves because they had left the vacinity of the zoo as they were a danger to the public?? So why on earth if they thought they were any danger did they keep the zoo open and let vulnerable adults and childer wonder round the zoo evan though they were discovered missing before opening time?? thehappyholly89

8:53pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Boris. says...

Bloody do gooders, If a child was attacked due to a escaped wolf, they would be up in arms why they were not shot and that a child was ripped to shreds.
That is why i hate England, so called English people and the attitude of these people!
Bloody do gooders, If a child was attacked due to a escaped wolf, they would be up in arms why they were not shot and that a child was ripped to shreds. That is why i hate England, so called English people and the attitude of these people! Boris.

10:00pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Catchedicam says...

Boris. wrote:
Bloody do gooders, If a child was attacked due to a escaped wolf, they would be up in arms why they were not shot and that a child was ripped to shreds.
That is why i hate England, so called English people and the attitude of these people!
How many people are 'ripped to shreds' by wolves Boris? Or shall we not bother with 'facts'?
[quote][p][bold]Boris.[/bold] wrote: Bloody do gooders, If a child was attacked due to a escaped wolf, they would be up in arms why they were not shot and that a child was ripped to shreds. That is why i hate England, so called English people and the attitude of these people![/p][/quote]How many people are 'ripped to shreds' by wolves Boris? Or shall we not bother with 'facts'? Catchedicam

12:44am Thu 5 Dec 13

Boris says...

Catchedicam wrote:
Boris. wrote:
Bloody do gooders, If a child was attacked due to a escaped wolf, they would be up in arms why they were not shot and that a child was ripped to shreds.
That is why i hate England, so called English people and the attitude of these people!
How many people are 'ripped to shreds' by wolves Boris? Or shall we not bother with 'facts'?
Pl;ease note that the person you are answering is not Boris, but Boris. (with a dot), an entirely different person, who supports UKIP and hates England.
The real Boris hates UKIP and loves Layer-de-la-Haye, Colchester, Essex, England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Europe, and the World.
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris.[/bold] wrote: Bloody do gooders, If a child was attacked due to a escaped wolf, they would be up in arms why they were not shot and that a child was ripped to shreds. That is why i hate England, so called English people and the attitude of these people![/p][/quote]How many people are 'ripped to shreds' by wolves Boris? Or shall we not bother with 'facts'?[/p][/quote]Pl;ease note that the person you are answering is not Boris, but Boris. (with a dot), an entirely different person, who supports UKIP and hates England. The real Boris hates UKIP and loves Layer-de-la-Haye, Colchester, Essex, England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Europe, and the World. Boris

9:48am Thu 5 Dec 13

Catchedicam says...

Boris wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Boris. wrote:
Bloody do gooders, If a child was attacked due to a escaped wolf, they would be up in arms why they were not shot and that a child was ripped to shreds.
That is why i hate England, so called English people and the attitude of these people!
How many people are 'ripped to shreds' by wolves Boris? Or shall we not bother with 'facts'?
Pl;ease note that the person you are answering is not Boris, but Boris. (with a dot), an entirely different person, who supports UKIP and hates England.
The real Boris hates UKIP and loves Layer-de-la-Haye, Colchester, Essex, England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Europe, and the World.
Thank you.. so as a UKIP supporter then answer would yes he doesn't bother with insignificant things like facts...
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris.[/bold] wrote: Bloody do gooders, If a child was attacked due to a escaped wolf, they would be up in arms why they were not shot and that a child was ripped to shreds. That is why i hate England, so called English people and the attitude of these people![/p][/quote]How many people are 'ripped to shreds' by wolves Boris? Or shall we not bother with 'facts'?[/p][/quote]Pl;ease note that the person you are answering is not Boris, but Boris. (with a dot), an entirely different person, who supports UKIP and hates England. The real Boris hates UKIP and loves Layer-de-la-Haye, Colchester, Essex, England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Europe, and the World.[/p][/quote]Thank you.. so as a UKIP supporter then answer would yes he doesn't bother with insignificant things like facts... Catchedicam

10:12am Thu 5 Dec 13

Mail Member 4 Colchester says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Mail Member 4 Colchester wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Mail Member 4 Colchester wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Catchedicam wrote:
Save the Tower wrote:
Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code.
So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.
Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.
Wrong.

Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...
I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie.
Yes, I remember thinking "what an idiot" then, as well.
Are you actually really suggesting, that it is legal to burn down a town centre building? Are you even more stupid than somebody who merely forgets which one of their many user names they are using at the time? It's political correctness gone mad, to allow that.
you've totally misquoted what I said
There is an amusing irony here. As you've clearly demonstrated, you don't actually understand what you're saying, so how on earth would you even know if I've misquoted you?! Of course I haven't, and the Gazette's archives will prove that.

Look, let me explain this in a way even you might understand. If I'm driving down the road and see a protest I support (it wouldn't have been this one, by the way) and I toot to show my support, my action wouldn't in itself be illegal. However, if you were coming in the opposite direction, and then had an accident, you could claim that my action distracted you, and contributed to your accident (it would seem a bit far fetched to me, only a total idiot could be distracted, though hang on...).

Oh, and while we're on the subject, I was reading the official NHS guidelines on measures to be taken with snow and ice last week, and what the employer is reasonably expected to do, and what would be legally negligent by the employer. Ritchie, do not comment on legal matters, ever! You are really embarrassing yourself.
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mail Member 4 Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mail Member 4 Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Save the Tower[/bold] wrote: Tooting by car horns is illegal except when obeyong the instructions in the Highway Code. So, the demonstrator was ecouraging drivers to break the law.[/p][/quote]Highway code is 'advisory' not legislation.[/p][/quote]Wrong. Some of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.[7][/p][/quote]I suggest that you re-read your own quote, as you have just proven exactly what I said, its advisory not a legal requirement...[/p][/quote]I wouldn't take any notice of Ritchie. This is the guy who once claimed that if the old Odeon's owner chose to burn the building down, it wouldn't be arson, even though such actions would clearly endanger other people, and other people's property, because it isn't a barn in the middle of nowhere. I saw a dead bird earlier today, this dead bird clearly knows far more about the law than the unfortunate Ritchie.[/p][/quote]Yes, I remember thinking "what an idiot" then, as well.[/p][/quote]Are you actually really suggesting, that it is legal to burn down a town centre building? Are you even more stupid than somebody who merely forgets which one of their many user names they are using at the time? It's political correctness gone mad, to allow that.[/p][/quote]you've totally misquoted what I said[/p][/quote]There is an amusing irony here. As you've clearly demonstrated, you don't actually understand what you're saying, so how on earth would you even know if I've misquoted you?! Of course I haven't, and the Gazette's archives will prove that. Look, let me explain this in a way even you might understand. If I'm driving down the road and see a protest I support (it wouldn't have been this one, by the way) and I toot to show my support, my action wouldn't in itself be illegal. However, if you were coming in the opposite direction, and then had an accident, you could claim that my action distracted you, and contributed to your accident (it would seem a bit far fetched to me, only a total idiot could be distracted, though hang on...). Oh, and while we're on the subject, I was reading the official NHS guidelines on measures to be taken with snow and ice last week, and what the employer is reasonably expected to do, and what would be legally negligent by the employer. Ritchie, do not comment on legal matters, ever! You are really embarrassing yourself. Mail Member 4 Colchester

1:18pm Thu 5 Dec 13

gemgembitw says...

what a shocking report ! firstly they didnt stay all day , 2 hours ! secondly they wanted to use zoo toilets and the cafe .... so yeah real protest love ! shall we come protest down your road for being a moron ?! im sure all your residents would love for us public to have a protest outside your house , and im sure theyd stay for more than two hours ! if your going to protest then at least be in it for the long haul ! .... oh and since when is it ok to bring a DOG to a protest , animal cruelty with how cold it was that saturday afternoon. you should be a shamed , go find another band wagon to jump on and read up about fire arms, you would then understand its by law that an animal off of zoo grounds has to be shot , shoot to kill is the only option , sorry for the rant but it angers me she had this publicity shot and little piece ....
what a shocking report ! firstly they didnt stay all day , 2 hours ! secondly they wanted to use zoo toilets and the cafe .... so yeah real protest love ! shall we come protest down your road for being a moron ?! im sure all your residents would love for us public to have a protest outside your house , and im sure theyd stay for more than two hours ! if your going to protest then at least be in it for the long haul ! .... oh and since when is it ok to bring a DOG to a protest , animal cruelty with how cold it was that saturday afternoon. you should be a shamed , go find another band wagon to jump on and read up about fire arms, you would then understand its by law that an animal off of zoo grounds has to be shot , shoot to kill is the only option , sorry for the rant but it angers me she had this publicity shot and little piece .... gemgembitw

8:03pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Misty4 says...

My first thought when the wolves escaped was that animal rights protesters had let them out, given that so many of them are anti-zoo. And yes, it was right that they were shot under the circumstances. By the way, I did laugh at the RIP WOLVES banner!
My first thought when the wolves escaped was that animal rights protesters had let them out, given that so many of them are anti-zoo. And yes, it was right that they were shot under the circumstances. By the way, I did laugh at the RIP WOLVES banner! Misty4

3:24pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Misty4 says...

"Drivers show support for zoo wolf death protest" --------------------
------ A misleading headline, by the way, as it takes into account only those drivers that tooted and ignores the far more drivers that would have driven past them without tooting because they had no interest in their pathetic protest that was taking up police time. A more honest headline might have read, "Drivers ignore wolf death protest."
"Drivers show support for zoo wolf death protest" -------------------- ------ A misleading headline, by the way, as it takes into account only those drivers that tooted and ignores the far more drivers that would have driven past them without tooting because they had no interest in their pathetic protest that was taking up police time. A more honest headline might have read, "Drivers ignore wolf death protest." Misty4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree