1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. uk.rec.cycling

  • =?UTF-8?Q?Update:=20=E2=80=98lone=20female=20cyclist?= =?UTF-8?Q?=20=E2=80=98picked=20on=E2=80=99=E2=80=99?=

    From Spike@aero.spike@mail.com to uk.rec.cycling on Wed Apr 10 08:46:34 2024
    From Newsgroup: uk.rec.cycling


    Warning! This is a tediously long article, and it seems unclear what
    comprises the rCyupdaterCO. There is no TL;DR version.

    road.cc at its best, eh?

    <https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-fined-ps100-riding-cycle-path-307633>
    --
    Spike
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From JNugent@JNugent73@mail.com to uk.rec.cycling on Wed Apr 10 14:25:00 2024
    From Newsgroup: uk.rec.cycling

    On 10/04/2024 09:46 am, Spike wrote:

    Warning! This is a tediously long article, and it seems unclear what comprises the rCyupdaterCO. There is no TL;DR version.

    road.cc at its best, eh?

    <https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-fined-ps100-riding-cycle-path-307633>

    QUOTE (by road.cc):
    Describing her punishment as rCLridiculousrCY, especially due to the
    presence of signs indicating the pathrCOs shared-use status 30 yards from where she was stopped, Gillmeister quickly and successfully appealed the
    FPN, with the council agreeing to waive her fine.
    ENDQUOTE

    When an appeal is successful, the penalty which has previously been
    handed down is *quashed*.

    A penalty which has been merely "waived" has not been quashed. It has
    been substituted because of the decision-making authority taking the
    view that the penalty might, in all the circumstances, have been too
    harsh. It does NOT mean that no offence has been committed (which is
    what a successful appeal means).

    Had "Gillmeister" *won* an appeal, the council issuing the
    appealed-against penalty would NOT have had any role to play in
    "waiving" the "fine" (FPN). The FPN would have been quashed by decision
    of the appellate body and there would have been nothing for the local authority to "waive".

    Road.cc: illiteracy and ignorance for the benefit of the ignorant and illiterate.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Spike@aero.spike@mail.com to uk.rec.cycling on Wed Apr 10 17:08:49 2024
    From Newsgroup: uk.rec.cycling

    JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
    On 10/04/2024 09:46 am, Spike wrote:

    Warning! This is a tediously long article, and it seems unclear what
    comprises the rCyupdaterCO. There is no TL;DR version.

    road.cc at its best, eh?

    <https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-fined-ps100-riding-cycle-path-307633>

    QUOTE (by road.cc):
    Describing her punishment as rCLridiculousrCY, especially due to the presence of signs indicating the pathrCOs shared-use status 30 yards from where she was stopped, Gillmeister quickly and successfully appealed the FPN, with the council agreeing to waive her fine.
    ENDQUOTE

    When an appeal is successful, the penalty which has previously been
    handed down is *quashed*.

    A penalty which has been merely "waived" has not been quashed. It has
    been substituted because of the decision-making authority taking the
    view that the penalty might, in all the circumstances, have been too
    harsh. It does NOT mean that no offence has been committed (which is
    what a successful appeal means).

    Had "Gillmeister" *won* an appeal, the council issuing the
    appealed-against penalty would NOT have had any role to play in
    "waiving" the "fine" (FPN). The FPN would have been quashed by decision
    of the appellate body and there would have been nothing for the local authority to "waive".

    Road.cc: illiteracy and ignorance for the benefit of the ignorant and illiterate.

    A clear and concise description.

    Now, why canrCOt (or, perhaps, wonrCOt) road.cc do the same? [Rhetorical question]
    --
    Spike
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2