In message , at 22:54:45
on Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jim Mason
remarked:
http://tinyurl.com/forlazyroland

Huh? A tinyurl obscures the potentially information about what was wrong
with the original reference.

Tinyurl does nothing of the sort.

Compare your tinyurl and the original [broken] url. It's impossible to
see what's been corrected, without going online. Maybe you are making
the unwarranted assumption that everyone reads Usenet while online?

--
Roland Perry

Buddenbrooks wrote

All prosecutions are under the approval of the CPS. They may do
nothing
and a prosecution can be made by others,
but the CPS can stop a private prosecution if they feel that it is
not in
the public interest.

The powers of the CPS vis a vis private prosecutions are those
previously exercised by the DPP.

They can't stop a prosecution just because they wouldn't have
prosecuted themselves in a particular case.

Also there is no requirement for anyone to inform the CPS that a
prosecution is taking place at all though there is a requirement for a
court to inform them when a prosecution is withdrawn.

This unfortunately has made the courts more political than when the
police
instigated proceedings.

Rather just part of the general tendency to try a judicial review
whenever dissatisfied. If the police still prosecuted they would be the
target of a claim rather than the CPS and indeed such has happened, eg,
for police cautions.


--
Mike D

Buddenbrooks wrote

Obviously acts after post war nationalization and before
privatization
would have treated BR as an arm of the government.

Not so. The public corperations were deliberately created to be
otherwise both before and after nationalisation. Example London and
other port authorities.

--
Mike D

"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote in message
news:01ca5770$6d331b60$LocalHost@default...
They can't stop a prosecution just because they wouldn't have
prosecuted themselves in a particular case.


The only reason I am aware of their ability to do so is the newspaper
coverage of a private prosecution they have done so.
The CPS have the right to take over any criminal proceedings and then they
can halt it. This is done where they feel
that 'it is agaiinst the public interest'
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p...ecutions/#stop


Also there is no requirement for anyone to inform the CPS that a
prosecution is taking place at all though there is a requirement for a
court to inform them when a prosecution is withdrawn.

Indeed, the case I refered to was sufficiently high profile for the CPS to
be aware of it the media.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7720587.stm

"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote in message
news:01ca5771$8abddca0$LocalHost@default...
Buddenbrooks wrote

Obviously acts after post war nationalization and before
privatization
would have treated BR as an arm of the government.

Not so. The public corperations were deliberately created to be
otherwise both before and after nationalisation. Example London and
other port authorities.


Possibly, but many laws give a special status to such places. Trespass for
instance is criminal on Rail property and dockyards while it is civil on
private property.
I was really just covering myself in that the railway companies should only
have the same rights as any other private company as far as enforcing their
T&Cs but may have a carry over from state ownership days.

BAA for instance can issue Compulsory Purchase Orders in the same manner as
a county council.

http://www.stanstedairport.com/asset...CPO_%20SoC.pdf

On 27 Oct, 21:06, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:56:21 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"

wrote:
*The point I was trying to make is that in the UK it is not possible to
commit a criminal act inadvertently.

Er, yes it is, at least in some cases.

Exceeding the speed limit when driving a car is a criminal offence.
This may have occurred because you were negligent in watching the
speedometer rather than because you deliberately chose to ignore the
limit, but is still an offence regardless of how it came about.

The answer to someone getting excessed a whackload of money for
getting on a wrongly timed train, though, is to some extent (certainly
at the London termini) individual ticket checks before boarding. *This
is practiced at Euston, and passengers are turned away (or sold a new
ticket or excess on the spot if desired) if they hold the wrong ticket
for the train for which the grip is being carried out. *I suspect the
arrangement at Euston is this way because it isn't practical to
barrier the whole station because of its layout and size[1], but it
does have a passenger-friendly side effect.


I can't let that one go unremarked. It ain't passenger-friendly when
Virgin staff at Euston are ignorant thugs who turn away people with
valid tickets and force them to buy extra tickets, backed up by
management who tell blatant lies and refuse to accept the NRCoC.

I strongly suspect that this is effectively a systematic fraud,
because the staff concerned evidently understand nothing about ticket
validity and people in a hurry can't argue.

Vengeance is coming.

Buddenbrooks wrote in article
...

"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote in message
news:01ca5771$8abddca0$LocalHost@default...
Buddenbrooks wrote

Obviously acts after post war nationalization and before
privatization
would have treated BR as an arm of the government.

Not so. The public corperations were deliberately created to be
otherwise both before and after nationalisation. Example London and
other port authorities.


Possibly, but many laws give a special status to such places.
Trespass for
instance is criminal on Rail property and dockyards while it is civil
on
private property.
I was really just covering myself in that the railway companies
should only
have the same rights as any other private company as far as enforcing
their
T&Cs but may have a carry over from state ownership days.

BAA for instance can issue Compulsory Purchase Orders in the same
manner as
a county council.


http://www.stanstedairport.com/asset...iles/STN%20Fut
ure/stn_g2_ap_Airport_CPO_%20SoC.pdf


Nothing to do with ex-state ownership. Parliament gave first canal and
then railway companies compulsory purchase powers long long ago.

And gas companies the right to execute forcible entry without a
warrant.

And private dock companies the right to appoint constables.

--
Mike D

"MIG" wrote in message
...
I strongly suspect that this is effectively a systematic fraud,
because the staff concerned evidently understand nothing ab€out ticket
validity and people in a hurry can't argue.

Unfortunately ones rights are theoretical in this situation.

On Oct 12, 8:54*am, "Ian F." wrote:
"Why HateRyanair?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n9mdm

http://www.examiner.ie/sport/ryanair...tchet-job-1030...

http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news....&story=gen-en-...

Ian

--

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...d-1813698.html