Queue jumpers get a police ticking-off (From Oxford Mail)

Well done, TVP. It is time these anti-social, selfish people were targetted.

Does this include all those that turn into the park and ride so that the camera clocks their registration, then come straight out again?

It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Glad to see my taxes are being spent correctly, not on catching real crims who burn down cricket pavillions, rob the shops and harrass people, but i guess the good old legal driver is a fair target to squeeze more cash from.

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Not illegal, no, but unlawful without reasonable cause, which does not include jumping the queue.

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Not illegal, no, but unlawful without reasonable cause, which does not include jumping the queue.

Quentin Walker wrote:

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Not illegal, no, but unlawful without reasonable cause, which does not include jumping the queue.

Why is it 'unlawful without reasonable cause' ?

You drive into a car park and then exit, what is unlawful in that ?

Your_Kidding wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Not illegal, no, but unlawful without reasonable cause, which does not include jumping the queue.

Why is it 'unlawful without reasonable cause' ?

You drive into a car park and then exit, what is unlawful in that ?

There is a sign saying that the lane is for Park & Ride only. That implies you must be using the facility in order to use the lane. To merely turn in, then out again is contrary to the legislation.

There is an important distinction between illegal and unlawful.

I hope this helps.

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

But the lane states it's for the park and ride, so if you're not using P&R, you shouldn't be able to take advantage of the lane!

Unfortunately, Quentin, the sign says "Park&Ride access via bus lane" (I checked it this morning), so you're doing nothing wrong as long as you go into the P&R site, even if you only go round the roundabout and come straight back out.
While "ticking off" these drivers who had done nothing, the police missed several others who cut across to the main lane and were doing something wrong, and then this morning missed the two drivers who cut up the main lane and swerved right across to go into Wickes.
Complete waste of time while there is no permanent enforcemnet. "Slap on the wrist"? "Kiss on the 8rse" more like.

It is not illeagal or unlawful. So if you drive in there and its full, or you change your mind do you have to stay there until a space becomes free???

BigAlBiker wrote:
Glad to see my taxes are being spent correctly, not on catching real crims who burn down cricket pavillions, rob the shops and harrass people, but i guess the good old legal driver is a fair target to squeeze more cash from.

There's a simple way to avoid being squeezed Al; obey the rules.

As well as a P&R access lane this is a section of the strategic bus priority route from Witney, Eynsham, Wantage, Faringdon and Cumnor into the city. Without a deterrent this bus lane would soon become blocked with queuing traffic. Periodic crackdowns like this ensure the strategic route can operate as designed.

All they need to do is put down traffic cones leading all the way into the park & ride, then the police can get on and do some real police work! Simples.

How do genuine P&R users and buses use the lane if it's coned off Bart?

A better idea is to re-engineer the site so it has two entrances, not connected by road. One for buses would be left-turn only onto the Botley Rd inbound, the other for cars would be right-turn only onto the Botley Rd outbound. It wouldn't stop everybody but you can do it using a right-angle corner kerb.

As they wouldn't conflict they'd both run in the same phase of the lights.

It would cost though.

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see...

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see...

It's so terribly handy, when exiting Wickes, Argos or PC World with the intention of returning to the city centre to be able to travel along to the P&R site and loop around the roundabout.

Quentin Walker wrote:

Your_Kidding wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Not illegal, no, but unlawful without reasonable cause, which does not include jumping the queue.

Why is it 'unlawful without reasonable cause' ?

You drive into a car park and then exit, what is unlawful in that ?

There is a sign saying that the lane is for Park & Ride only. That implies you must be using the facility in order to use the lane. To merely turn in, then out again is contrary to the legislation.

There is an important distinction between illegal and unlawful.

I hope this helps.

I think you are quibbling over the meaning of words.

If something is UNLAWFUL but not ILLEGAL, then as I understand it, it is none of the business of the police to enforce it, because no criminal or motoring offence has been committed.

It is ILLEGAL to use the P&R/bus lane but to go straight on when passing the lights. It is NOT illegal (i.e., an offence) to turn left.

It MAY be an (unlawful) act of trespass to drive on and off the car park site without intending to park, but is up to the city council to do something about that, and this could be very difficult as there may be legitimate reasons for doing this, e.g. dropping somebody off, or no suitable spaces available.
If they really wanted to deter this practice, then surely they could easily configure the entrance and exit such that you had to drive a considerable way round the car park before you could get out again, largely negating any queue jumping advantage.

Gunslinger wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Your_Kidding wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Bart_Simpson1 wrote: It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Not illegal, no, but unlawful without reasonable cause, which does not include jumping the queue.

Why is it 'unlawful without reasonable cause' ? You drive into a car park and then exit, what is unlawful in that ?

There is a sign saying that the lane is for Park & Ride only. That implies you must be using the facility in order to use the lane. To merely turn in, then out again is contrary to the legislation. There is an important distinction between illegal and unlawful. I hope this helps.

I think you are quibbling over the meaning of words. If something is UNLAWFUL but not ILLEGAL, then as I understand it, it is none of the business of the police to enforce it, because no criminal or motoring offence has been committed. It is ILLEGAL to use the P&R/bus lane but to go straight on when passing the lights. It is NOT illegal (i.e., an offence) to turn left. It MAY be an (unlawful) act of trespass to drive on and off the car park site without intending to park, but is up to the city council to do something about that, and this could be very difficult as there may be legitimate reasons for doing this, e.g. dropping somebody off, or no suitable spaces available. If they really wanted to deter this practice, then surely they could easily configure the entrance and exit such that you had to drive a considerable way round the car park before you could get out again, largely negating any queue jumping advantage.

Yep, make people tack up and down, up and down, past every available space, before reaching the exit...

King Joke wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Your_Kidding wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Bart_Simpson1 wrote: It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Not illegal, no, but unlawful without reasonable cause, which does not include jumping the queue.

Why is it 'unlawful without reasonable cause' ? You drive into a car park and then exit, what is unlawful in that ?

There is a sign saying that the lane is for Park & Ride only. That implies you must be using the facility in order to use the lane. To merely turn in, then out again is contrary to the legislation. There is an important distinction between illegal and unlawful. I hope this helps.

I think you are quibbling over the meaning of words. If something is UNLAWFUL but not ILLEGAL, then as I understand it, it is none of the business of the police to enforce it, because no criminal or motoring offence has been committed. It is ILLEGAL to use the P&R/bus lane but to go straight on when passing the lights. It is NOT illegal (i.e., an offence) to turn left. It MAY be an (unlawful) act of trespass to drive on and off the car park site without intending to park, but is up to the city council to do something about that, and this could be very difficult as there may be legitimate reasons for doing this, e.g. dropping somebody off, or no suitable spaces available. If they really wanted to deter this practice, then surely they could easily configure the entrance and exit such that you had to drive a considerable way round the car park before you could get out again, largely negating any queue jumping advantage.

Yep, make people tack up and down, up and down, past every available space, before reaching the exit...

Barrier, take ticket.

Pay to exit within 30 minutes - £10.00.
Pay to exit after 30 minutes - £1.50.

Although I suspect many just loop around the rounabout without even entering the P&R site.

Sounds like the police got their response right then. Good oh!

Gunslinger wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Your_Kidding wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Not illegal, no, but unlawful without reasonable cause, which does not include jumping the queue.

Why is it 'unlawful without reasonable cause' ?

You drive into a car park and then exit, what is unlawful in that ?

There is a sign saying that the lane is for Park & Ride only. That implies you must be using the facility in order to use the lane. To merely turn in, then out again is contrary to the legislation.

There is an important distinction between illegal and unlawful.

I hope this helps.

I think you are quibbling over the meaning of words.

If something is UNLAWFUL but not ILLEGAL, then as I understand it, it is none of the business of the police to enforce it, because no criminal or motoring offence has been committed.

It is ILLEGAL to use the P&R/bus lane but to go straight on when passing the lights. It is NOT illegal (i.e., an offence) to turn left.

It MAY be an (unlawful) act of trespass to drive on and off the car park site without intending to park, but is up to the city council to do something about that, and this could be very difficult as there may be legitimate reasons for doing this, e.g. dropping somebody off, or no suitable spaces available.
If they really wanted to deter this practice, then surely they could easily configure the entrance and exit such that you had to drive a considerable way round the car park before you could get out again, largely negating any queue jumping advantage.

Until you can grasp and understand, the difference between unlawful and illegal, there is no point in further debate.

Gunslinger wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Your_Kidding wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Not illegal, no, but unlawful without reasonable cause, which does not include jumping the queue.

Why is it 'unlawful without reasonable cause' ?

You drive into a car park and then exit, what is unlawful in that ?

There is a sign saying that the lane is for Park & Ride only. That implies you must be using the facility in order to use the lane. To merely turn in, then out again is contrary to the legislation.

There is an important distinction between illegal and unlawful.

I hope this helps.

I think you are quibbling over the meaning of words.

If something is UNLAWFUL but not ILLEGAL, then as I understand it, it is none of the business of the police to enforce it, because no criminal or motoring offence has been committed.

It is ILLEGAL to use the P&R/bus lane but to go straight on when passing the lights. It is NOT illegal (i.e., an offence) to turn left.

It MAY be an (unlawful) act of trespass to drive on and off the car park site without intending to park, but is up to the city council to do something about that, and this could be very difficult as there may be legitimate reasons for doing this, e.g. dropping somebody off, or no suitable spaces available.
If they really wanted to deter this practice, then surely they could easily configure the entrance and exit such that you had to drive a considerable way round the car park before you could get out again, largely negating any queue jumping advantage.

Until you can grasp and understand, the difference between unlawful and illegal, there is no point in further debate.

Gunslinger wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Your_Kidding wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Not illegal, no, but unlawful without reasonable cause, which does not include jumping the queue.

Why is it 'unlawful without reasonable cause' ?

You drive into a car park and then exit, what is unlawful in that ?

There is a sign saying that the lane is for Park & Ride only. That implies you must be using the facility in order to use the lane. To merely turn in, then out again is contrary to the legislation.

There is an important distinction between illegal and unlawful.

I hope this helps.

I think you are quibbling over the meaning of words.

If something is UNLAWFUL but not ILLEGAL, then as I understand it, it is none of the business of the police to enforce it, because no criminal or motoring offence has been committed.

It is ILLEGAL to use the P&R/bus lane but to go straight on when passing the lights. It is NOT illegal (i.e., an offence) to turn left.

It MAY be an (unlawful) act of trespass to drive on and off the car park site without intending to park, but is up to the city council to do something about that, and this could be very difficult as there may be legitimate reasons for doing this, e.g. dropping somebody off, or no suitable spaces available.
If they really wanted to deter this practice, then surely they could easily configure the entrance and exit such that you had to drive a considerable way round the car park before you could get out again, largely negating any queue jumping advantage.

Until you can grasp and understand, the difference between unlawful and illegal, there is no point in further debate.

Quentin Walker wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Your_Kidding wrote:

Quentin Walker wrote:

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
It is not illegal to use the lane turn into the park & ride and drive back out again, so no Lady Penelopee.

Not illegal, no, but unlawful without reasonable cause, which does not include jumping the queue.

Why is it 'unlawful without reasonable cause' ?

You drive into a car park and then exit, what is unlawful in that ?

There is a sign saying that the lane is for Park & Ride only. That implies you must be using the facility in order to use the lane. To merely turn in, then out again is contrary to the legislation.

There is an important distinction between illegal and unlawful.

I hope this helps.

I think you are quibbling over the meaning of words.

If something is UNLAWFUL but not ILLEGAL, then as I understand it, it is none of the business of the police to enforce it, because no criminal or motoring offence has been committed.

It is ILLEGAL to use the P&R/bus lane but to go straight on when passing the lights. It is NOT illegal (i.e., an offence) to turn left.

It MAY be an (unlawful) act of trespass to drive on and off the car park site without intending to park, but is up to the city council to do something about that, and this could be very difficult as there may be legitimate reasons for doing this, e.g. dropping somebody off, or no suitable spaces available.
If they really wanted to deter this practice, then surely they could easily configure the entrance and exit such that you had to drive a considerable way round the car park before you could get out again, largely negating any queue jumping advantage.

Until you can grasp and understand, the difference between unlawful and illegal, there is no point in further debate.

If you say it often enough, people might understand...

Unlawful or Illegal it wont stop it happening from tomorrow and the next time we see the police there will be Oct/Nov time so what was the point!!

It may stop the people that were stopped today but they will just be replaced by others!!!

Ab Boy wrote:
Unlawful or Illegal it wont stop it happening from tomorrow and the next time we see the police there will be Oct/Nov time so what was the point!!

It may stop the people that were stopped today but they will just be replaced by others!!!

Agreed - it is an everyday occurrence and is just inconsiderate. As one who sits in the queue I have to say it is almost always men who do it.

Rhetoric aside what is the difference between unlawful and illegal? Definitions.com, Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia are pretty useless in this regard.

Why don't they just provide a filter for all traffic turning left, rather than the pointless system where P&R traffic can pass the traffic lights and join exactly the same tarmac as people waiting at the lights. Any other city would have engineered away the problem of "queue jumpers" ages ago.

I take it Bart is a taxi driver as he has all the air of someone who thinks he owns the roads.
As for 'ticking off', wouldn't it pay for the police operation of they actually gave some fines out?
The people they are ticking off have made the same manouvre every day and will again once the 'tickers off' wander off.

iklhik wrote:
Why don't they just provide a filter for all traffic turning left, rather than the pointless system where P&R traffic can pass the traffic lights and join exactly the same tarmac as people waiting at the lights. Any other city would have engineered away the problem of "queue jumpers" ages ago.

Ah, but it isn't exactly the same piece of tarmac. One half of it is a bus and P&R lane, and the other half is for general traffic. THe whole idea of the bus/P&R lane is to help those who are relieving the Botley Rd situation, ie buses and those using the P&R.

The constitution is the highest law of the land, underpinning that is common law. Under those are the acts and statutes of parliament, which gives us all the 'legal' stuff, but they are not in fact "law", they are merely a legal instrument of parliament.

Something that is unlawful therefore breaches the higher 'set of rules' - offences that break an act or statute (where not also covered by constitution or parliamentary device) break the adminstrative rules.

I will, when I return home, copy out the relevant section of Moriaty's for those in doubt of this.

Darn, second para should read "(where not also covered by constitution or common law) break..."

Also note well that acts and statutes are only given the force of law by the consent of the governed (tacit acceptance).

It is another question entirely as to whether constables who formerly swore an oath to keep the peace and uphold the law should be enforcers of political policies, regardless of how accustomed they (and we) are to it.

Can the police now have a crackdown on those who block the outside lane approaching the end of the Witney Bypass? It's a dual carriageway so why does one person pretend to be a policeman and block the lane. t doesn't speed things up all it does is simulate a lane closure and creates a longer queue in lane 1.

Why not just make the roundabout section (past the entrance/exit to the car park) a bonafide bus-lane with a camera in place? Then make the carpark ticketed entry so that you have to pay to leave.

OCC - I'm available on a good consultancy rate. ;)

dont forget boys and girls, that entrance is also used for workers and customers of the car sales place. so tickets on entrance is not good for their business. as in other cities that do this, have a raised curb seperating the 2 lanes preventing the queue jumpers from merging, information at traffic lights stating correct lane to be in, on exit i would suggest right turn only, left turn buses only

Many years ago a couple of friends of mine worked for the Oxford mail and they used to use the park and ride roundabout to get to osney mead when running late.

Oxfordfeast wrote:
Many years ago a couple of friends of mine worked for the Oxford mail and they used to use the park and ride roundabout to get to osney mead when running late.

This is precisely what we need to stop.

The Big Issue wrote:
Can the police now have a crackdown on those who block the outside lane approaching the end of the Witney Bypass? It's a dual carriageway so why does one person pretend to be a policeman and block the lane. t doesn't speed things up all it does is simulate a lane closure and creates a longer queue in lane 1.

A slightly different situation.
The 'best' situation where queuing occurs because 2 lanes of traffic merge, is for all traffic to use both lanes and to 'merge in turn' at the point where they converge. Suitable signage should encourage this.
This (a) makes more efficient use of road space, and (b) avoids the situation where drivers in the outside lane are perceived as (or actually, are) 'queue jumping'.

Is that reeeaallyy all the police have got to do jeeezz..

If we had less bloody traffic lights, better road network, cheaper public transport & less people in our overcrowded country there would be no problem.

Re: 'Unlawful' and 'Illegal'.

It's very simple...

'Unlawful' is against the law.....

'Illegal' is a sick bird of prey....

:D Shaun the Faun

Moriarty's Police Law 21st ed (1972)
Part 1 Legal Principles, procedure etc.

Ch1 Law
(preamble)
The law of a country means the rules of conduct under which the people of that country live, and without which no person could hope to live peaceably and in safety as regards himself and his belongings. These rules either have gradually come into existence by the general agreement of the people or have been prescribed by those responsible for the government of the country.
Obedience to law must be enforced and the duty of enforcing the laws is assigned to the police, who are responsible to the State and to the people for the proper performance of their duty.
The law of England is composed of two kinds of laws, viz:
(1) The Common Law, which is made up of those general customs which have been regarded as laws in the land from time immemorial. By general agreement endorsed by the practice of the courts certain rules of conduct have by custom become laws - and these laws are known as the common law. Breaches of these laws are termed common law offences - for example: affray and conspiracy.
It is now much easier and speedier to create laws by written statute or order of the ruling authority, but it is still possible to deal with an act tending to the prejudices of the community, not especially provided for by the law, by bringing the offender before a judge and jury, who, by convicting him, will thus create another common law offence.
(2) The Statute Law, which includes all the laws made by direct order of the State and set out in Acts of Parliament or Statutes, which are ordinances made by the supreme power in this country, which is Parliament, consisting of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
...
Many offences which were orginally common law offences have been dealt with by Act of Parliament; hence an offence may be both a common law offence and a statutory offence.

There is an increasing use of "il/legal" as applying to the second type of law only - etymologicaly it's from lex "law" so could apply to both - however, as some of the second type of legislation may be unlawful in the sense of breaching common law (see arguments for; EU being treason, DVLC con of 'registered driver engaging in commerce' needing licences, paying tv licence is treason etc.) it makes a fair distinction.

... so actually there isn't a big difference between them? If it were that clear-cut we wouldn't be having the lengthy debate above!

The answer is simple really, the jokers who blatantly break the rules every day, because they are impatient, BOOK 'EM Dano, and have done with it. Why commit resources to hear a load of excuses and rubbish, is it just the British that tolerate such B-S.
They know its illegal, just trying to be "clever", 3 points and £60, game on.

If the Council sorted out the monumental ****-up that is Frideswide Square, traffic wouldn't be queuing down the Botley Road anyway.

Simple. The car park entrance should be the gated entrance near the traffic lights... the current car park entrance should be blocked off... the car park exit should be at the far end behind the garage. Block the current 'turning point' by the garage forecourt. Cut an entry for the garage on the right just before the roundabout. Make the roundabout a rising barrier which busses only can raise.

That way if you're in the bus lane you have to enter the car park, and therefore have to buy a ticket cos you'll be snapped.

p.s. 'The Wizard' for president.

Dasdard wrote:
p.s. 'The Wizard' for president.

Why thank you, President eh ? Not really my scene, but its a nice complement.

All of this of course is Tosh isn't it.

These people know they are breaking the law and they are sticking two fingers up to all of those who conduct themselves properly. So hence my stance 3 points and £60, second time 6 months ban, and that would stop it all in no time.

Same with the on going cyclist problem which is like a skin eating parasite. No lights, book 'em, jumping red lights, book' em, second offence triple the fine and third offence, jail for 3 months, riding on the pavement where not permitted, confiscate the bike, sounds harsh and un reasonable, no, it will stop all this nonsense in no time, strict laws and strict enforcement. The only ones that will object would be the "do-gooders" and the guilty ones who continue to flaunt the rules, just listen to them squeal as they are punished and come out with total tosh as excuses and appeals. BOOK 'EM AND BE DONE!!! When a catching exercise is taking place, have a court sat ready, get them in straight away and do it there and then, no returning to the vehicle until the case has been dealt with, set out your stall, and just do it.
Almost guaranteed instant result. About time they tightened up on mobile phone users again as well, the Botley to Eynsham road would reap rich pickings most tea times, same old faces every day.

King Joke wrote:
... so actually there isn't a big difference between them? If it were that clear-cut we wouldn't be having the lengthy debate above!

if their making the deliberate (if etymoligcally unsound) distinction between those laws the people agreed and made and those laws the politicians made and had signed off isn't a big difference to you, who am I to argue?

Alfie, if that really is the only difference why the long debate?

No law is being broken. FACT!

Bart_Simpson1 wrote:
No law is being broken. FACT!

It would probably fall under the CD10, CD20 or CD30 offence code, namely 'Driving without reasonable consideration for other road users' or similar. 3-9 points on your licence.

King Joke wrote:
Alfie, if that really is the only difference why the long debate?

debate from me or from all the others? I didn't think I was debating, only relating info that some posts seemed to ask for...

No worries Alfie mate, I think I'm getting the difference now. I need to spend some more time on Wikipedia I think, I've never really read up on law before.

King Joke wrote:
No worries Alfie mate, I think I'm getting the difference now. I need to spend some more time on Wikipedia I think, I've never really read up on law before.

A big caveat emptor on the ol' Wiki there, bother to check that the sources actually support what the article writers put into text, not all of them are agendaless beneficent geeks, but I hope that's now more than common knowledge and sense :)

Alfie Nokes wrote:
:D Shaun the Faun Moriarty's Police Law 21st ed (1972) Part 1 Legal Principles, procedure etc. Ch1 Law (preamble) The law of a country means the rules of conduct under which the people of that country live, and without which no person could hope to live peaceably and in safety as regards himself and his belongings. These rules either have gradually come into existence by the general agreement of the people or have been prescribed by those responsible for the government of the country. Obedience to law must be enforced and the duty of enforcing the laws is assigned to the police, who are responsible to the State and to the people for the proper performance of their duty. The law of England is composed of two kinds of laws, viz: (1) The Common Law, which is made up of those general customs which have been regarded as laws in the land from time immemorial. By general agreement endorsed by the practice of the courts certain rules of conduct have by custom become laws - and these laws are known as the common law. Breaches of these laws are termed common law offences - for example: affray and conspiracy. It is now much easier and speedier to create laws by written statute or order of the ruling authority, but it is still possible to deal with an act tending to the prejudices of the community, not especially provided for by the law, by bringing the offender before a judge and jury, who, by convicting him, will thus create another common law offence. (2) The Statute Law, which includes all the laws made by direct order of the State and set out in Acts of Parliament or Statutes, which are ordinances made by the supreme power in this country, which is Parliament, consisting of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. ... Many offences which were orginally common law offences have been dealt with by Act of Parliament; hence an offence may be both a common law offence and a statutory offence.

Sheesh! It was a JOKE Alfie.

Joke: "A thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, esp. a story with a funny punchline."

Alfie Nokes wrote:

King Joke wrote: No worries Alfie mate, I think I'm getting the difference now. I need to spend some more time on Wikipedia I think, I've never really read up on law before.

A big caveat emptor on the ol' Wiki there, bother to check that the sources actually support what the article writers put into text, not all of them are agendaless beneficent geeks, but I hope that's now more than common knowledge and sense :)

Yep I'm aware of that, I read a long article about the Balkan Conflict once with no mention of the Srebenica massacre...

Nice discussion, and cheaper than splashing out on a copy of The Spectator.

The sign states Buses, Taxis, cycles and park and ride only. So a private car entering the park and ride and exiting again maybe breaking the Traffic Order, but not the order of the sign. And as we all have to drive to the signage on our roads then no ticket can be issued. The council need to change the sign to "and cars parking in the park and ride only" But they won't as they won't change all the other signs in Oxford that are wrong