Surely there must be more the the story than is printed? Can't help thinking he must have peed off the coppers somehow when he was stopped, but
that doesn't excuse the utter waste of time and money, and public image problems that cases like this cause.
eh? WTF
don't know how they even expected him to know they were falling out anyway, ain't going to hear them over a clanky engine or see them in the
wing mirrors as you can just see over your shoulders on a bike. Must have had one hell of a crappy lawyer
Its about time they give the police swastika arm bands
I'd agree with MikeRJ, there has to be something more to it. Maybe he was throwing them at people, or maybe he went into a "nazi
copper" rant when pulled.
Seems a harsh sentence for pleading guilty to something so apparently trivial.
And he's lucky he wasn't given a jail sentence for littering, since the mints will take at least a day to dissolve. Irresponsible bikers again. Society is falling apart, I tell you!!
Elf & Safety madness in Canada
Probably just wanted to frisk her.
^ It was a him! 
Should have gone to Spec Savers. 
A police charge notice said he had ‘intentionally and without authority or reasonable cause, caused sweets to be on a road.......Another one of
'Tony's Laws'?
Why aren't they out there doing something useful? Like, beating up MPs with those nice big, new, shiny, American style, trunchions that
Tony's New Labour issued them with?
[Edited on 20/5/09 by Confused but excited.]
You don't get a curfew just for that. There's obviously far more to this than meets the eye. He was probably doing something much more dangerous but this was the only thing the Police could actually get to stick. More than one way to skin a cat............
quote:
Originally posted by Confused but excited.
^ It was a him!
this is crazzzzy
they should be doing something more usefull with the tax payers money like, getting people using mobile phones while driving... how much does a
handsfree kit cost..??.. really annoys me when i am biking.. 
A police charge notice said he had ‘intentionally and without authority or reasonable cause, caused sweets to be on a road, namely Lancaster Circus,
in such circumstances that it would have been obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous’ contrary to the Road Traffic Act.
Is there a reasonable cause to cause sweets to be on a road? Also how can they say a 3cm mint is dangerous when a foot wide pothole isn't?
yeah but polos have holes in them.
True but not even Kate Moss with 101% of her brain removed could fall down one!
It was a common trick in the 1980's to flick mint imperials out of your sunroof to deter aggressive tailgaters. The 20mm 6gram sweets would hit
the offending drivers windscreen at high velocity and persuade him to back off a little.
Perhaps the little darling on the bike was flicking sweets at oncomming cars, a combined speed of 140mph would make for almost ballistic qualities.
It may have been that the only law that the police could make stick was the one applied and the court recognised that and sentenced accordingly
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
It was a common trick in the 1980's to flick mint imperials out of your sunroof to deter aggressive tailgaters. The 20mm 6gram sweets would hit the offending drivers windscreen at high velocity and persuade him to back off a little.