Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
Bulli:
Karen, ive got a grip. I live in the real world but your arguament ...after clearly not bothering to read all the previous posts is silly.
You would like to ban people from driving near you who have a valid driving licence , insurance and have paid their road fund licence....dont think thats likely.
Lets start at the top shall we.
1st The fiesta driver has shown his proficiecy to drive that vehicle by passing a far more difficult test than i did - the 17 year old has taken no test.
2nd. he is insured so if he has an accident the insurerers will pay for any material damage - again the 17 year old was not.
3rd his vehicle is roadworthy ..has an mot. - The 250 crosser cannot pass an mot. It has no light / indicators/ exceeds the legal level for noise.
so me saying i would like the kids who arent old enough to drive/ride stopped from riding illegal bikes on public land is the same as me living on cloud nine and wanting to be a rambler????
karen take a look in the mirror. Its intolerance like yours that causes the friction in society. I merely said im all for law breakers being punished - you want lawful people stopped...would my loud v8 exhaust be ok on your road....because its a landrover?
The problem with the RA is that they do have a blanket view, but so do we to an extent.
So please b4 you talk rubbish , read what people have clearly given thought to b4 you try to be accusatory and downright rude.
Oh and im not an exbiker ...i ride nearly every day , ive commuted for over 15 years by motorbike and push iron.
Bob696:
--- Quote ---you are so wrong here,both the owner and his couson knew they were breaking the law
--- End quote ---
The problem I have with this is not the punishment but how the punishment was arrived at.
In this case it is not clear if they DID know they were breaking the law, it is not clear who the witnesses were etc etc. It all comes down to the judgment of ONE man/woman who is only human. That person has decided they are guilty and has decided the punishment. It is a very slippy slope we are on.
Imagine a chief constable who is the member of the RA or friends with a local big wig land owner. He tells all his officers that they will operate a zero tolerence against all "off roaders". Joe in his 90 (gettit?) take a wrong turn off a BOAT onto an old RUPP and PC Greasypoleclimber is there waiting. Joe then has the problem of going to court or appeal to try and get his 90 back with little chance of success as he WAS in the strictess sense breaking the law.
As the law did stand Joe would get to keep his 90 (assuming the PC was satisfied he had correctly identified himself) The PC would then refer it to the CPS who would make a judgment on whether to go to court. In court the CPS would then have to prove he was breaking the law. The judge would then (if found guilty) lay down a sentence that was proportanal to the crime. In the above scenario I doubt it would involve crushing.
A quick fix to the problems and annoyances you are facing is always appealing but the ramifications can be astounding when thought about. Remeber that YOU will be annoyance/problem to somebody else. It might be something simple such as playing your CD player a bit loud after 8pm or your garden isnt immaculate all the time or your m8 parks his car outside their house when he visits etc etc All it takes is that this person knows the law and knows a friendly bobby.
It is all too easy to argue that a law will "never be used that way" but given time it can and probably will.
Terminus:
--- Quote from: "Skibum346" ---**Points finger at TERMINUS...**
You smell.....!
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
--- End quote ---
Yeah? whats your point :?: :P :P :P :P :lol: :lol: :lol:
quoman:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote ---you are so wrong here,both the owner and his couson knew they were breaking the law
--- End quote ---
The problem I have with this is not the punishment but how the punishment was arrived at.
In this case it is not clear if they DID know they were breaking the law, it is not clear who the witnesses were etc etc. It all comes down to the judgment of ONE man/woman who is only human. That person has decided they are guilty and has decided the punishment. It is a very slippy slope we are on.
Imagine a chief constable who is the member of the RA or friends with a local big wig land owner. He tells all his officers that they will operate a zero tolerence against all "off roaders". Joe in his 90 (gettit?) take a wrong turn off a BOAT onto an old RUPP and PC Greasypoleclimber is there waiting. Joe then has the problem of going to court or appeal to try and get his 90 back with little chance of success as he WAS in the strictess sense breaking the law.
As the law did stand Joe would get to keep his 90 (assuming the PC was satisfied he had correctly identified himself) The PC would then refer it to the CPS who would make a judgment on whether to go to court. In court the CPS would then have to prove he was breaking the law. The judge would then (if found guilty) lay down a sentence that was proportanal to the crime. In the above scenario I doubt it would involve crushing.
A quick fix to the problems and annoyances you are facing is always appealing but the ramifications can be astounding when thought about. Remeber that YOU will be annoyance/problem to somebody else. It might be something simple such as playing your CD player a bit loud after 8pm or your garden isnt immaculate all the time or your m8 parks his car outside their house when he visits etc etc All it takes is that this person knows the law and knows a friendly bobby.
It is all too easy to argue that a law will "never be used that way" but given time it can and probably will.
--- End quote ---
At the back of my sisters house lies a unused railline,obviously now with no tracks,there is also a long tunnel(3-400 yrds long)kids on these bikes constantly make a pest of themselves by riding up and down at all hrs(can you imagine the noise inside the tunnel).
this deadline is used(legaly)by famillys and dog walkers,I stick with what i said earlier.
People have allready had the warning,the police are right to carry out the law.
If anyone is in a legal vehicle and accidently makes a wrong turn i dont think they need to fear the law. But if anyone is in a illegal vehicle(car or bike)then i think they SHOULD fear the law.At the moment they dont.
Bulli:
Right Bob, I asked my 5 year old son if he was allowed to drive my car...he answered no.When asked why he said because he would get into trouble with a policeman. I dont spend my time putting the fear of god into my kids but I have taught them right from wrong...and more to the point that when he asks to drive(he loves sitting in the disco drivers seat) I tell him he isnt old enough.
So how come a 17 year old(who cannot get a license for a 250- thats the current law) and his 27 year old uncle didnt?? The original post states that the uncle uses the bike legally at a track, he is therefore more than adequately aware of the law.
So back to the establishment being unfare and crushing all these 4x4's . BALLS. it has not happened yet and this law has been around for a few years. Has anyone ever been threatened with it on here????
Please post if you have.
People make mistakes, the legislation is not there to punish people for making errors by taking a wrong turn. The power to confiscate is there to stop people doing the same thing over and over again. This youth would have wet himself if he had got a warning and would have been out again the following day. lets face it the police are stretched way too thin and he knows the odds of being caught again are slim.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version