Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
Bob696:
--- Quote ---Ah but the implication is that the Police are incapable of doing this - .........
--- End quote ---
In my experience, there are some officers who are not capable of doing this and could not be trusted to do it, it really is that simple. Customs & Excise have "safeguards" for what they are worth. In a recent case the high court ruled against C&E and C&E thumbed their noses at the court responding that all procedures had been followed so the case was closed and the guys car had been crushed anyway. The court could do NOTHING about it.
--- Quote ---The point is it is a fast track to decrease the burden on the already struggling courts
--- End quote ---
The accountants rule the world as usual.
--- Quote ---but the level of evidence has to be the same as for court and the reasons justified fully because if there came a suggestion of someone acting unfairly or that it truly was a cop being spitefull it would have to be proven in the court that this was or was not the case.
--- End quote ---
So you would have to prove that the cop was being spitefull? Isnt that just saying you would have to prove your innocence in order to prove his spite?
In a court a PCs evidence is judged along with all other evidence. How can an individual be asked to judge his own evidence impartialy? Some officers CAN do it I have no doubt but all of them?
Terminus:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---So you would have to prove that the cop was being spitefull? Isnt that just saying you would have to prove your innocence in order to prove his spite?
In a court a PCs evidence is judged along with all other evidence. How can an individual be asked to judge his own evidence impartialy? Some officers CAN do it I have no doubt but all of them?
--- End quote ---
No no no it's not about proving the cops spite it's about proving the judgement was wrong or not lawfull. It's like anything there is a right to appeal the law - but chances are if it go to the stage the car/bike/caravan/small mamal (added for artistic value) was crushed then the law had already been broken on numerous occasions.... you seem to be missing one crucial point this law is not oh you have wandered somewhere you shouldn't have I'll crush your vehicle just like that - it's a culmination of failing to desist, repeat instances and not having the Legal documentation for the vehicle - you may only hear of the one issue that led to the crushing in the press but there is a lot more you didn't see.
People seem determined to simplify the law to oh you did bad me crush car - but it in reality is nothing like that - there are chances to stop the action which may lead to crushing etc.... but in document offences (no licence no insurance not mot or tax) - you deserve to have it crushed outright - because there is no excuse for stealing from the public purse - we pay so should you (you in the rhetorical not an aimed comment there) :wink:
Edit -
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---The accountants rule the world as usual.
--- End quote ---
It's not about accountancy bob it's about the increase in criminal behaviour, (and in my own opinion a downward trend in social behaviour) it's a choice either adapt the law to handle them or they overflow and hey presto people start shouting where's the justice! Why can't I get the Police to come round? - erm because they are dealing with the millions of other crimes committed by the people who the courts couldn't fit in this year.
Bigger courts? bigger jails? bigger tax rises? a huge influx of Police? - surely these would be the very things leading to the lack of freedom you seem to dislike - a huge Police presence, jails so big there would be one in everyones neighbourhood, tax rises that push people who are already struggling over the edge (and possibly into criminality) cause we all know what happens when a government announces tax rises - we complain - see its no win and it's not simply as you put it about accountancy - if only it was that simple.
on a side note count the typing errors :lol:
Bob696:
--- Quote ---No no no it's not about proving the cops spite it's about proving the judgement was wrong or not lawfull.
--- End quote ---
So you ARE guilty until proven innocent now (well until an individual decides you are guilty at any rate)
--- Quote ---but chances are if it go to the stage the car/bike/caravan/small mamal (added for artistic value) was crushed then the law had already been broken on numerous occasions
--- End quote ---
But isnt that the courts job? Besides I believe that the legislation also carries the words (paraphrasing) " believe the actions will continue" How do you prove your belief or if you are the 'guilty' (not worth calling them the accused anymore) part then disprove the officers belief?
--- Quote ---and not having the Legal documentation for the vehicle
--- End quote ---
I had the legel documentation for my peugot 205
--- Quote ---
you deserve to have it crushed outright
--- End quote ---
And there speaks someone who will impartialy apply the law and impartialy decide on the punishment?
edit> I counted four :P
Terminus:
see above edit.
No when you are proven guilty it is for reasons - you have the option to appeal - thiat is the way our justice system works.
If you find yourself at the harsh end of this particular legislation then you have been doing something you shouldn't have - it's not just as simple as you keep trying to make it - its not oh you're not meant to be there you should get your car crushed - if you insist on believing this thats your perrogative but it is slightly off base.
As for your last two points they don't quite make sense - what I clearly said was that those who are using vehicles without the proper documantation - tax mot licence and insurance should not be and if they want to take the risk and cheat the rest of us - then fine don't whine when their car is a box of tin. You seem to miss the point no documents is an offence in this country and always has been and for very good reasons.
Ask the people who's cars were wrecked by an ass with no insurance or the tax increases to pay for those that dodge it or the inexperienced no licence driver who kills your friend - tell him it's ok then ....... :shock:
Bob696:
--- Quote ---No when you are proven guilty it is for reasons
--- End quote ---
But nobody has proven you guilty, someone has decided your are guilty. There is a BIG difference.
Where do you want it to stop? Should everybody who is court 'red handed' by an officer of the law automaticaly be dealt with? They do that in Brazil you know, they take shop lifters into an ally and blow their heads off. Saves hell of a lot of time in court I must admit.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version