Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
Terminus:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---A policemans primary role is to protect the public from harm NOT to enforce the law (thats 3rd on the list behind protecting property). What you are arguing for is the order of these prioroties to be changed.
--- End quote ---
Absolute nonsense - these are not things listed in priority these are primary duties all of which have equal importance... the order they are written in does not depict a level of importance. :shock: :P
Edit
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---"failure to produce documents". This IS provable in court. You either have or havn't produced them. It is not possable to prove someone hasn't got the documents
--- End quote ---
There is an offence of failure to produce but this is different from the crime of not having the documents - failure to produce is used when someone often has certain documents but ignores the law and does not produce them at a designated station in the time period given. If a person is charged with not having insurance for example he cannot also be charged with failing to produce because that is part of the not having them charge in that case.
As for not being possible to prove that someone hasn't got documents thats not true either - in this case the bike was a trails bike and as such is not fit for the road and therefore cannot have documents so the proof is in the fact it is not possible for the documents to exist.
Also the Police and insurers linked a long time ago - they can tell before they even stop you if you are insured using the database and who is insured on the policy to drive. The same applies for the drivers licence database.
Edit 2 (cause I like my edits)
Your link bob relates to the serious crime squad of quite some time back - firstly as I said earlier accountability wise a lot has changed since then (but of course you want to believe it hasn't) there of course are incidents relating to this in the past that will continue to be investigated - secondly stop trying to divert the point. That is in relation to "serious and organised crime" this topic is about penalties given out under lesser crimes.
You seem to want the topic to resort to tickets for murders - proportion is required me thinks :P :)
Terminus:
--- Quote from: "drmike" ---But I MUST make this my last comment.
Mike
--- End quote ---
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I tried that ages ago but someone mentioned my name and I felt obliged to say something - I keep trying to leave it - ever since it drifted from the initial point - but something always trips my switch again :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote from: "Skibum346" ---
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote ---you have failed to prove your innocence.
--- End quote ---
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
--- End quote ---
OK... words of one syllable...
Every driver is required to have certain documetns and is required by law to produce these at the request of a police officer.
If a driver subsequently fails to produce said documents... the police officer is deemed to have proven that none exist as the driver has had a fair opportunity to produce them.
I accept that I should be careful with my phraseology, however... I thought it to be a straightforward explanation... apparently not.
--- End quote ---
Not sure your arythmatic is up to much tbh.
I am sure that Terminus will correct me if I am wrong (and justly so) but I think the crime you describe is called "failure to produce documents". This IS provable in court. You either have or havn't produced them. It is not possable to prove someone hasn't got the documents and it is against the principles of british law to ask someone to prove their innocence (which you appear to find acceptable and even desirable).
You then draw an interesting scenario of a policeman and a drunk. Who has defined what 'drunk' is? Who has defined what level of 'disturbance' is not acceptable? Is somebody who talks too much and is a bore guilty and subject to a fine or do they have to get violent?
A policemans primary role is to protect the public from harm NOT to enforce the law (thats 3rd on the list behind protecting property). What you are arguing for is the order of these prioroties to be changed. A PC could protect the public (including the drunk btw) by putting him a cell for the night and letting the CPS decide if a crime has been commited based on the evidence provided to them.
As to trust. Scan read this and tell me you would trust a policeman without question
http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/wmidlands.html
--- End quote ---
Show me the quote where I said someone was drunk please.
You can't... I said " in drink" a term similar to under the influence of alcohol. As judged due the the smell of alcohol on the breath or other such symptoms. These days, similar symptoms can indicate being under the influence of drugs.
Hence your argument is diversionary.
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote from: "Skibum346" ---
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote ---you have failed to prove your innocence.
--- End quote ---
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
--- End quote ---
OK... words of one syllable...
Every driver is required to have certain documetns and is required by law to produce these at the request of a police officer.
If a driver subsequently fails to produce said documents... the police officer is deemed to have proven that none exist as the driver has had a fair opportunity to produce them.
I accept that I should be careful with my phraseology, however... I thought it to be a straightforward explanation... apparently not.
--- End quote ---
Not sure your arythmatic is up to much tbh.
--- End quote ---
Aritmetic...? What has that to do whith it? Oh.. I see.. the words were not one syllable.... :lol: :lol:
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote from: "Skibum346" ---
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote from: "Skibum346" ---you have failed to prove your innocence.
--- End quote ---
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
--- End quote ---
OK... words of one syllable...
Every driver is required to have certain documetns and is required by law to produce these at the request of a police officer.
If a driver subsequently fails to produce said documents... the police officer is deemed to have proven that none exist as the driver has had a fair opportunity to produce them.
I accept that I should be careful with my phraseology, however... I thought it to be a straightforward explanation... apparently not.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: "bob696" ---Who has defined what level of 'disturbance' is not acceptable?
--- End quote ---
A member of the public making complaint I believe starts that process... oh... perhaps they aren't independant?
--- Quote from: "bob696" ---Is somebody who talks too much and is a bore guilty and subject to a fine or do they have to get violent?
--- End quote ---
I don't know... check the legislation... fair to assume that someone who gets violent will be arrested though
--- Quote from: "bob696" ---A policemans primary role is to protect the public from harm NOT to enforce the law (thats 3rd on the list behind protecting property).
--- End quote ---
State your source please
--- Quote from: "bob696" ---What you are arguing for is the order of these prioroties to be changed.
--- End quote ---
No I'm not... I'm arguing that the law and penalties as they exist in the example that startesd this thread is not wrong.
--- Quote from: "bob696" ---A PC could protect the public (including the drunk btw) by putting him a cell for the night and letting the CPS decide if a crime has been commited based on the evidence provided to them.
--- End quote ---
See my earlier post regarding the workload of the existing system and another posters response regarding increased taxes to provide necessary staff to allow the system to work that way.
You seem to equate the right to go to court first as the only way that is right, I disagree. As long as there is an appropriate appeals process and appropriate day to day management of police officers I am happy.
--- Quote from: "bob696" ---As to trust. Scan read this and tell me you would trust a policeman without question
http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/wmidlands.html
--- End quote ---
Oh... yes.. west mids serious crime squad.. fancy.. more injustice coming to light. Any corrupt individual or group leaves a footprint of impact that may not be visible immediately.
As to your question... yes.. I will trust a policeman without question... until they provide me with evidence that they do not deserve my trust.
Nothing you have said has changed my outlook...
--- Quote from: "Skibum346" ---I'd rather trust and be proven wrong than mistrust and be proven right.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version