A crushing blow

[Bob696]

I'm a trusting fellow yes... that's not the same as a stupid fellow

Thats a matter of opinion. :lol:

 I would trust very few people with things that are not easly regained. I trusted a complete stranger with a tow rope a few months ago and was plesantly surprised when he bought it back. I would never trust anybody with my good name or something I hold dear. Even for a short time. I have been shafted too many times by 'friends' to trust strangers. To trust a policeman to be perfect and to trust his superiors to make sure he is perfect is plain stupid.
Of course if you believe that the good of the many outways the good of the few (just as the communists and the nazis did) then this law is an ideal solution and trust is not an issue. The chances of you being one of the few is remote after all.

[Skibum346]

Of course if you believe that the good of the many outways the good of the few (just as the communists and the nazis did) then this law is an ideal solution and trust is not an issue. The chances of you being one of the few is remote after all.

 :?

Not sure what that means.

I think it's time to agree to differ, I'm not going to persuade you and your certainly not going to persuade me.

[Terminus]

I would trust very few people with things that are not easly regained. I trusted a complete stranger with a tow rope a few months ago and was plesantly surprised when he bought it back. I would never trust anybody with my good name or something I hold dear. Even for a short time. I have been shafted too many times by 'friends' to trust strangers. To trust a policeman to be perfect and to trust his superiors to make sure he is perfect is plain stupid.
Of course if you believe that the good of the many outways the good of the few (just as the communists and the nazis did) then this law is an ideal solution and trust is not an issue. The chances of you being one of the few is remote after all.

OK ok you can hide in your house and live in a cushioned idyllic existance behind lock and key  :P    :lol:

Where do you stop?  trust the jury implicitly in a high court case? hmmmm wait how many times have I heard "he's guilty, he looks guilty" or "he must have done it he comes from a dodgy background" these are but a few comments I have heard from 'Your peers' the very same peers who can and do get elected for jury duty - so jury's are not perfect .. then there's judges and sherrifs are they perfect - no by the very basis of your arguement they too are human and make mistakes.

So what exactly is your point? rip it apart and the very basis for your arguement against laws such as discussed in the start of this thread is that Police are not perfect so cannot be trusted to hand out orders to crush vehicles despite the safeguards in place and the appeal system.

ok so the very same applies to the courts, juries judges and sherrifs - all are capable of error all have safegaurds but none are perfect.

So if I lived my life by your premise of trust no-one I'd be very lonely, isolated, so paranoid I'd start thinking the aliens may have escaped Roswell and be coming after mankind and all in all I think 'd be missing out on the main part of life - living it.

Nothing is perfect and nothing is absolute bob so your point of arguement is you want perfect before you will trust anything - good luck  :shock:  

Edit - enough with the Nazi's already, its not comparable to the topic - it's melodrama. Do you when you cut your finger start saying oh my god I'm going to die it'll get infected and I'll get blood poisoning and thats my life over?

[att]

This kind of thing does not do the Police - Public relations any favours.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5286898.stm

Are judges really that far removed from general society?

[Terminus]

This kind of thing does not do the Police - Public relations any favours.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5286898.stm

Are judges really that far removed from general society?

That's right they are all the same   .......   just like everyone who drives a 4x4 is the same and the stop urban4x4 group has a point.

[Bulli]

Im not sure where the comparison between the communists and the Nazis leads or comes from. The two are separated by vast differences of ideology.(both are too extreme for me but in different directions)
Do you feel worried about recent events ? Do you now find yourself thinking maybe the right wing are right? Then that is a move towards the Nazi point of view.
Shame on anyone who thinks like that.
That was what the Nazis stood for and i have looked everywhere and can find no reference to the German Nazi government giving more powers to Police to remove property.
The atrocities commited within Germany and the occupied countries were carried out by the military or the police supervised by the military...not just the police.Neither did they start by making things illegal for the ENTIRE populace. To use this as a reference is just showing you have a weak argument and simply clouds the issue.Or that you really are paranoid.

Whilst driving into work yesterday i heard 2 adverts for the dvla computer telling me if i didnt have tax they knew who i was, where i live and will eventually crush my car. So wheres the problem its clearly made public . Abide by the rules or face the consequences. It doesnt take away rights of appeal or any freedoms it simplifies the system to deal with people who would otherwise get off scott free and about time too.

[Bob696]

Of course if you believe that the good of the many out ways the good of the few (just as the communists and the Nazis did) then this law is an ideal solution and trust is not an issue. The chances of you being one of the few is remote after all.

 :?

Not sure what that means.

Kudos to you. It takes a big man to admit that they don't understand the root  of an argument that have taken such an active part in. Respect as the yoofs would say.

That was what the Nazis stood for and i have looked everywhere and can find no reference to the German Nazi government giving more powers to Police to remove property.

I never said they did . Reread my post and you will see I was referring to ideologies not actions. Both think the 'state' (and hence the public majority) and its well being is more important than the individual.
But to answer your point here is a quote for you

Chancellor Hitler caused the German President in 1933 to issue an emergency decree which suspended until further notice several sections of the constitution. The decree declared it a criminal act to provoke or incite an act contrary to public welfare. The Decree eliminated freedom of the person ....................... the right to privacy in mail and telephones, and the warrant and due process requirements for searches and seizures of private property.

Nazi Justiz: Law of the Holocaust (Praeger Publishers: 1995) page 44-45

The atrocities committed within Germany and the occupied countries were carried out by the military or the police supervised by the military...not just the police. Neither did they start by making things illegal for the ENTIRE populace.

Although your point is of no relevance to the argument I would just like to point out that the Gestapo were not part of the military (as far as I am aware) but a completely separate police type force. In no way could they be viewed as military or even para military.

To use this as a reference is just showing you have a weak argument and simply clouds the issue. Or that you really are paranoid.

Whereas your post has shown you have not understood my posts nor do you understand history and you lack the imagination to take facts and extrapolate consequences from those facts.

Terminus
Yes the jury system is flawed EVERY system is flawed. However, in your favored system if an individual makes a flawed judgment it has a much greater impact on the outcome. If the policeman on the spot for instance decides you are guilty then all parties that get involved after that will simply assume guilt and the 'accused' then has to prove his innocence which is contrary to the way the law works in this country.

Lets look at an example of the 'safeguards' currently in place for a similar on the spot fine system.
If you are clocked speeding by a camera you are required to pay a fine (£40-£60) and receive 3 points on your license. The road conditions time of day do not matter and neither does the degree to which you broke the speed limit (up to a certain extent, twice the speed limit?). If you opt to go to magistrates court you will almost certainly receive 6 points and a several hundred pounds fine. It is straight forward, you broke the law, you pay the fine. However, there is no 'give' in the system. If somebody fitted over sized tires to his landy (say me for instance) and for a brief second I forgot to allow the 10-12% variation on the speedo and I get my photo taken. Yes, I broke the law but even given I have a completely clean license am I likely to got o magistrates and ask for a bit of understanding? Am I hell. Produce photo, wasting the courts time, 6 points, £300 fine.
Mr Little Chav blasts through a 30 at 50 and gets a £40 fine and 3 points (assuming he bothered to register the car to himself in the first place).
Its the law but it isn’t justice.

Edit - enough with the Nazi's already, its not comparable to the topic - it's melodrama. Do you when you cut your finger start saying oh my god I'm going to die it'll get infected and I'll get blood poisoning and that’s my life over?

It is comparable (I could talk about Pinochet or Pol Pot or any number of others if you prefer). Remember that Hitler was elected by the will of the people because he made the right noises and promised quick solutions to social and economic problems. What I have seen through this thread is people clamoring for quick solutions to noisy mini motos and motox bikes, hang the implications and possible consequences. VERY similar to the German people of 1932 (electing Hitler) or the Italian people of 1921 when the elected Mussolini to power. It is the same thought process, the worrying thing is that we already have the government that is prepared to give it to them.
Not being able to see the possibilities simply shows a lack of imagination. Seeing the possibilities but believing they could never happen is foolish

[Terminus]

Lets look at an example of the 'safeguards' currently in place for a similar on the spot fine system.
If you are clocked speeding by a camera you are required to pay a fine (£40-£60) and receive 3 points on your license. The road conditions time of day do not matter and neither does the degree to which you broke the speed limit (up to a certain extent, twice the speed limit?). If you opt to go to magistrates court you will almost certainly receive 6 points and a several hundred pounds fine. It is straight forward, you broke the law, you pay the fine. However, there is no 'give' in the system. If somebody fitted over sized tires to his landy (say me for instance) and for a brief second I forgot to allow the 10-12% variation on the speedo and I get my photo taken. Yes, I broke the law but even given I have a completely clean license am I likely to got o magistrates and ask for a bit of understanding? Am I hell. Produce photo, wasting the courts time, 6 points, £300 fine.

That is the weakest arguemt you've put forward yet.. you're telling me you object to being caught just because you put on oversize tyres and you forgot? ..... I shan't go down the line of pointing out to you then that technically by law you're speedometer should read accurately ... so the fact you forgot it didn't is a very poor excuse.

Lets face it in the example you give it doesn't matter whether it was a young person zooming along or you forgetting because when someone has to tell Mrs Smith her child died because the driver was going too fast she won't care

I get the feeling your objection to the whole thing is more because you'll get caught and have no excuse than it's unfair  :P

Edit - ah yes Hitlers initial legal changes were for minor legistalive changes such as the ones stopping mini moto's or illegal vehicles - a poor comparison used in desperation to over emphasise a weakening point  :shock: :P

[Bob696]

you're telling me you object to being caught just because you put on oversize tyres and you forgot? ..... I shan't go down the line of pointing out to you then that technically by law you're speedometer should read accurately ... so the fact you forgot it didn't is a very poor excuse.

Actualy the point I was makeing was about justice rather than the law, sorry if it wasnt clear. In an ideal world then yes I should have been punished but to the same degree as Mr Chav? Would not something like a a simple fine with no points be a suitable punishment?
As I say its the law but isnt justice. When a society values the law more than justice then it has gone down the pan.

a poor comparison used in desperation to over emphasise a weakening point

You do not say why it is a poor comparison yet acknowledge there are similarities :roll:  It appears you cannot argue against the theory so you simply dismiss it as not relevant.
Would you prefer to compare it to the rise of Mussolini? Less emotive and but perhaps with greater similaraties to the current situation. Lesser party of a partnership, party leader that becomes defacto president (or just acts like it), scares the crap out of its people so that new laws can be introduced that favour the goverment. Gets involved in wars it cant win at the behest of the major part of the partnership.

Not being able to see the possibilities simply shows a lack of imagination. Seeing the possibilities but believing they could never happen is foolish

   

Study the past if you would define the future.

Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
   

To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future.

Plutarch (46 AD - 120 AD)

[Terminus]

Actualy the point I was makeing was about justice rather than the law, sorry if it wasnt clear. In an ideal world then yes I should have been punished but to the same degree as Mr Chav? Would not something like a a simple fine with no points be a suitable punishment?
As I say its the law but isnt justice. When a society values the law more than justice then it has gone down the pan.

Ah I see you want the fine but not to accept the consequences of your actions?  So it's more a case of ok I was speeding but why should I get points?

The results of speeding and other such things can often be catastrophic for someone elses life - but you want just a measly fine - thus the more money you have the less you care about speeding because you can afford it - thereby providing no protection for the public - genius!

Currently using a mobile phone is only a fine and as a result it is still all too prevalent - however in the not too distant future it will go to points and then watch the number of offenders drop - simply put points make people think about their actions - fines do not.

But then this is about responsibility - if you have it you are clearly not going to get points or your vehicle crushed - your pre-ambles into history to vindicate your point of view are not comparable because this is about a matter of responsibility an the law doing the best it can to protect the majority of the populous.

Now I see your point clearly you don't want to accept any responsibility so the law is unfair - it counts for all of us, we're not going to invade Poland and you are distorting serious issues in history to justify a paranoia that the law is out to get everyone.

I'm not about to respond in any further depth to your use of Hitler or Mussilini to argue against points or the crushing of a motor vehicle because they are ridiculous and highly over exagerated - its the old can't seem to get my point over try aligning it with something serious to make it stronger - but it doesn't

I imagine many who were affected or incarcerated by Hitlers ambition would be deeply proud to see such a serious matter reduced to a point of arguement for why you think a piece law is unfair - and that personal repsonsibility does not in fact have more to do with it.

[Bob696]

I'm not about to respond in any further depth to your use of Hitler or Mussilini to argue against points or the crushing of a motor vehicle because they are ridiculous and highly over exagerated - its the old can't seem to get my point over try aligning it with something serious to make it stronger - but it doesn't

Actualy you are wrong to accuse me of aligning it. It is the main point. Hitler, Mussalini, Pol Pot etc started somewhere. They didnt just spring into exsistance as mass murders, they first gained popular support by introducing quick fixes that the majority found popular whilst the minority were accused of standing in the way of progress.

Now I see your point clearly you don't want to accept any responsibility so the law is unfair - it counts for all of us, we're not going to invade Poland and you are distorting serious issues in history to justify a paranoia that the law is out to get everyone.

Yes I use history to get a point across. If you cant learn from others experiences then you are totaly idiot. Others on this thread try pulling at peoples emotions and heart strings with such statements as

The results of speeding and other such things can often be catastrophic for someone elses life

Well doh! I would never have known that

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 ....... Shocked

It is a sure fire sign that they dont actualy have any real defence of their viewpoint and are relying on emotions rather than logic to get your point across.

I think it was this statement from you Terminus that sums up why the way this law has been implemented is so very wrong.

......you deserve to have it crushed outright

YOU who is so obviously profesionaly impartial :roll:  will have the almost sole resposability for conviction and punishment. In this case with only knowing the facts from a newspaper you have decided that the punishment is just.

I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands ONLY with the way the judgment and punishment are arrived at.

If you trust future generations of policemen/women to be as trustworthy as you says todays police are AND you trust future poloticians as much then you really are being foolish.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Thomas Jefferson

[Bulli]

Bob, Man you really are way off.

YOU who is so obviously profesionaly impartial  will have the almost sole resposability for conviction and punishment. In this case with only knowing the facts from a newspaper you have decided that the punishment is just.

Right then ,

Fact? I assume (which is dangerous i know...im sure Hitler assumed ) that as the artical was written after the uncle wrote in the main hub of the argument is accurate.
The uncle clearly is aware of the law..he states that he legallyuses the bike at a local track. So he lent the bike to his nephew knowing full well that the bike cannot legaly be used anywhere other than private land.
The 17 year old then uses the bike on public land... you with me so far?
So what minor infringement has he commited.
1. No licence.
2. no insurance.
3. No road fund licence.
4. No MOT as the vehicle is not MOTable.

Now we have no information about how he was riding or if he had been warned about his actions etc...but thats frankly irrelevant.

So we go from this poor uncle who is having he bike crushed to Hitler and POL POT for gods sake.

Right then Bob see if you can tell me why those legal infractions should be ignored. Which are not serious? Please tell me, im stupid and have read about Gengis Khans' widespread introduction of the driving test but couldnt see the link. Please enlighten me.
Yes i am taking the mickey, sorry.
 I do however think that all of the above are serious and if you dont please tell me why?

[Xtremeteam]

cheesey peeps,

can you all stop arguing with bob please,hes a teacher,trained never to be wrong & to argue till he's blue in the face  :lol:  :lol:













(just joking)

[Bulli]

Maybe that explains it???

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, i love a good argument.

I just think comparing the fate of some muppet who did know the law to the major villains of the last century is crazy.
Lets face it having his bike crushed could turn him into the next Fred West but thats so unlikely that nobody would dream of raising it.
Yes we all learn from history and if the time comes when the Blair Youth march...i will bow my head in shame for not spotting it coming.

[Bob696]

Bob, Man you really are way off.

Right then Bob see if you can tell me why those legal infractions should be ignored. Which are not serious? Please tell me, im stupid and have read about Gengis Khans' widespread introduction of the driving test but couldnt see the link. Please enlighten me.
Yes i am taking the mickey, sorry.
 I do however think that all of the above are serious and if you dont please tell me why?

Where do I say they should have been ignored? Please enlighten me. What I ACTUALY said was

I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands ONLY with the way the judgment and punishment are arrived at.

Is that so hard to understand?

Asking a police officer, who are only human, to impartialy act as judge, jury, defence, CPS and jury is
a)unfair on the police officer
b) 'Justice' on the cheap

Remember the old saying "You get what you pay for" ?

BTW I edited out most of your post because it was just repeating what others have said and was mostly irrelavent anyway.

I just think comparing the fate of some muppet who did know the law to the major villains of the last century is crazy.

This is a little like having a 'discussion' with a 12 year old who hasnt listened to a word you have said and whose opinions have been burnt into him by his parents.
PLEASE read what I write NOT what you think I have written.
Where did I say that the "muppet" was the same as Hitler?

I will quote myself again

Not being able to see the possibilities simply shows a lack of imagination. Seeing the possibilities but believing they could never happen is foolish

Redline    STFU :P

[Xtremeteam]

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[att]

I think I will step in here once again....

I do know of Police officers who do not always do the correct thing, take that how you like.

I also know of a ......... who will cover things up with the aid of the Police Force.

I do know of things that are serious that have been covered up in the past.

No names, no locations, no direct accusations.....I just know these things because I was privvy to the information at the time.

The whole system is corrupt as it stands now, never mind where it is going for the future :roll:

[Bulli]

No BOB ,
 Quote:
I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands ONLY with the way the judgment and punishment are arrived at.
So you would rather have cases which are clear cut , with indefensable guilt put through the courts? Why ? because the Police are all untrustworthy?I htink we are all taxed enough...maybe some simplification is required.

Quote:
Not being able to see the possibilities simply shows a lack of imagination. Seeing the possibilities but believing they could never happen is foolish

I can see the possibilities, i dont dismiss them lightly. The problem i have is that you have taken a simplification of the legal process to allow clear guilt to define the punishment and translated this to a move toward a Nazi like state. The reason i continue to comment is clearly that i dont agree with this.  

Quote:
Actualy you are wrong to accuse me of aligning it. It is the main point. Hitler, Mussalini, Pol Pot etc started somewhere. They didnt just spring into exsistance as mass murders, they first gained popular support by introducing quick fixes that the majority found popular whilst the minority were accused of standing in the way of progress.

Yes, point taken on both Hitler.

Mussolini  was an elected representitive but was never voted into power. He was asked to form a government by the King in October 1922 when the previous administration failed. He then manipulated the laws to dispand opposition parties and assumed ultimate power.

Thats could happen, i suspect that it wont and you are simply enjoying creating a stir. The likelyhood is very very slim.

PolPot BTW was never elected either .He seized power and the political party(if you should call it that) never had popular support.They simply terrifed all the uneducated peasants that were left.
He simply had sufficient weaponary to subdue any resistance and once you have killed a third of your own populace, mainly intelectuals, there was no resistance.
 The premise(sorry cant be bothered to find a quote ..i know you love em) of your case. He seized power of the Kamer rouge when the leader mysteriously disappeared(most think he killed him). So if Blair disappears and 2 jags jumps in maybe you will have the point you clearly seek.

Sorry Bob i know you like show boating .

This was simply about if its right or wrong to destroy anothers property.Rather than what it has become- a debate on the unlikely outcome of empowering the police force.

I think they do a hard job, im not one and dont want to be. My brother BTW is a teacher so im not anti teachers either.

[Bulli]

sorry ATT but by allowing it you condone it.

[att]

I see exactly where Bob is coming from, it is easy to understand if you have an open mind, unfortunately many peeps in this country have had their minds washed and closed......By the state, for the state.

That is the reason he makes the analogy, that is all it is at the moment, but I think you will find he is not alone, there are many current Statesmen of this country who do share the same opinion, Anthony Wedgewood Benn is one, just off the top of my head....There are many more who beleive we have already moved into a totalitarian regime.

Go back 20-30 years, see how it was then, go forward another 20-30 years....See if you like the picture, social conditions and regime are akin to compound interest........Open your mind, stand in somebody elses shoes for a change......The picture could be very frightening indeed.

[att]

sorry ATT but by allowing it you condone it.

I have no choice, I value my own life and that of the one`s that I love......That is the reality.......And, I know it is a sad one, once again, wear my shoes for a while, see what your real feelings are then.

We do not live in a perfect society, we do not live in a just society, we do not live in a protective or free society, we live in a corrupt society and that is controlled by psychological and physical boundaries.....You may wish to turn a blind eye, that is your perogative......And there is nothing wrong with that.

[Bulli]

Att i understand what you are saying.And yes it is wrong i know i wouldnt want to be in that position but its harldy a generalisation. I have never seen anything that i was unable to freely talk about.I think i am very much in the majority.

what would stop me driving down to you now and having a face to face debate about this?

Nothing. My point is that i quite fancy a pint and nothing and nobody would stop me if thats what i want to do.

I can leave my house now, in an hour. Whenever i am not dictated to.

I can drink when i want , i can eat when i want . I can talk to who i want and most importantly i can say what i want.

Yes if i say something extreme then i should be held accountable but that is hardly a dictatorship is it?
Now BOB will dress that up that restricing my extreme views for the general good is the slippery slope into a dictatorship.

I dont think it is.

[Bob696]

Now BOB will dress that up that restricing my extreme views for the general good is the slippery slope into a dictatorship.

No it wouldnt for one simple fact ... you are in favour of ristricting the options of the people and letting them suffer justice on the cheap, the powers that be  wouldnt want to shut you up but that is by the by.

This was simply about if its right or wrong to destroy anothers property.

I would dispute that as the phrase "it's one of those situations where the police are judge and jury which doesn't seem at all right. " appears half way down the first page.

I REALLY REALLY hope you are right about it never happening, the chances of it happening totaly in my life is slim but the ONLY way to make sure it never happens is not to give the police the power to do it in the first place.

Police powers are expanding there can be little doubt about that. There can also be little doubt that peoples options for doing something different to the 'norm' are also being reduced (most guns being banned after dunblain yet gun crime rises significantly anyway, fox hunting, NERC for example). The goverment want us to work pay taxes go home and watch telly and then die. I really do hope it isnt a trend but I fear it is.

I hated Thather when I was young but at least she was honest unlike these toerags we have at the moment.

[att]

Att i understand what you are saying.And yes it is wrong i know i wouldnt want to be in that position but its harldy a generalisation. I have never seen anything that i was unable to freely talk about.I think i am very much in the majority.

what would stop me driving down to you now and having a face to face debate about this?

Nothing. My point is that i quite fancy a pint and nothing and nobody would stop me if thats what i want to do.

I can leave my house now, in an hour. Whenever i am not dictated to.

I can drink when i want , i can eat when i want . I can talk to who i want and most importantly i can say what i want.

Yes if i say something extreme then i should be held accountable but that is hardly a dictatorship is it?
Now BOB will dress that up that restricing my extreme views for the general good is the slippery slope into a dictatorship.

I dont think it is.

You can leave your house whenever you like, but once you go into a town or city or in your vehicle, your movements are being monitored...24/7.

They can track you wherever you go, use your bank card or credit card, you leave a footprint, e mail anybody, they are lawfully allowed to monitor your personal e mail.
They know where you shop, where you buy petrol, where you go for your holidays, where you work and for how long, they know everything about you and then that is sold to corporations for vast sums of money.
The Supermarkets are allowed to fine you for parking in their car parks for more than the alloted time, they know this because the DVLA sold them your details, everything you do is monitored.....Why do you think that they do this?....For our own good, no, because they can profit from it and if needs be intensify the surveillance at the flick of a switch.

[Bulli]

Att , yes they have this ability. I have worked for one huge corporation until recently and we never had any details from the government. I know , i had access to the full database of over 15million people. This came from us , internally . All these people are or had been customers.
Who are these corporations? Who would want your financial information more than a Bank?? Coca cola so they can sell you more stuff? Rubbish.

Yes ANPR exists the company i now work for have done work for the main manufacturer. they could easily be misused but they are used to find the very people this thread is about. People who flaunt the laws by driving without Tax and insurance...a good thing as far as i am concerned.
The conjestion charge doesnt have much of an affect on Sheffiled but i know that too may be coming, good ...i use my bike the road will be safer.

If this vigialnce helped in some way stop the recent would be bombers then im all for it. I will be the first to shout when the elected government of this country use this to oppress the law abiding man.
Yes Bob im no fan of Nerc. I would hope that long term things will become more rational but fear they wont.
Yes Thatcher was harsh but what she said she did . You have to respect that .
The current lot are next to useless, you never know the gneral election may see a change in government...i doubt little will change then either.

Quote:
 No it wouldnt for one simple fact ... you are in favour of ristricting the options of the people and letting them suffer justice on the cheap, the powers that be wouldnt want to shut you up but that is by the by.

err...in your words.
quote:
PLEASE read what I write NOT what you think I have written.

No im not . Im not in favour of you and me paying to waste time for someone who is clearly guilty. The bike must have been recovered at the time of the incident. The Bike would have not bene moved as the 17 year old was there. He doesnt dispute where he was and cannot show he had insurance or a licence. case closed.
Yes it is justice on the cheap, cheaper for you and me. If he had a case he would be able to appeal it...he doesnt.So please dont misquote me. The law is the law, we arent debating shades of grey.

[att]

But the law immediately changes with reference to a Judges ruling.
These are the examples used to enable people to go free in the future.

Back to the bike and the crushing.........Judge Dredd is alive and most definately kicking. :lol: ......As I remember, he also had a Land Rover based vehicle in which he caused mayhem

[Thrasher]

Att - incorrect fact. Judge Dredd did NOT have a Land Rover based vehicle. He drove a Lawmaster which was a MOTORBIKE (albeit a flying one...)

The Land Rovers were simply taxis.....nothing more. Trouble is you've got that fact wrong....so if we unravel the strings....what do we get?  :shock:  :twisted:  :roll:

[att]

Att - incorrect fact. Judge Dredd did NOT have a Land Rover based vehicle. He drove a Lawmaster which was a MOTORBIKE (albeit a flying one...)

The Land Rovers were simply taxis.....nothing more. Trouble is you've got that fact wrong....so if we unravel the strings....what do we get?  :shock:  :twisted:  :roll:

The fact that you know more of the film than I do

[Thrasher]

....the fact I <whispers> actually own a TCV which I was given by Tharg.....

[Bob696]

who is clearly guilty.

But he has (or rather had) the right to a trial as laid down by previous laws and also that which is required by the UN convention on human rights. I really dont give a poo whether he was guilty or not or what his crime was, its not up for me to decide (or you for that matter). Any society that decides that money is more important than someones rights can no longer be called civalized IMO. Of course the goverment tells everyone it saves them money so everyone is happy. Its not just this yoofs rights that have been erroded it is EVERYONES rights that have been erroded. If you are happy to lose those rights to help Blair and co pay for another war (because I am damn certain you or me wont see any benifit from the money saved) then you dishonour the memories of all those who fought for them from Ollie Cromwell to joe bloggs the union man. And that is a shame both on you and the nation as a whole.