Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
Terminus:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---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.
--- End quote ---
Again the ill founded comparison Harold Shipman started somewhere do you use his example every time you go to the doctor?
This is not about a quick fix invented by a government for no reason - it was created in response to numerous complaints to MP's, Local Authorities and the Police about the inaction regarding the particular crimes you defend - basically the voice of the people (your peers - remember the ones you want in your jury)guided the government into taking action and the laws that now exist are a result of those actions - so people directing the government to take action was the basis for all the new anti social behaviour legislation - oops now when did the people tell Hitler to do something - they didn't it was the other way round - try again.
--- Quote ---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
--- Quote ---The results of speeding and other such things can often be catastrophic for someone elses life
--- End quote ---
Well doh! I would never have known that
--- End quote ---
Well now firstly no matter how serious the debate I never felt the need to resort to names and I do not see disagreeing with, what I believe is an overeactionary point, as idiotic, I have enough confidence in my point.
Second you seem to miss a simple point it is an emotive issue to the victims of crime - it may mean nothing to you and you may think the law is there for no reason but its to protect people from having to needlessley suffer that negative emotion because of others less thoughtful.
--- Quote ---I think it was this statement from you Terminus that sums up why the way this law has been implemented is so very wrong.
--- Quote ---......you deserve to have it crushed outright
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Again you attempt to use a line out of context to cling to your arguement :roll: , if you go back and re-read that you'll find the whole quote as follows
--- Quote ---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
--- End quote ---
Show me where I was talking directly about this particular incident based on any newspaper article - it seems blatantly clear to me I am stating that in dcoument offences where the driver HAS NO INSURANCE, MOT, OR TAX then their vehicle deserves to be crushed because there is no excuse for this we all have to pay this and evasion costs other people financially and worse! (oh dear are you going to complain about that being emotive) There is no reference to this specific case - but then it suited your arguement better to quote it out of context I imagine :P
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Yes yes you just want the fine and not the points that was clear.:shock:
It seems polite debate is faltering so I shall bow out at this stage 8) :)
Edit - plus if we go round in circles anymore one or more of us are gonna get dizzy and fall flat on our backsides :P :lol: :lol: :lol: No more mom I'm gonna chuck :lol: :lol:
Horness:
You know - all this arguing is not going to stop the bike being crushed.
All we have is part of the picture for one side of the coin as reported by the media. You remember the media, the people who brand 4WD owners as reckless people who pollute and tear up the countryside.
We're using this to support our opinions without knowing all the facts.
For all we know this may not have been the first time for the rider, or the bike owner. For all we know he may have been offered the option of a fine, and chose to have the bike crushed. Bottom line, we were not there, so we don't know.
My point is - we don't know all the facts, and as each case is dealt with for it's specific facts, then you cannot blanket all previous and future incidents with the same outcome.
This topic has turned into an argument over what the picture should be for a jigsaw with half the pieces missing.
Horness
Bob696:
--- Quote ---Again the ill founded comparison Harold Shipman started somewhere do you use his example every time you go to the doctor?
--- End quote ---
Not every time I go to the doctors but if a load of OAPs suddenly start to die I am certainly going to draw comparisons. With your theory, nobody would notice because nobody would learn and we would get another shipman.
--- Quote ---regarding the particular crimes you defend
--- End quote ---
Now you are getting insulting and prove that you have failed to understand where I am coming from tbh. I do not and have not and will not defend someone for commiting a crime. It is the LAW I am opposed to and the manner in which it is instigated. I do hope you can see the difference.
--- Quote ---Yes I use history to get a point across. If you cant learn from others experiences then you are totaly idiot.
--- End quote ---
There is no name calling there unless you admit that you are unwilling to learn from others experience in which I stand by my statement. Perhaps it would have been better to say "If anybody fails to learn from others experience then they are total idiots"
--- Quote ---dcoument offences where the driver HAS NO INSURANCE, MOT, OR TAX then their vehicle deserves to be crushed
--- End quote ---
I have never said they didnt. What I have said is that YOU shouldnt be deciding it.
--- Quote ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Yes yes you just want the fine and not the points that was clear.Shocked
--- End quote ---
NO NO NO. I have no idea where you get the points idea from unless it was the example I used of a speed camera and an alternative punishment. You wernt just quoteing me out of context to try and make some purile point were you? I will say it again (but try and make it simple)
I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands (i.e. untaxed cars/bikes are crushed) ONLY with the fact that POLICE officers are told to be judge and jury
Policemen are NOT impartial and they are under orders, so subject to the will of another. Defy the will of the 'other' and they risk their job.
Bulli:
quote:
I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands (i.e. untaxed cars/bikes are crushed) ONLY with the fact that POLICE officers are told to be judge and jury
Policemen are NOT impartial and they are under orders, so subject to the will of another. Defy the will of the 'other' and they risk their job
right let me get this straight. You agree that uninsured untaxed vehicles should be crushed. You feel that the police having these powers is a move towards a police state because of the lack of a trial and seemingly instant justice.
If im right your key concern was that it is impossible for the police to be impartial.
I agree they are human but there is no need for a trial in this kind of instance. The youth/uncle will have had an opportunity to produce his documents.
This process saves both on time and financially. It may seem like hard justice but it does give a very serious reminder of the consequences of ignoring the law.
The police are still accountable. If there was any doubt about the guilt in THIS case then the news article would not be about the uncle saying it was unfair. Journalists love that kind of thing any misdeed by the officers involved would have been in the public gaze immediately. There has been no such outcry.
I understand you feel that this is a vision of things to come and you are right we should take our queues from the past. Up to now i feel confident in the law and how it is being enforced, i hope that this is no longer an isolated incident.
Btw several people have likened this to our plight as green laners. Just remember is is people like this lad that have caused most of the noise nuisance that we have been blamed for.
Bob696:
--- Quote ---right let me get this straight. You agree that uninsured untaxed vehicles should be crushed. You feel that the police having these powers is a move towards a police state because of the lack of a trial and seemingly instant justice.
--- End quote ---
BINGO! :D Go up the ladder
--- Quote --- agree they are human but there is no need for a trial in this kind of instance. The youth/uncle will have had an opportunity to produce his documents.
This process saves both on time and financially. It may seem like hard justice but it does give a very serious reminder of the consequences of ignoring the law.
--- End quote ---
OOOOOPPPPPS back down the snake. Justice on the cheap, you get what you pay for ...yadda yadda yadda
--- Quote ---Just remember is is people like this lad that have caused most of the noise nuisance that we have been blamed for.
--- End quote ---
So that makes it right to reduce everyones rights because he is a minority and not one of your 'crowd' and this step down the evolutionary ladder of civalization isnt going to have any effect on you (we hope)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version