Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat

A crushing blow

<< < (44/50) > >>

Bulli:
so the setting of a specific penalty for a specific crime is justice on the cheap? How so.
Reduced cost justice maybe but none the less a clear penalty for an undeniable crime.
The dvla have the power to remove and crush untaxed vehicles, is this an erosion of rights? No. If you have taxed your vehicle or declared it sorn then they wont come and crush it. Simple really.
The process is a simplification of the process not a move away from it.

Maybe other crime would benefit from clear penalties. Lets face is the jury system requires beyond reasonable guilt. It takes months and costs thousands to put a case through all of which we pay for.
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)

its nothing to do with crowds, my rights have been changed , how? Only if i break the law. Im not suggesting he should have his rights reduced.I dont think he has. If he had a leg to stand on im sure some bleeding heart liberals would give him his day in court.
 For Gods sake prisoners in this country, sorry they are not even inmates but customers, have more rights than you or i. They have more opportunity to make money from the system than we do. 1 wrong word or action by the system and hey presto easy street.PS i know a couple of people who work in cat a prisons. Its like being on holiday(other than you cant go out!)

Bob696:

--- Quote ---so the setting of a specific penalty for a specific crime is justice on the cheap? How so.
Reduced cost justice maybe but none the less a clear penalty for an undeniable crime.
.................
The process is a simplification of the process not a move away from it.
--- End quote ---


Lets get away from this specific incedent for a moment and imagine another plausable scenario with the same people.
The uncle takes nephew to an official motox track, the bike is trailered. Uncle watches nephew but gets a little bored and wonders off to have a coffee and a chat with m8s. Nephew finds a hole in a fence and goes onto a neibouring field (might not even realise its not on the track). Chief constable has told all police in the area to crush all bikes found in a public place (I believe thats in the original scenario but cant be asked to go look). Farmer complains. PC arrives and siezes bike and it is taken off to be crushed. The new law says he can do that and there is no doubt that the crime has been committed. BUT does it warrent the destruction of the bike? Who has been punished, the nephew or the Uncle. The uncle took resonable precations and acted in a responsable manner (there is no way you can watch a teenager all the time and even when you do they do stupid things) Another variation on this is that you get an old time copper who comes along, drags nephew to uncle gives them a telling off and tells the course to get the fence fixed. Jobsworth bobby mentioned before simply argues that in his belief the actions would continue and he was 'only following orders' (and getting brownie points from the chief constable) Which is the better solution? Which is the JUST solution.
Ther is no doubt a crime has been committed but a judge/magistrate is another layer towards a sensable approach to punishment.
It will be argued that there are 'safeguards' but I bet a pound to a penny that this will just ensure that procedures have been followed and not concern themselves as to whether it is right or not.


--- Quote ---my rights have been changed , how?
--- End quote ---

If a policeman says you are guilty of a crime then you are now guilty of that crime. You will recieve the same punishment for a minor transgression as you would for a major transgression.

Human rights are never important to someone until they need them themselves.


--- Quote ---If he had a leg to stand on im sure some bleeding heart liberals would give him his day in court.
--- End quote ---
By inference you wouldnt? Even if he had a leg to stand on? How do you decide if he had a leg to stand on anyway? Who decides? You can cut all this crap out by simply ensuring that if someone wants to go to court then they can. Its simple.

Bulli:
By inference you wouldnt? Even if he had a leg to stand on? How do you decide if he had a leg to stand on anyway? Who decides? You can cut all this crap out by simply ensuring that if someone wants to go to court then they can. Its simple.
______________________________________________
no i wasnt saying anything of the kind, if they want to go to court they can.Im just saying that this guy hasnt got a leg to stand on.
Just so that you know. There is always a right of appeal.
Check it yourself if you want to, you, me , everyone has the right to appeal. None of your basic rights as a resident in the Uk have been altered.
There is a risk to appeal...you get costs and would end up paying storage at around £40 a day. Could be expensive.
But hey you and I wouldnt dream of having an uninsured untaxed vehical would we.

As for the other scenario i think you are right , he would appeal it- he may even win.
It is a different scene altogether not what we have been discussing so i take your point but frankly its irrelevant, you still have the right to appeal. I just think it is real justice to crush the vehicle , it stops them doing it for a while...lets face it scutters always find a way.

rollazuki:
Jeez, you guys go some dont you.




Id have thought that instead of crushing what is a very valuable commodity, sieze it, then re-sell it at auction. Stick the money back into the coffers then pretty soon, we can afford another beat bobby! (or maybe some more missiles for the war effort!!)
Either way, crushing seems a sad waste.

As far as the crime goes tho, if we all know our vehicle is at risk from crushing or seizure, we might all be a bit more carefull as to where we drive it??

As far as cameras/big brother efforts to be able to track us wherever the heck we go, what the hell. Ive done nothing wrong, so if they want to keep tabs on me, then I say go for it. At the point I break the law, they'll be able to catch and deal with me. Ill try to keep to the straight and narrow eh!

Just adding me 2 cents worth.
Rolla :wink:

bigblue:
Ummm. A law was broken and the enforcement officers went by the letter of the law and enforced it.

Where is the problem here? Some prat thought he could flaunt the law and let his nephew or whoever use his bike in the public domain. Quite frankly the bike deserves to be crushed.

As for all this human rights, merry kaftan wearing crap. Behave, abide by the law and it wont ever be in your face. Yes the easy option is always reported and we all get annoyed that law abiding tax payers seem to be targets. Thats only because we have become so scared to actually enforce anything deemed controversial by the pc brigade, human rights, liberals. That this is the only section of society left and we all know we wont stand up and complain.

...and if we do its on relatively closed forums like this!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page