Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
Bob696:
--- Quote from: "rangerider" ---
WRONG! The before any seizure or destruction can take place, there must be the warning to cease and desist.
--- End quote ---
Extract from the act
--- Quote ---The constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.
--- End quote ---
Please read the act before you comment on it.
--- Quote ---police caution - guess its ok for them to act as judge & jury then?
--- End quote ---
Accepting a police caution is a short cut to pleading guilty in a court. If you refuse to accept the caution it then goes to court. The police cannot impose a caution (as I understand it).
--- Quote ---automated speeding ticket
--- End quote ---
Same as a caution but with a fine and points
--- Quote ---every buglary, every murder
--- End quote ---
Last time I checked they were tried in a court of one sort or another unless Tony B Liar snook another law through I wasnt aware of.
There is no comparision to the laws you mention and section 152
--- Quote ---Bob , you seem to convieniently ignore 1 critical fact. The Bike/ vehicle /whatever was not seized simply because of where it was. It was seized because it was uninsured, untaxed and being ridden by an unlicenced rider.
--- End quote ---
In what way do I ignore it? Oh and where it is is important (the no tax etc is not important if it is on private land etc etc). What you ignore is the circumstances as does this law. You refuse to see the possability that a policeman can make a mistake and that there are circumstances where the law is inappropriate. The only grounds for appeal btw appear to be if the vehicle was stolen AND the owner had taken reasonable precations to stop it being stolen. Well thats how I read the section
--- Quote --- (a) he was not driving the motor vehicle at the time in question, and
(b) he did not know that the vehicle was being driven at that time, had not consented to its being driven and could not, by the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented it from being driven.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Wow you have proved your innocence.
--- End quote ---
We have discussed the british justice system and the fact that you do not have to prove your innocence before but that is by the by but you do seem to have trouble understanding the concept.
--- Quote ---You are taking this example and applying it to all things.
--- End quote ---
I appear to be talking about the section 152 whilst you are concentrating on a single case.
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---You refuse to see the possability that a policeman can make a mistake...
--- End quote ---
I accept that your statement above is directed at another poster, however, a number of people in this thread, myself included, have agreed that it is feasible for a policeman to make a mistake, or, let's face it, make false accusations.
To balance what you see as an erosion of basic human rights, checks and balances are in place to mitigate this risk. What appears to be a majority of posters in this thread accept that as appropriate, you don't. Fine.
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---...and that there are circumstances where the law is inappropriate
--- End quote ---
Again, I don't see any post where a poster has said "all laws are appropriate". I think there are laws that may be inappropriate. Not however this one and it's associated process.
Bob696:
Interesting post Skibum. In the first 4 lines you mention twice that I appear to be outnumbered. Is this akin to 'shouting me down' ? :D
I remain unimpressed. An 'apparent' majority voted Tony B Liar in again and look where that got everybody (I was going to draw the annalogy of Hitler having the support of the people again but I know how that upsets some people so I wont ....oooppppssss). Just because you think you are in the majority dosn't make you right by any means.
--- Quote ---checks and balances are in place to mitigate this risk.
--- End quote ---
They are? Please show me. All I can find by reading the act is that you can ask someone (the home secratary?) for your vehicle back if it was stolen and you had remembered to lock it. There is nothing that I could find where you could say the policeman was mistaken in his identification or misinformed or just plain thinks you deserve to have your vehicle crushed.
--- Quote ---I don't see any post where a poster has said "all laws are appropriate".
--- End quote ---
I never said they did nor did I ever imply it myself. The quote of me you used in full is
--- Quote ---What you ignore is the circumstances as does this law. You refuse to see the possability that a policeman can make a mistake and that there are circumstances where the law is inappropriate.
--- End quote ---
I have put a key word in bold to help clear the matter up. Perhaps I should have chnged the word in italics to 'this' but in my ignorance I thought what I was saying and refering to was pretty clear, my bad.
muddyjlx:
but if the bike was on private land with the permition of the land owner, it would not have been a problem.
as i see it the bike was on public land, this means it has to be taxed and insured.
hampshire police have been on telly doing the same thing with uninsured drivers.
they stop them, ask for their documents, or they check on thier computer.
if no tax, insurance, licence, they issue a ticket and take the car away.
you then have 7 days to produce some documentation, no documents then the car is crushed.
att:
Just to go off tangent for a moment...Not much of a tangent though, it is in context.
I came across a driver yesterday, he was in his 4WD, he was on a road that has public access, yet it is on a private estate, he was allowing his 2/3 year old child to steer the vehicle, I was behind him driving very slowly at a safe distance, I was waiting for one of the 44 tonners that use the road to pick up from where I work....This is a single track road.
This would appear to be negligent on the drivers part, I considered it dangerous myself, but then I remembered doing the same myself when I was a child, it brought a smile to my face.
Also, the car park that this road leads to is very restrictive on space and I have previousley manouvered 44 ton trucks onto the loading bay myself, this is obviousley a public access area, thus I am breaking the law myself......I guess.
I only do this usually for agency drivers who do not know how or cannot physically manouvere their own vehicles!
I would like to see the authorities crush one of these motors :lol:
I suspect I am not the only one who has done this, but am I really leaving myself open to prosecution?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version