Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
Bob696:
--- Quote ---I suspect I am not the only one who has done this, but am I really leaving myself open to prosecution?
--- End quote ---
Of course unless the agency driver reports you for theft of his truck :lol: Still don't worry att ....it will never happen to you. It only happens to little scrotes that nobody likes anyway
:wink:
Terminus:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---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.
--- End quote ---
I'm not getting drawn back into the debate again - but the above line kinda made me chuckle -- I don't wanna shock you but this crazy wild concept is called Democracy ... no wait it was all a set up right? a secret society added a million extra votes to swing the count headed by Hitlers nearest living relative one of mussolini's nieces and scooby doo - and they would have got away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling kids(sorry had my humerous head on but you get the idea) :P :lol:
rangerider:
--- Quote from: "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.
--- End quote ---
I have read the act, it crops up at work at least monthly if not more often, however of late I have been concentrating on other laws that would give some people nightmares! :)
Unfortunately I do not have a (US) style glovebox law guide for cops here and have to rely on the legal dept or having a copy to hand.
As for impracticable to give a warning, off the top of my head and spending no more than a second or two on the thought the only circumstances I can easily forsee a warning being impractable are
a) the officer believes such warning to cease & desist will be ignored
b) mob rule scenarios where I would imagine any seizure would be not on the officers list of priorities
--- Quote ---police caution - guess its ok for them to act as judge & jury then?
--- End quote ---
--- 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).
--- End quote ---
No, A caution is not a short cut to a plea of guilt, it is more akin to a conditional discharge as I understand it.
If after a caution you commit further offences the offence for which you were cautioned can be tried in court at a later date where you may plead not guilty.
I believe it is generally up to the duty inspector to decide to offer a caution or forward the case to the CPS.
--- Quote ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Want a list?????? :)
BUT PLEASE, do not try to make a point with only 4 of my words quoted.
Let me try it another way, this country would stop dead if every single crime, no matter its "seriousness" had to be tried in crown court by jury.
Many people bemoan the loss of the mythical clip round the ear from the local beat walker. Such powers are imho an updating of that, after all what notice is your average little scroat going to take of the clip? the loss of his pride & joy (or in this case I imagine a rather upset Uncle) are going to have far more effect, and its legal too rather than assault! :)
--- Quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
As mentioned elsewhere, private land is NOT necessarily exempt from the provisions of the road traffic act. Nor is private land exempt from a good deal other legisltation, the first one that springs to mind that could apply in this particular instance is that of noise nuisance.
As for seeing where law may not be appropriate, in my line of work this particular aspect/case is of negligble significance.
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "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
--- End quote ---
No, it's not.
In your previous post, as quoted, you suggest that another poster is denying that the police can make mistakes. I was highlighting that a number of other posters accept your point. If this is "shouting down"... then I need to re-assess everything I've learnt about human communication over the years.
The body of this debate seems to be built around your assertion that it is wrong for the police to be required to issue a punishment based on their own evidence. If this situation existed with no checks and balances then I would be as concerned as you. However, there ARE checks and balances in place, though not the kind you would prefer. If you need to know the details, I'm sure Terminus could assist.
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- 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 ---
--- End quote ---
Please explain to me the circumstances that the law has ignored?
Bob696:
--- Quote ---Unfortunately I do not have a (US) style glovebox law guide for cops here and have to rely on the legal dept or having a copy to hand.
--- End quote ---
Its linked to from this thread earlier. Go look for it.
--- Quote ---
No, A caution is not a short cut to a plea of guilt, it is more akin to a conditional discharge as I understand it.
--- End quote ---
No it isnt. Here is the glove box version for you
--- Quote ---A Police Caution is a formal warning given by or on the instructions of a senior Police officer.
A Caution can be only given to an adult who has admitted guilt for an offence. The Police Caution is administered where that person could have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for minor or less serious offences.
The Police Caution is recorded on the Police National Computer and can be taken into consideration by the Court if that person is convicted and sentenced for a further offence.
--- End quote ---
http://www.together.gov.uk/article.asp?aid=1714
Emphasis is mine
--- Quote ---As for impracticable to give a warning, off the top of my head and spending no more than a second or two on the thought the only circumstances I can easily forsee a warning being impractable are
a) the officer believes such warning to cease & desist will be ignored
--- End quote ---
So as you admit the officer is not required to give a warning all the time. Thank you. All he has to say is that he thinks the warning would have been ignored.
--- Quote ---Let me try it another way, this country would stop dead if every single crime, no matter its "seriousness" had to be tried in crown court by jury.
--- End quote ---
Where did I say it had to be tried in a crown court? I have always said, or tried to, that people should have an option to go to court. The police caution is a good example of the way that works. Section 152 makes no allowance for that.
--- Quote ---Quote:
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.
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
As mentioned elsewhere, private land is NOT necessarily exempt from the provisions of the road traffic act. Nor is private land exempt from a good deal other legisltation, the first one that springs to mind that could apply in this particular instance is that of noise nuisance.
--- End quote ---
This is the problem with quoting huge tracts of text. I cant actualy see what you are refering to here. The noise nuisance bit as regards untaxed vehicles is irrelavent as is much of the road traffic act when the vehicle is on private land where the public has no right of access. Specificaly section 152 has nothing to do with noise it only deals with untaxed vehicles otherwise every chav with a knackered exhuast would be having his car siezed (they can be given a rectification notice for that I believe under other legislation but they can still opt to go to court so it is irrelevant to section 152)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version