Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
Bob696:
--- Quote from: "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:
--- End quote ---
I will put you writing that drivel down to being drunk just to be kind :lol:
Of course it is called Democracy and you prove my point elequantly about democrocy and hence the majority not being right all the time.
As to getting the idea, I have no idea what you are talking about as regards mussolinis neice and scooby doo. If your argument is that we cant trust democrocy because it is corrupt then it sort makes the argument that 152 is the will of the people a load of rubbish
Bulli:
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
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.
i dont think anyone said anything different. Now there is a scenario which is all too likely regarding warnings.
picture kid on bike, knows he shouldnt be where he is. Sees copper and scarpers, officer catches youth (not easy they normally get away) and confiscates bike. That is probably the norm for this type of incident, i dont think there would necessarily be an opportunity to tell him to cease and desist.
This is why this power has come about.
I live in a nice area but still i see stolen mopeds and bikes being driven around our local woods. I am making an assumption that they are stolen looking at the state of them but you can never be sure.
Previously the police couldnt take the bike away unless they could prove its stolen and with no numbers on the frame or engine thats nearly impossible.Btw not having numbers is no proof of it being stolen either, im sure you are glad of that Bob. Lets face it you would be infringing the little mites human rights :roll:
Having had a bike stolen and no doubt used in this way then you may understand why im all for it. After 3 years i got a call from the Police in Doncaster they had possibly found my bike.......but without proof it was mine(turned out it was someone elses, still stolen though) they would have to return it......thats a JUST bit of law isnt it. If only they had caught him riding it rather than finding it at his house......
Bob696:
My appologies over the shouting down accusation... it was unfounded and I had indeed misread your first paragraph. :oops:
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---If this situation existed with no checks and balances then I would be as concerned as you.
--- End quote ---
I do not think the grounds for appeal are adequate. There is no grounds for appeal if you make an honest mistake for instance but the police man is no mood to hear it. You cannot appeal against the policemans decision only ask for you vehical back under special circumstances.
--- Quote ---Please explain to me the circumstances that the law has ignored?
--- End quote ---
Honest mistakes for one. There is NO flexibility in the law or the sentence.
Bob696:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---i dont think anyone said anything different.
--- End quote ---
Yes they did :D
--- Quote ---WRONG! The before any seizure or destruction can take place, there must be the warning to cease and desist.
--- End quote ---
RangeRider
--- Quote ---Previously the police couldnt take the bike away unless they could prove its stolen and with no numbers on the frame or engine thats nearly impossible.Btw not having numbers is no proof of it being stolen either, im sure you are glad of that Bob.
--- End quote ---
Why on earth would I be glad of that? I have no problem with the police taking vehicles off people who the police believe to be breaking the law as long as it applies equaly to all (from £70k beamers to £50 wrecks) AND they are allowed due process. If the court (of whatever sort) decide to give them the car/bike back then so be it.
Bulli:
Bob, what we need to do is find someone in the know who can confirm once and for all what the appeal process is and wether the decision can be overturned.
Ive been told it can be appealed and that everyone has right to appeal against a vehicles confiscation....the question is if thats 100% correct or not.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version