Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat

A crushing blow

<< < (9/50) > >>

Terminus:

--- Quote from: "MrTFWitt" ---The part of this press release that really troubles me is "Section 152 of the Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005 gives police the power to seize bikes used on public highways without insurance and without an appropriate licence"

Serious and organised crime ?
I thought that was sawn off shotguns and the like not spotty teenagers riding round the woods.

Maybe the Chief Constables wife ran off with a hairy biker :)
--- End quote ---


As with many things the title doesn't necessarily depict everything it covers unfortunately - if it did the title would be a book in itself  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Edit - just a quick addition after a member of your family is killed by "spotty teenagers riding round the woods" who never saw them prior to running them down - would you consider it serious then? Just a thought.

:
:shock:

Bulli:
The loaned freelander one is intresting. All you would have to say to the police is that you had expressly forbid them taking the vehicle off private land. Therefore the car was technically stolen and you would get it back.
If uncle wally had the brains he would have said the nephew didnt have permission - if he did have permission then the uncle has sanctioned the actions of the lad.His CHOICE!!
Dangerous misuse of vehicles is exactly that - dangerous. I used to work for a Bike dealer and the local cops have photos of fatal accidents. You shouldnt be surprised to hear but most of them were uninsured , unlicenced idiots just like this lad.

att:
We have a divided field here......No pun intended.
Seems to me there are the fascists, then we have the realists.
This is not an insult to anybody, just my opinion and how I perceive the situation.
The Nazi reference is over the top if you look at the extreme acts, however, they did have to go through certain stages to get to extremism, the stages that we are currently going through!

If the lad was knowingly breaking the law, then he should be punished accordingly, I am all for zero tolerance, but zero tolerance which punishes the correct individual, not the owner of the bike, unless he knew what the intended actions were, and this is for the relevent authorities to prove.

I have been the "victim" of an insured driver twice and each time the Police failed to do anything, even though I furnished them with details, in the end I had to take direct action myself, ensuring there were no witnesses. :roll:

I have been the victim of an insured driver who was cautioned for dangerous driving.... :roll:

My own experience has allowed me to form my own opinions, as I suspect others have.

I do not intend to insult others, but I merely form opinions from my own experiences, as do others.

If you know the law, you can "avoid" it, if you don`t, you can pay someone to "avoid" it for you......Usually a Lawyer.

Skibum346:
Just an observation or two.

The owner (Uncle "Nice Guy I'm Sure") made the 17 year old responsible for the bike (Big word that... not popular with a lot of people today).

As he was responsible for it... the fact that it is to be crushed is his (here comes that word again) responsibility.

So the issue is not with the police who are carrying out their duties as directed by their superiors who are in turn directed by the politicians, local and national, it's with the 17 year old.

(By the way... despite the Chief Constable "crusading" for crushin... I'm certain it has been done through a by law of some kind that had to go through the necessary POLITICAL process - Terminus... comments?).

Those politicians are elected by us, to represent us, and to take decisions on our behalf because it's not feasible for us all to put our t'penn'orth in for every decision. If you don't like the job they do, get up, get out and vote! Or better yet... put yerself up and YOU do the dirty work... see if your any better than anyone else!

Lastly... those of us with a military past may well remember the infamous section 69 of the army act 19tweedlydum. "Unsoldierly conduct". Please.... someone define for me exactly what unsoldierly conduct means? Most laws are written in a similar way. Best way to deal with is.... " *Shrug...* OK guv... it's a fair cop"!!!!   :P

SKibum

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page