Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote from: "Skibum346" ---
This does not remove the right to "a fair trial" it simplifies the process. In each case evidence has to be provided by expert witnesses (the police).
--- End quote ---
I will just answer that with a quote found on sky news today
--- Quote ---Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti told the paper: "Surely the many officers who are proud of our consent-based policing tradition will resent the idea of being legislator, judge and jury on the cheap?"
--- End quote ---
America has a wonderfull system of plea bargining. If you plead guilty you get a much reduced sentence. Many innocent people plead guilty as they cant afford a solictor .... sounds like you want the same system.
--- End quote ---
....Huh.....?
Don't see the connection.
Terminus:
--- Quote from: "dave2a" ---Mr. Terminus - I take it from your stance in all this that you are a serving Police officer? Well, you DO have a choice - if you feel that a law is unjust and you do not wish to enforce it you can resign. Or of course you can continue to uphold unjust laws to preserve you own personal livelihood at the expense of the freedom of others.
--- End quote ---
Never once did I say I felt it was unjust in fact quite the opposite if you take the time to read my posts. You think you can do the job better - thats ok sign on the line. Police do a job if you don't like it or think you'd do it better you know how to solve that issue.
I gave up discussing the matter when it became a circular debate I think I've given my personal opinion - as for the preserve unjust laws clap trap get real if you don't like the justice system vote different or take up a job where you can change them but don't sit there accusing hard working people of doing anything at the expense of your freedom.
If the law wasn't upheld your freedom would give you the freedom to be robbed or perhaps the freedom to have drug dealers on your doorstep or the freedom to hide in your house cause the neighbourhood just went to a fiery hot place in a hand cart :shock:
Edit - eventually we're going to have to agree to politely disagree - or we could sit and pull faces for a bit :P :P :P
Skibum346:
Incredible.... they are all still missing the point... the offficer on scene's role is to provide the evidence that an offence has been committed. If that's being judge and jury.... then ANYONE arrested for an offfence is being abbused.
The legislation was proposed, debated and put in place by people OTHER than the police officer who siezed the offending bike.
Dave2a... your comment...
--- Quote ---That's how the Nazis got away with it - "Oh well it doesn't affect me I'm not a Jew..."
--- End quote ---
Is way off target. Every law in the land and the assigned punishment applies to me, you (everyyyybody... as the Blues Brothers once sang). I'm happy with that situation... I'm happy that someone has studied a problem, tried other means of control, studied it again and come up with a new penalty. If you catch me doing it, I'm happy to suffer the consequences. If there are mitigating circumstance (Lack of signage, contradicting lane status information etc etc) then yes, I'll probably use every means available to appeal the decision or, if I'm too late and my pride and joy has been crushed, seek compensation. Guess what... I'm still happy!
As far as I'm concerned, the thin end of the wedge is wedged firmly against the democratic process. Trust me... if I ever believe it's mabnaging to shove it out of the way, I'll be the first to line them up aghainst the wall. That day is not even on the horizon yet.
Skibum
Skibum346:
For those who wish to (or perhaps need to?) review the legislation, Section 152 of the Serious & Organised Crime Act can be found here.
Note the phrasing, the individual has an opportunity to provide the necessary documents (Licence, Tax, Insurance etc). If they can't, there is a problem.
Skibum
Bob696:
--- Quote ---Incredible.... they are all still missing the point... the offficer on scene's role is to provide the evidence that an offence has been committed. If that's being judge and jury.
--- End quote ---
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I think it is you that is missing the point
Providing evidence is called being a "witness" and not being a "judge and jury". Being a witness is part of a policemans role if I am correct and Jurys decide if someone is guilty from the evidence and then the judge decides on the punishment. It is somehow streamlined, and cheaper, if an individual fullfills all the functions.
Still if you are happy for justice to take a backseat to economics then who am I to argue. Its obviously a matter of priorities.
As to the thin end of the wedge and this has happened before
--- Quote ---"A generation that ignores history has no past and no future"
--- End quote ---
-Robert Heinlein
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version