Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: C C on August 09, 2006, 21:35:18
-
I just come across this. Anyone know if they crushed the guy's bike.
From the Hertfordshire Mercury:
Man's anger at police threat to crush bike
AN East Herts man who lent his £3,000 motocross bike to his nephew is furious that police confiscated the vehicle and plan to crush it.
Lee Pearse, 27, is still paying for the Yamaha bike  but it's about to be turned into a cube of metal.
His nephew, Lee Lawrence, 17, of Fanhams Road, Ware, was stopped by police when he rode the bike onto a bridleway near the gravel pits at Chapmore End, where he and his friends were riding.
Although he was unaware that the gravel path was a public highway, and there were no signs to warn him, an officer confiscated the vehicle and one ridden by his friend, on the spot.
Now, in a case that will serve as a warning to trail bikers across the county, Herts police will crush the bikes, as they are designed only for track use and cannot be insured on the roads.
Lee, who uses the YZF 250 legally on a track in Harlow, said: "They didn't even get a warning. It's so heavy-handed. I think it's disgusting.
"What's so annoying is that it's my bike  I'm getting punished. Fair enough if it was me. I'm 27 and should know better. But they didn't even realise.
"The officer said just because it doesn't have a white line down the middle doesn't mean it's not a road."
Lee, a lorry driver from Bishop's Stortford, has seen a solicitor and enlisted the help of county councillor David Beatty (Con, Ware North) to persuade police to relent before they crush the bike in a week's time.
But yesterday (Thursday, 27 July), the force was sticking by its use of a law which the county's chief constable, Frank Whiteley, was instrumental in introducing to the statute book.
A spokeswoman said: "These bikes are manufactured for use in motocross.
"They are not for use on bridleways and they are not roadworthy. You cannot register and insure them.
"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.
"If the bike had hit somebody, there could have been a compensation claim for hundreds of thousands of pounds.
"Since August 2005, we have seized 4,400 bikes under this legislation. We were alerted to this one by a complaint from a member of the public."
The hard-line stance has won backing from Hertfordshire's Country Land and Business Association.
Lending support to Operation Agrarian, Herts police's crackdown on trail biking in rural areas, chairman David de Boinville said: "These motorcyclists are a menace. They are a danger to walkers and horse- riders, cut up paths and ruin the peace of the countryside."
28 July 2006
[/i]
-
ho,ra at last a law that works should put the riders in three years nat service for good measure. [-o< :D
-
I agree the bike should be crushed (but then I would wouldn't I?)
There are groups of the 'general public' who don't discern between muppets driving off road illegally and those who are law abiding and considerate. The kind of people who would see a set of tyre tracks in any part of the country and be heard to say things such as" ooh those environmental vandals..." or "They shouldn't be allowed to drive...." and "Those off road people should be banned, pass the flask of tea ... oh and do you like my nice new red socks?"
So anyone driving where they shouldn't should rightfully get their vehicle crushed.
If the owner loaned the bike to his nephew then He should have KNOWN where and how it was going to be used this is his responsibility - just like if you loan your car to a mate and he/she turns out to not be insured to drive it - you would get charged with causing and permitting the driver to drive without insurance because it is your responsibility to check this prior to lending the car.
*steps off soap box*
So anyone like a nice cuppa?? :lol: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Heavy handed and out of order.
Thats the trouble with this bloody country.
Get caught burgling a house and you get a slap on the wrists.
In each and every case I now take the law into my own hands.
<EDIT> :roll:
The tide will soon turn and unfortunately the Police will bear the brunt of the publics anger.
I am usually a law biding citizen, but the many new laws coming in make me want to break them more and more.
Totalitarian State is here.
I just hope all the folks who agree with this sort of heavy handed response agree with it when they are on the end of it through no fault of their own, just a simple mistake can lead to this....We are not all perfect and do not know all the laws of the land.
Do we really want the UK to be homogonised?.....The spirit of the people controlled completely.....I don`t think so, but we are going down the path at an alarming rate of knots.
-
Heavy handed and out of order.
Thats the trouble with this bloody country.
Get caught burgling a house and you get a slap on the wrists.
In each and every case I now take the law into my own hands.
The Police have their hands tied by legislation......And quite often their own low IQ. :roll:
The tide will soon turn and unfortunately the Police will bear the brunt of the publics anger.
I am usually a law biding citizen, but the many new laws coming in make me want to break them more and more.
Totalitarian State is here.
I just hope all the folks who agree with this sort of heavy handed response agree with it when they are on the end of it through no fault of their own, just a simple mistake can lead to this....We are not all perfect and do not know all the laws of the land.
Do we really want the UK to be homogonised?.....The spirit of the people controlled completely.....I don`t think so, but we are going down the path at an alarming rate of knots.
Couldnt have put it better myself, the guy has never even had a warning before.
-
I have to lean towards att on this one.
I would suggest the rider should have been warned, maybe even fined. But, to go as far as to take the bike and crush it is just heavy handed. If it was a repeat offence, then the rider can be proven to know better. Then heavier action is more acceptable.
Not sure I would condone breaking any law though. Whether you concider it to be wrong or not. It is still the law and you are obliged to live within it or suffer the consequences if caught. That is a judgement each person has to make for themselves.
-
Th rider was 17 years old, legally an adult, so therefore should have known better, if he knew how to ride the bike then he should have known where he was allowed to ride it, judging by the fact a passer by called the police then they were riding it in a public area which therefore is against the law.
I agree the punishments in this country need looking at, but at the end of the day he knew he was riding somewhere he shouldnt have been. We as off roaders have a known rule which may or may not be written down, if you dont know the status of a lane/byway or similar then you dont drive/ride it.
On top of that, there is the point of a 17 year old being on a bike he is too young for (as far as i can remember until your a certain age the size of bike is restricted) and therefore he would have had to be on private land for him not to be breaking any laws.
-
On top of that, there is the point of a 17 year old being on a bike he is too young for (as far as i can remember until your a certain age the size of bike is restricted) and therefore he would have had to be on private land for him not to be breaking any laws.
Having looked into motorcycles for myself, you're restricted to 33hp (or 37? as it is different on two gov websites! :shock: ) for the first two years of your full motorcycle licence. After these two years you then become unrestricted in how powerful the motorcycle is. You are not allowed above 125cc while you are still learning how to ride a motorcycle for the full licence, and if you are 16 you are restricted to 50cc until you are 17 when you can go for 125cc.
-
sadly it is the actions of these idiots that have helped the pressure groups get laning all but banned.
i have ridden bikes forever and feel saddened when people flount the law, they simply shouldnt have been on that bike in that place. good on the police for taking a hard line.....maybe people will think twice.
That bike cant be ridden on anything but private land so why did their uncle let them borrow it? If they had borrowed it did they have helmets and other protective clothing?? How would he feel if his nephew had died....unfortunatly it happens.
-
An unlawful rider
on an unlawful bike
in an unlawful place
Sorry thats 3 strikes, he should be out!
Are we not the first to moan that illegal offroaders make our hobby more difficult to enjoy????
-
Hmm, but if it was a genuine mistake then it seems harsh. How mnay here haven't made a genuine mistake? I know I have got muddled in the past and found myself where I didn't want to be - I'd feel aggrieved if my ride was crushed.
As I understand it there is no appeal against such a decision, it's one of those situations where the police are judge and jury which doesn't seem at all right.
Mike
-
But it does seem right, cos if let off he is going to go and do it again! He is 17 which means he needs to be shown the full force of the law so that he doesnt become another chav, and as for the uncle who lent him the bike, he is just as much as fault cos he was stupid enough to lend the 17 year old who shouldnt have had the bike in any circumstance apart from fully private land the he deserves to not have the bike either.
The problem with this country is the judges and the jury dont act like judge and jury, so someone needs to.
-
Ignorance is no defence in law.
Crush the bike - sends a message to other unlawful users.
Happy with that!
-
:shock:
-
I think that Dave2a has summed it up well.
The police in this case did seem to know the status of the right of way the lad was on and in this case it seems he may well have been flouting the law.
There are ROW that are vehicular but the signs used imply that they are bridleways by using blue roundels. In fact they are legal ORPA but would a policeman know this? So he impounds your vehicle, you seem to have no right of appeal and the vehicle is crushed. Great.
I'm sorry but granting the police powers to act in this way does not seem to be justice to me. The mistake can be genuine. Indeed why not grant the police the same powers if you drive up a one way street the wrong way? There's a street locally where someone does this in all innocence every week because the signs are confusing.
Mike
-
I certainly disagree with the police having powers to destroy what is in effect private property. It should be up to a magistrate at least to make these decisions. Apparently crushing bikes was their Chief Constable’s baby so little hope there.
It might have one more good giving the lad some community service clearing Footpaths or Bridleways.
-
I can't believe that anyone can agree with this! What is wrong with you people?
Different situation, I know, but the punishment is the same for example In the current situation with greenlaning and the confusion that is NERC etc. anyone of you (supposing you do go greenlaning) could accidentally end up somewhere you shouldn't. And before anyone bleats on about checking routes first, there are local authorities and the Police who cannot even tell you the status of some lanes at the present time.
So if you do go somewhere you shouldn't and are caught you will presumably hand over the keys to the Police officer with a smile saying "It's a fair cop" as they crush your several thousands of pounds worth of pride and joy?
Thought not. i think you are missing the point,when the police take the bike or bikes ect, the law states that, that bike has no place on public land ie, no tax,test,or insurance.where as if you were stoped on a green lane in ya landy taxed,tested and insured you would only be done for the laning offence. if its not taxed,tested or insured crush the f***er. pint any one. :D
Fools.
-
Heavy handed and out of order.
Thats the trouble with this bloody country.
Get caught burgling a house and you get a slap on the wrists.
In each and every case I now take the law into my own hands.
The Police have their hands tied by legislation......And quite often their own low IQ. :roll:
The tide will soon turn and unfortunately the Police will bear the brunt of the publics anger.
I am usually a law biding citizen, but the many new laws coming in make me want to break them more and more.
Totalitarian State is here.
I just hope all the folks who agree with this sort of heavy handed response agree with it when they are on the end of it through no fault of their own, just a simple mistake can lead to this....We are not all perfect and do not know all the laws of the land.
Do we really want the UK to be homogonised?.....The spirit of the people controlled completely.....I don`t think so, but we are going down the path at an alarming rate of knots.
Glad to seee the "Clydeside Reds" are still alive and well.....
:P :P
-
The Police have their hands tied by legislation......And quite often their own low IQ. :roll:
I take exception to that, everyone has a point of view but if you can't make it without such insults perhaps its not worth making.
Cheers
-
I can't believe that anyone can agree with this! What is wrong with you people?
Different situation, I know, but the punishment is the same for example In the current situation with greenlaning and the confusion that is NERC etc. anyone of you (supposing you do go greenlaning) could accidentally end up somewhere you shouldn't. And before anyone bleats on about checking routes first, there are local authorities and the Police who cannot even tell you the status of some lanes at the present time.
So if you do go somewhere you shouldn't and are caught you will presumably hand over the keys to the Police officer with a smile saying "It's a fair cop" as they crush your several thousands of pounds worth of pride and joy?
Thought not.
Fools.
The issue here is not simply where he was **he was 17 riding a 250 (not legal) as a result he would not be insured or covered in any way to ride it Oh its good to slate the law until this poor lost **thought he was on a dirt track individual** crashes into your car or a member of your family and you pay because he's not covered.
So in essence the above comments are exagerated and based simply on the fact of where he was and not the laws he was breaking - it's a trails bike was it taxed (doubtful) another legislative issue, was it MOT'd and verified as safe to be on a road (again doubtful as his uncle only uses it on tracks) - Where he was is only a small part of the greater picture.
People are often quick to shout injustice but is it really? well I refuse to debate the finer points of law (with which I am fully aquainted with my not low IQ) but in this instance theres a lot more to it than just being in the wrong place. :shock:
-
Just stepping in a moment.
Please be a bit more carefull with some your replies. Everyone has the right to disagree with you, just as you have the right to disagree with them. However, further posts containing personal or general insults will be removed and words had with the postee.
Cheers
8)
Eeyore
-
THe Law is the Law!
If the police used zero tolerance to all offences of any kind then the worlsd would be better for it,
Illegal Parkers towed - Less congestion
Jay Walkers Fined - Less risk of Killing some Idiot who steps out in front of you
That's just a couple of example's, if that lad had hit some one they would have no recourse under law to gain compensation, due to the lack of insurance, the 17tr old is only able to ride abike of this type on private Land, would you take a drive a car with out Mot, no headlights down a public road ? I do agree that the Police shouldn't be able to crush the Bike without further research, they are there to enforce the Law the Judges pass the sentence, perhaps ahefty storage charge and afine would be more appropirate, then crush it if you can't pay.
A Vechile is a Lethal weapon if used incorrectly, would you have any problems with the Police if he had been using a 12 bore in a public place.
If you don't understand the law you pay the price. :)
The law is double edged it works for you and against you but where would we be with out it?
-
I think that one of the critical lines has been missed; the Police in this case got involved after a complaint from somebody, this would imply to me that it's not the first time (people moan the first time not phone the police), if he does it regually that is flounting te law not misunderstanding the law.
Valid comments regarding taking your vehicle if greenlaning but major differences:
I am taxed, MOT'd and insured; if I hurt somebody teh insurance will pay then if they find I was illegally there will reclaim the payout from me.
If this kid had hit somebody there was no insurance; the victim would have had to claim from the 17 year old!
If I am caught where I shouldn't be in a legal vehicle would it be crushed? Even if one of the documents have recently run out I would not expect that.
If I am in an old LR that's not roadworthy, or especially not insured then I deserve to have it crushed; and to pay to have it done!
The big issue is insurance; if the kid had 3rd party insurance fair enough but I'll bet money he didn't.
-
Hmm, but if it was a genuine mistake then it seems harsh. How mnay here haven't made a genuine mistake? I know I have got muddled in the past and found myself where I didn't want to be - I'd feel aggrieved if my ride was crushed.
As I understand it there is no appeal against such a decision, it's one of those situations where the police are judge and jury which doesn't seem at all right.
Mike
A genuine mistake fair enough, but there were 3 here, only one of which I could possibly find it in my heart to excuse.
I assume that the rider had gained permission from the owner to ride on what he assumed was private land???? Somehow I doubt it.
I agree with terminus in that this was more than likely this had happened previously, if not by this particular rider & bike then by others, tough luck that this particular person has been used to serve as an example.
How many people opposed to this enforcement of the law are the first to complain when some toerag puts a window thru on their house/truck and nothing happens????????
-
im sorry, but has anyone atcually checked the bhp of a yzf250? what year is it, because i would be supprised if it did excel 33bhp! as you can get up to 400/450/500cc bikes still only just crossing the 33bhp mark!
and also, down here many bridleways merge into byways and so on and so forth! quite often without clear signs! and what would they rather, they where terroriseing people ina shopping mall, settig light to cars, or riding a bike up and down a lane! thats my view on it! it keeps them out the way most of the time!
How many people on here con honestly say they have never broekn the law regarding not driveing/rideing somewhere they shouldnt? or driveing something they where not licensed to? be it forklift truck or 1000cc superbike?
thats my stick to stir up the hornets nest!
cheers now!
-
If the rider thought genuinely thought they were on private land with permission of the owner fair enough. Otherwise all points are Null & void.
even if the bridleway was a boat the bike & rider were still illegal!
there is however still a big but as regards the private land issue. the presence of a track implies public access, hence the road traffice act still applies.
Doubtless terminus (please do) will happily correct me should I be wrong on this point.
I can appreciate and forgive that genuine mistakes can and do happen, but in this case the bike was known to be not road legal, that allone renders any mistake argument pointless when it comes to any highway, be it a bridleway, boat, orpa or the M1.
-
If the rider thought genuinely thought they were on private land with permission of the owner fair enough. Otherwise all points are Null & void.
even with that, you would think that was o.k, but recently a local farmer had the police aroundhis farm tracking down his son for driving around his feild, this was at 3pm in the afternoon, his son was driving a metro round the feild, and the police said he couldnt do it!
that puts that out of the window as well then!
-
im sorry, but has anyone atcually checked the bhp of a yzf250? what year is it, because i would be supprised if it did excel 33bhp! as you can get up to 400/450/500cc bikes still only just crossing the 33bhp mark!
and also, down here many bridleways merge into byways and so on and so forth! quite often without clear signs! and what would they rather, they where terroriseing people ina shopping mall, settig light to cars, or riding a bike up and down a lane! thats my view on it! it keeps them out the way most of the time!
How many people on here con honestly say they have never broekn the law regarding not driveing/rideing somewhere they shouldnt? or driveing something they where not licensed to? be it forklift truck or 1000cc superbike?
thats my stick to stir up the hornets nest!
cheers now!
Whatever the BHP it still doesn't make the bike insured or taxed or roadworthy.
Terrorising people in shopping malls or setting light to cars erm.. ok no more TV for you today :lol: are you really trying to say if someone wasn't out on their uninsured untaxed bike where they shouldn't be they'd be burning cars and terrorising people? There are already tracks for these bikes to be used by sensible people - after all in the initial article the owner often uses such tracks so there really isn't an excuse.
Oh and erm as to the last point *hate me if you want* but ...... Raises hand to the "never broekn the law regarding not driveing/rideing somewhere they shouldnt? or driveing something they where not licensed to? be it forklift truck or 1000cc superbike?" :)
-
If the rider thought genuinely thought they were on private land with permission of the owner fair enough. Otherwise all points are Null & void.
even with that, you would think that was o.k, but recently a local farmer had the police aroundhis farm tracking down his son for driving around his feild, this was at 3pm in the afternoon, his son was driving a metro round the feild, and the police said he couldnt do it!
that puts that out of the window as well then!
Someone had to have complained to have the Police there though. :wink:
-
If the rider thought genuinely thought they were on private land with permission of the owner fair enough. Otherwise all points are Null & void.
even if the bridleway was a boat the bike & rider were still illegal!
there is however still a big but as regards the private land issue. the presence of a track implies public access, hence the road traffice act still applies.
Doubtless terminus (please do) will happily correct me should I be wrong on this point.
I can appreciate and forgive that genuine mistakes can and do happen, but in this case the bike was known to be not road legal, that allone renders any mistake argument pointless when it comes to any highway, be it a bridleway, boat, orpa or the M1.
You're basically correct if it has right of access to the public then it is covered by the road traffic act .. if it is private with no right of access then it's not.
A road or any place to which the public have a right of access.
You can be charged with driving on a place other than a public road - e.g through a town park or on a field to which the public have a right of access.
Edit - just to clarify my last point i'm not saying you'll get charged for driving in a field you have permission to be in if the public can access it I am saying the road traffic laws still apply where the public have a right of access.
-
Oh and erm as to the last point *hate me if you want* but ...... Raises hand to the "never broekn the law regarding not driveing/rideing somewhere they shouldnt? or driveing something they where not licensed to? be it forklift truck or 1000cc superbike?" :)
Lies! :P
-
You're basically correct if it has right of access to the public then it is covered by the road traffic act .. if it is private with no right of access then it's not.
A road or any place to which the public have a right of access.
You can be charged with driving on a place other than a public road - e.g through a town park or on a field to which the public have a right of access.
Well that's everywhere then with the Right to Roam act. :roll:
-
Oh and erm as to the last point *hate me if you want* but ...... Raises hand to the "never broekn the law regarding not driveing/rideing somewhere they shouldnt? or driveing something they where not licensed to? be it forklift truck or 1000cc superbike?" :)
Lies! :P
:lol: I'm not forcing you to believe it ... but .. not lies :shock: :P :lol:
-
Quick scenario to maybe illustrate the point
Farmer bob says Joe *names are fictional no hate mails from everyone called joe or bob please :lol: * can go drive around one of his fields .... the field does however have a public right of way across it.
So joe goes out with his uninsured car and zooms around - lets mix it up a bit now - joe thinks its a nice hot sunny day and he's in a private field so hey a couple of beers won't hurt after all thats ok right?
Joe then spins about a bit more but fails to see the walkers out for a stroll and turns one of them into a garfield style bonnet ornament :shock:
Is joe guilty of drink driving? and what about insurance? well joe unfortunately is driving a car on a road or other public place to which the public have a right of access so yes he's guilty on both counts.
Sorry Joe I didn't make the law now I have to go tell mrs wilson that her son is several inches thinner and a good few inches wider.
Would you drive down a green lane without insurance - I doubt it because you know you need to be insured - it's the same basic principal.
:)
-
:shock:
-
What everyone seems to be forgetting here is that the owner of the bike is the one who is being punished yet it is not he who is at fault.
Sorry but YES it is his fault - ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse - if you lend any motor vehicle to another it is legally YOUR responsibilty to know the use it will be put to but more importantly that the rider/driver is insured to use the vehicle.
You can and would be charged if you loaned your car to a mate and he/she was stopped and found to be uninsured - the charge is that you did cause or permit the driver/rider to drive said motor car/motor cycle without insurance.
There really is no getting round it he broke the law, Police simply enforce the law they don't have a choice - they can't pick and choose what law to uphold and you'd be mighty upset if they could and decided not to uplhold a case that caused you some loss or inconvenience.
-
the law was the law in Nazi Germany and look where that led. :evil:
I'm not even going to justify that bit with reasoned comment - if you think it's a valid comparison well nuff said..
:P
-
If you dont like the laws.........
.....change the politicians (while you still can:) ).
There are many ways of protesting unfair legislation (I was quite involved in a previous thread about such a protest that seems to have died a death perhaps because some people were scared of the possibilty of legal consquences, the exact same consequences this person suffered). Breaking or ignoring the law is not IMHO a reasonable method of protest, it is a respect for the law and others that keeps us one step above the pond-scum. there are many laws I do not like, many of which I personally think stupid, unwanted, unneccessarily restrictive or down-right un-enforcable and various combinations thereof.
Speakng as a person who has lived with the problems caused by both cruisers and irresponsible offroaders I am all for clamping down on such people.
One last point, that is not covered in the news story. Where is the place of the offence relative to the place the bike was kept? was it just over the back wall? or was it a distance away? how did the bike get there, was it pushed, trailered or ridden under its own power?
Somehow I suspect that the number of seperate offences is quite high. I wouldnt hand over a shotgun to anyone, nor would I hand over my car keys to someone I thought unsuitable, and certainly not if I knew my car could not legally be used.
-
well this has got a little heated.
Nazi germany....??? sorry no comparison...i dont think Hitler and his cronies ever passed laws on certain things- they just acted in an inhuman pyscopatic manner.full stop.
right , i dont feel sorry for the uncle, he was plain dumb. where did he think the lad would ride it? He CANNOT insure the bike....noone will insure it as it CANNOT be used on the highway.
So lets see the lad was riding without a licence, insurance on a vehicle that was not road legal....errr where is the confusion?
If the uncle wanted to introduce his 17 year old nephew to moto x he should have taken him to a private track with the bike in the back of a van.Then he would still have a bike and his nephew wouldnt have been a nuisance.
-
Theres a couple of important items missing from the story.
1) Did the rider have permission to ride on the private land ?
2) How did the bike get there?
If the bike was taken to private land on a trailer and ridden across a boundary that wasn't marked then a community service order or caution of some description would have been more than adequate.
If the bike was ridden on public roads to the land then it was a deliberate flouting of the law.
The underlying message is if you want to ride off road nick somebody elses bike to do it on and you'll get in far less trouble.
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 :)
-
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 :)
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
hmmmmm
well
hmmmmmm
basicaly crush the bike and make the 17 year old lad pay back the cost of said bike to the uncle.
i wouldn't lend my car to a 17 year old relative to go off and play with un supervised. full stop.
-
Sorry but YES it is his fault - ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse - if you lend any motor vehicle to another it is legally YOUR responsibilty to know the use it will be put to but more importantly that the rider/driver is insured to use the vehicle.
You can and would be charged if you loaned your car to a mate and he/she was stopped and found to be uninsured - the charge is that you did cause or permit the driver/rider to drive said motor car/motor cycle without insurance.
You are correct but the point is that nowhere is it mentioned that the owner has been charged or convicted with anything. They have taken his property and are going to destroy it as far as I can see without him being found guilty of anything. The rider is obviously guilty as he was caught in the act of using an untaxed, uninsured unlawful vehicle so deserves any punishment coming to him. I am not trying to defend HIS actions, which are obviously wrong. If it were HIS vehicle then crush it!
If you loaned your Freelander to a mate in a private field (with no public access, with landowners permission etc. etc. and therefore not requiring tax and insurance) and he assured you that he would only drive within that field but then went out onto the public road and was stopped, you would be charged as you say "that you did cause or permit the driver/rider to drive said motor car/motor cycle without insurance". You know that you have done no wrong but you think having the vehicle taken from you without a chance to prove that you were not guilty is right?
Comparisons with Nazi Germany may sound over the top but when you start to allow the Police to punish people without them having the chance to defend themselves in court it is the start of a slippery slope toward a fascist state.
Firstly he was daft enough to give a bike to a 17 year old who is not legally old enough to ride it other than on a proper track - his mistake and it cost him the bike - he doesn't need to be convicted - he allowed the offence to occur therefore the crushing of his bike is his own fault - the mention earlier (very correctly) by Bulli that had he been so concerned about his bike and that it was his nephew took the bike where he shouldn't have then he should have reported it technically stolen by the nephew but if he is saying he gave it to him then he has to accept the consequences - sorry but thats the law and in this instance I agree with it.
As for lending my Freelander you hit it right on the mark there - I wouldn't be stupid enough to lend my car to a 17 year old to drive around - sorry.
Again the facist state comment ... I really don't think I need voice my thoughts there :lol:
On that note when I find myself repeating what I've said it's becoming a circular debate and not moving forward so I'll bow out, interestingly long topic though :D
-
(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?).
SKibum
Just one more thing in reply to the above
You're spot on - Police don't make laws they go through a long (very very long and several times revised) process in the House of Commons - before being passed on to the House of Lords - before they ever get approved as legislation.
Once legislation has been passed the Police have a duty to enforce it (whether or not you agree with it) :shock:
:)
-
Once legislation has been passed the Police have a duty to enforce it (whether or not you agree with it) :shock:
:)
"Whether or not you or they agree with it!
Skibum
-
Just as a matter of record is there any appeal against the decision to crush? I jave the idea there isn't but I'm not sure.
Mike
-
I dont know but i think this process has taken a long time to become legislation so i doubt it. Why should he have recourse? The lad clearly broke the law and lets face it could have injured you me or my kids. It would be a different story then...we would all be calling for him to be strung up.
Laws are created to give us rules to live by not OPTIONAL lifestlye choices. He broke the law on several counts ...they should also now ban him for 2 years in my view....lets see him get insurance then!
Skibum get yourself up for election next time and change the system. Laws are not passed overnight, the British legal system has developed very slowly...unfortunately not always in our(offroading) favour. But we either elected them or stood by whilst they were elected...either way YOU already made YOUR choice.
-
OK so you're happy that he has no chance to put his case to some sort of court?
Where will you draw the line?
For speeding you can elect to go to court, for parking you ca go to court, for most fixed penalties you can go to court but in this case he can't (well we think he can't).
As I say where do you draw the line?
It's obvious he's guilty, the gun was in his hand and still smoking. He's guilty. Lock him up.
We are sliding into risky waters in my view, in my case maybe sleep walking.
Mike
-
OK so laws are passed by a democratically elected government. It doesnt mean that they are good or just.
The only way to get unjust laws amended is by the public opinion calling for a change.
Perhaps in this case most folk will care little for the plight of the hapless uncle. But as is pointed out he is being punished without being charged or convicted of any crime.
The police should not have the power to punish that's the job of the judiciary.
Below is another example of heavy handed officialdom.
From EDP24 It may not have been a Porsche or Ferrari, but Nick Pagano felt like a king of the road when his parents handed over the keys of his 18th birthday present.
But the university student spoke of his shock last night after a council towed away and crushed his beloved first car into a cube without apparent warning.
The 19-year-old and his parents were left fuming after their 17-year-old Fiat Panda disappeared from its parking place near the University of East Anglia and was scrapped six days later.
The family, from Campion Road, Thetford, is now facing a £155 bill from Norfolk County Council after the cherished vehicle was deemed to be abandoned.
Mr Pagano, who has just finished a first year chemistry course at the UEA, said he would have to give up his summer barman job in Norwich because of the loss of his car.
"We assumed that the car had been stolen on June 8 and reported it to the police, but on Saturday we received a letter from the council saying that it had been destroyed. I was quite surprised because we received no communication from the council until then," he said.
Mr Pagano said the F-reg car was in an "immaculate" condition for its age and only had 40,000 miles on the clock when he legally parked it on Bridge Farm Lane, a housing estate near the university campus, on June 4.
But when the student returned four days later after completing his end of year exams and subsequent celebrations, the red Fiat was gone. During his absence, a rear side window had been smashed and Norwich City Council identified the Fiat as an abandoned vehicle with no tax disc.
Mother Liz Pagano said the incident was "difficult to comprehend" because the car contained work clothes, documents, and important university coursework.
She added that the car had five months tax and she was planning to take the matter to the small claims court. Some of the student's science coursework had been returned, but most of the papers were still missing, she claimed.
"It is such a pity because he has not had the car for long and it has always been looked after. It was not abandoned in any shape or form and it is not justified to scrap the car because we have spent a lot of money to keep it on the road. It has recently had a new clutch, steering column and had 11 months MOT," she said.
Mark Langlands, spokesman for Norfolk County Council, said legislation gave authorities the power to destroy cars which posed a potential hazard.
"The car was collected on June 8 as an abandoned vehicle at the request of Norwich City Council and was taken to our storage compound. It had no tax disc displayed and its rear side window had been smashed. A notice was attached to the car on June 7 warning the owner that it needed to be moved within 24 hours, but no action was taken."
"We have spoken to Mrs Pagano about her complaint and we will respond to her fully in due course once we have spoken to the staff involved," he said.
-
poeple are quick to complain that the law is to soft, giving poeple points on a licence they dont have, getting a slap on the wrist :x
now people complain that its too harsh :?:
if the bike rider was so stupid/ignorant of the fact he was in the wrong place, with a bike that he was not lawfully allowed to ride, with no insurance, he got what he deserved.
iam a law abiding citizan, my cars are taxed, tested,insured, and i have the correct licence, and it gets my goat to see poeple who dont give a crap about the law getting away with it. if it was a genuine mistake, the copper would have chosen a different stance iam sure.
-
You're really, really sure the copper would have made a different decision? You're really, really sure he might not make a mistake just as we might make a mistake?
So, you're quite happy that the training the police receive is so good that a decision with large implications should be the hands of a newly qualified cop with no appeal?
By and large I'm sure they do make the right decision but if there's no second chance then they have to be bang on every time. Isn't that a bit unfair on the cops?
Mike
-
The Police do not make the right decision everytime, much like Judges.
No one is perfect.
In my opinion, police should not have the right to make these decisions, as councils should not either, they have been given too much power over the average citizen.....Even to the point that councils can seize an empty property after six months, with no right of appeal.
The UK has become fascist, it is a fact.
We will all be chipped soon, the next 10 - 20 years, they will use crime as an excuse, they are already monitoring our vehicles, it will be us next.
We are slowly but surely being led by the nose to constant monitoring, they are clever in their psychological conditioning as they do it.
People are mostly weak and ignorant to this, they see these measures as salvation to the anti-social climate and crime ridden society and take on board the "what have you got to hide" mentality.
I have my indivduality to hide, my inner self etc......My creative self, my innovative self, I just want to be me and hide away when needs be and be a social chamelion when needs be, I don`t want to be demographed, pigeon holed, labelled, homogonised, pastuerised, standardised for the sake of the Govt. and large Corps.
I want to be free.
-
You're really, really sure the copper would have made a different decision? You're really, really sure he might not make a mistake just as we might make a mistake?
So, you're quite happy that the training the police receive is so good that a decision with large implications should be the hands of a newly qualified cop with no appeal?
By and large I'm sure they do make the right decision but if there's no second chance then they have to be bang on every time. Isn't that a bit unfair on the cops?
Mike
Oh come on - lets examine your logic - police make mistakes yep they do thats why there's a sergeant to make sure they agree and an inspector above them - you seem to be under the misguided impression that a cop can do as he or she pleases - thats so very wrong.
While we're talking about mistakes ...... so do judges, so do governments and so do the people that vote them in.... and so do uncles and hey he made the mistake he'll just have to deal with it - like it or not thats the law and if it wasn't there life would be a lot harder than one crushed bike.
In addition new police officers don't just make decisions on their own if you think that you're just a touch off base.
The second chance in this case is when the next in the chain of command reviews and authorises the action or cancels it if it is not a fair decision.
Again with the facist comments I really think that's taking it too far ....
That really is my final post on the subject :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Edit - cup of tea anyone :D :wink:
-
Thanks for your input Terminus, I don't know the procedures that lead up to these decisions. If you'll reply just once more you could perhaps explain to us just how these situations work.
Could I make representations to the sargeant, inspector or whoever regarding the circumstances?
I still don't feel it's right that these decisions are made without the option of going to court and I'm not sure that it's fair on you and your colleagues to be expected to make fair judgements.
I'd just return to the question as to where the line is drawn regarding the decisions the police should make without the support of the courts.
It's certainly interesting law and I am assuming it's introduction was to ease the load on the courts so that they can deal with cases promptly. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied in my opinion.
In the case we are discussing the uncle is smarting because of prompt delivery of what in law is justice and that's the idea I guess.
I'm sure that you had no intention of associating me with any fascist comments as I haven't made any and wouldn't while others have.
Mike
-
The Police have their hands tied by legislation......And quite often their own low IQ. :roll:
I take exception to that, everyone has a point of view but if you can't make it without such insults perhaps its not worth making.
Cheers
thats a bit on the low side, :roll:
be careful just who you slag as ive found its bites a sore 1 :!:
-
Thanks for your input Terminus, I don't know the procedures that lead up to these decisions. If you'll reply just once more you could perhaps explain to us just how these situations work.
Could I make representations to the sargeant, inspector or whoever regarding the circumstances?
I still don't feel it's right that these decisions are made without the option of going to court and I'm not sure that it's fair on you and your colleagues to be expected to make fair judgements.
I'd just return to the question as to where the line is drawn regarding the decisions the police should make without the support of the courts.
It's certainly interesting law and I am assuming it's introduction was to ease the load on the courts so that they can deal with cases promptly. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied in my opinion.
In the case we are discussing the uncle is smarting because of prompt delivery of what in law is justice and that's the idea I guess.
I'm sure that you had no intention of associating me with any fascist comments as I haven't made any and wouldn't while others have.
Mike
Mike appologies i didn't mean to associate you with any facist comment and i'm not poking at att for his opinion - each to their own. Yes this would have been introduced to ease the burden on the courts and for the most part in England and Wales it works (not in Scotland yet although scottish police can impond avehicle)
I realise most poeple think the decision is taken by the officer at the scene and thats it but that is seldom the case.
The problem for those who dislike the result is law is technically (where road traffic is concerned) written in stone. I would doubt seriously that in the example given it is as innocent as many would like to believe - sometimes incidents such as this may seem harsh but it is considered thoroughly - remember police are people like you when they are not at work - they don't live to be unpopular - sometimes people forget it's 'people' who join the police not heartless robots.
Most do what they do in the case of road traffic because it's the law not through personal satisfaction
-
I realise it seems harsh but the police have to obey the law and if it seems sometimes that the end result is harsh - I appologise but it's not like they have a choice and often (as i believe in this case) the fact that someone has broken the law is overlooked or perhaps the seriousnes is not appreciated.
I'm not trying to make people think as I do I'm just tying to put across a point of view that may not have been considered.
I'm also not asking everyone to agreee with me
-
Comparisons with Nazi Germany may sound over the top but when you start to allow the Police to punish people without them having the chance to defend themselves in court it is the start of a slippery slope toward a fascist state.
Replace fascist with totalitarian and you are nearer the mark.
I find it sickening that anybody can be punished without due recourse to law. I would have no problem with the bike being crushed if a court (with proper legal representation for all parties) decided that was the way to go. There is something very wrong when an individual can decide to punish another individual jsut because they have the power to do so.
I have read and considered the comments concerning the chain of command i.e. the decision goes to the sargent then the inspector etc and to be honest I think that is no protection at all. A sargent will be inclined to back up the PC, an inspector to back up his sargent etc and so the process is NOT impartial and is based on on guilty until someone in the chain is in a very good mood.
Also the comment that traffic law was set in stone (sorry but I may be takeing the comment out of context to prove a point) rather goes to proove a point. How many people have been "let off" for a minor infringment? Isnt this an example of how police officers are individuals and should therefor not be allowed to be the "jury". Just imagine if this law was expanded just a little and you encountered a PC who was on the RA exec :?
This sort of thing has always been a bug bear of mine especialy as regards HMC&E who have way more power of "on the spot" punishment than the police could dream of.
-
The Police do not make the right decision everytime, much like Judges.
No one is perfect.
In my opinion, police should not have the right to make these decisions, as councils should not either, they have been given too much power over the average citizen.....Even to the point that councils can seize an empty property after six months, with no right of appeal.
The UK has become fascist, it is a fact.
We will all be chipped soon, the next 10 - 20 years, they will use crime as an excuse, they are already monitoring our vehicles, it will be us next.
We are slowly but surely being led by the nose to constant monitoring, they are clever in their psychological conditioning as they do it.
People are mostly weak and ignorant to this, they see these measures as salvation to the anti-social climate and crime ridden society and take on board the "what have you got to hide" mentality.
I have my indivduality to hide, my inner self etc......My creative self, my innovative self, I just want to be me and hide away when needs be and be a social chamelion when needs be, I don`t want to be demographed, pigeon holed, labelled, homogonised, pastuerised, standardised for the sake of the Govt. and large Corps.
I want to be free.
Fascism: Definition from Wikipedia:
Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
The original fascist (fascismo) movement ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. In time, the generic term fascism came to cover a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems, most notably Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler but also Hungary's Arrow Cross Party, Romania's Iron Guard, Spain's Falange and the French political movements led by former socialists Marcel Déat and Jacques Doriot and others.
Yeah... your right enough.... we are a fascist state........ :roll:
-
I have read and considered the comments concerning the chain of command i.e. the decision goes to the sargent then the inspector etc and to be honest I think that is no protection at all. A sargent will be inclined to back up the PC, an inspector to back up his sargent etc and so the process is NOT impartial and is based on on guilty until someone in the chain is in a very good mood.
On the basis of that surely the judge could do the same .... if you think todays police are there to just blindly back each other up for the fun of it - perhaps you should sign on the line and try it - I suspect you'd find it a totally different world - nothing happens without evidence not even the crushing of a bike. Bad day or not.
-
On the basis of that surely the judge could do the same
Indeed you could BUT there are legal safeguards such as having a barrister there acting on your behalf, a jury, legal clarks to advise, appeals procedure etc etc. Not to mention the CPS at the fist instance.
Backing up "your own" is just human nature, please dont try to tell us that it dosnt happen. It might even be rare BUT once (to the detriment of an individual) is too many times.
-
Backing up "your own" is just human nature, please dont try to tell us that it dosnt happen. It might even be rare BUT once (to the detriment of an individual) is too many times.
There is a diffirence between "backing up" and misuse of power. In my experience... and I have some... Many of those who claim that the police have abused their power when dealing with them have:
a) Not understood the issue at hand nor the legislation involved
b) Been biased by the prevelence of un-informed comment and opinion prevelent today
c) Unconciously wanted to "appear" innocent on re-telling the story
Members of every organisation support their fellows, look at mud club... but at the same time, that does not mean there is a blanket defence of each other in all instances. How many of you would defend 4x4 drivers who broke through fences, killed sheep and generally tore up a neautiful lane?
I'm not saying it has NEVER happened, however, I truly believe it's a lot less prevelent than "popular" opinion suggests.
Skibum
-
On the basis of that surely the judge could do the same
Indeed you could BUT there are legal safeguards such as having a barrister there acting on your behalf, a jury, legal clarks to advise, appeals procedure etc etc. Not to mention the CPS at the fist instance.
Backing up "your own" is just human nature, please dont try to tell us that it dosnt happen. It might even be rare BUT once (to the detriment of an individual) is too many times.
It probably does in every single occupation in the world (there will always be bad apples)- the difference here is as I said earlier you need evidence not just someones word to back up.
It's the age old thing if someone is in an organisation that's doors are closed to you - suspect them of everything and decide they are up to no good.
It's a choice thing if he didn't lend the bike to someone underage to be playing on it and that person didn't ride it where it shouldn't be illegally then his bike would still be safe and fine ..... If the circumstances had complicated by one of your friends being run over and killed or seriously injured I'm sure you wouldn't be making such an issue of people doing their job. If fact it would be the other way round you'd make an issue if they didn't.
This debate could rage on for years and the bottom line would still - be - as it stands right now it's the law, written by officials you elected and enforced by a group of people who stand in harms way so you don't have to.
That's my last thought on the matter :lol: mighty good discussion though. :) Enjoy.
-
Another thought oin re-reading my post...
Bob696 wrote:
Backing up "your own" is just human nature, please dont try to tell us that it dosnt happen. It might even be rare BUT once (to the detriment of an individual) is too many times.
If it's wrong for thje police to back each other up "even once" to the detriment of another... doesn't that bring us back to the core of the argument... the youth, riding an uninsurable bike in a public place when legislation has been through the mill to put in place a "fixed penalty", bike crushing. Surely it is wrong for him, even once, to ride an uninsurable bike in a public place, to the detriment of others?
Skibum
-
Very good point Skibum -
no wait I'm supposed to be not saying anything more :lol: *zips mouth - puts sock on head - looks the other way and sings a song about pixies*
I really got to stop reading this debate I can't help myself :lol: :lol:
Ah the kettle's boiled that ought to save me - nice cup of tea and some wensleydale eh grommit?
-
**Bows low and reaches for the Wenslydale**
**Blinks at you hoping you'll recognise a doggie request for "two sugars this time.... please!**
:lol: :lol:
-
**Bows low and reaches for the Wenslydale**
**Blinks at you hoping you'll recognise a doggie request for "two sugars this time.... please!**
:lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
the difference here is as I said earlier you need evidence not just someones word to back up.
But who judges the evidence? "12 good men and true"? Or the local PC and his chain of command. Which would you prefer to be tried, judged and sentenced by?
If it's wrong for thje police to back each other up "even once" to the detriment of another... doesn't that bring us back to the core of the argument... the youth, riding an uninsurable bike in a public place when legislation has been through the mill to put in place a "fixed penalty", bike crushing. Surely it is wrong for him, even once, to ride an uninsurable bike in a public place, to the detriment of others?
Two wrongs do not make it right I am afraid. I have no problems with condemning the youth IF he is guilty. But in this case who has prooved that he is guilty? Who has provided the evidence, judged it and imposed the punishment? The answer appears to be the police force to all three. Anybody who remembers the Serious Crime Squad of the west midlands police from the 70/80s will recognise just how dangerous this is.
I have personal experience of police covering each others backs ... its not nice to be on the recieving end. Long story but I can retell it if needed. No complicated legislation and I wasnt accused of anything.
The trouble is that people expect police to be whiter than white and has been said before they are only human which is why they should not be judge jury and exicutioner.
-
the difference here is as I said earlier you need evidence not just someones word to back up.
But who judges the evidence? "12 good men and true"? Or the local PC and his chain of command. Which would you prefer to be tried, judged and sentenced by?
If it's wrong for thje police to back each other up "even once" to the detriment of another... doesn't that bring us back to the core of the argument... the youth, riding an uninsurable bike in a public place when legislation has been through the mill to put in place a "fixed penalty", bike crushing. Surely it is wrong for him, even once, to ride an uninsurable bike in a public place, to the detriment of others?
Two wrongs do not make it right I am afraid. I have no problems with condemning the youth IF he is guilty. But in this case who has prooved that he is guilty? Who has provided the evidence, judged it and imposed the punishment? The answer appears to be the police force to all three. Anybody who remembers the Serious Crime Squad of the west midlands police from the 70/80s will recognise just how dangerous this is.
I have personal experience of police covering each others backs ... its not nice to be on the recieving end. Long story but I can retell it if needed. No complicated legislation and I wasnt accused of anything.
The trouble is that people expect police to be whiter than white and has been said before they are only human which is why they should not be judge jury and exicutioner.
Yeah.. I see what you mean... why trust someone who has been evaluated, recruited, trained, mentored and who knows the law and their place in it.... over a "spotty" youth?
Are you seriously suggesting that actually... what happened was... PC Toobigforhisboots spotted the youth playing in a field, with the permission of the farmer... but decided sod it... "having a bad day and your gonna pay for it"?
I did jury service once, fairly straighforward case... known disqualified driver, spotted driving, followed, helicopter was in area so joined in. Driver & passanger de-camped, was followed by helicopter observer with camera, 100% coverage. Other officers were talked into their hiding place and they were arrested. During deliberations and individual who shall remain nameless actually suggested they'd rather believe the driver as all four officers involved ( and I guess he must have included the video camera in his thinking) werein it together and the bloke was innocent.
What IS clear to me is that despite the expending of lots of words, examples, etc some of us will inherintly trust the police force to do a fair job within the legislation given. Others will inherintly mistrust the police and the judiciary in general. It will take more than a mud club discussion to alter the minds of either.
BOB696 I believe your arguments about representatio in court are flawed. You have a right to those opinions and I'll fight for you to have them... however... it don't make you right.
Skibum
-
Skibum if you are seriously suggesting that people should have the right to a fair trial removed then I really do feel sorry for you. Just think of all those totalatarian goverments of past and present which we now decry, USSR, Nazis, italian fascists, Franco, China, North Korea, Pinoche etc etc. Do you really want to live like that?
Remember that the basis of British justice is "innocent until PROOVEN guilty"
why trust someone who has been evaluated, recruited, trained, mentored and who knows the law and their place in it
That would be why they have internal investigations into corruption ....... mind you the police at least get to stand in a court and defend themselves.
BOB696 I believe your arguments about representatio in court are flawed. You have a right to those opinions and I'll fight for you to have them... however... it don't make you right.
I would rather you didnt if its all the same to you. Not sure what your country would be like.
-
I have many things to say on this, but I fear that my veiws would be too extreme for this forum, besides, I do not really have time to tell of my experiences both recent and in times gone by.
I will just say though, I have spent much time with Police on both sides of the Atlantic, I have had both good and bad experiences, it is the bad experiences that allow me to KNOW that the Police should never, ever be Judge and Jury, they are seldom impartial and there is not a human being on this planet that cannot be totally be impartial to everything, we internalise all our experiences and process them in different ways, that will affect our judgement in the future to some degree, we are all different, so there is no way in this world that a decision would be totally fiar in anybody`s eyes.
The Americans have it really sussed, they have little or no nuisence crime, anti-social behaviour etc. The population respect the Police becuase they carry guns, you cannot argue with a gun, it is final.
I have been on many patrols with the Police in the States and found it both exciting and educational, however, each Police Dept. was different, this was down to the individual and they would handle incidents in different ways.....Each time.
The Police in this country have it hard, they are bound by silly legislation and political correctness at every turn, I know a retired policeman really well, he retired because the job was a joke for him, I also know a current serving officer who feels the same, he is eeking out unitl he has his pension rights.
Just my 2pth.
-
So.... whne your caught speeding...not that anyone EVER speeds... and recive a fixed penalty notice, a fine and three points...what is that...?
Or... you recieve a parking ticket... what is it £40 fine these days...?
These are examples and there are others, of juducial decision that have gone through the political process and been set up such that if person A is caught doing act B then punishment C will be applied.
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).
Please those of you who disagree... quote me the legislation that says once PC Toobigforhisboots makes the decision there is NO appeal.
I hear peole going on at great length about how "bad" the police are. It really cheeses me off. YES, they are a slice of humanity like any group and there are specific dangers if a bad apple exists (Serious Crime Squad of the 20-30 years ago, course... nothing has changed in the intervening years has it?). But, we as a sociaety have organised such that they are the people we ask to do that job. the great majority of them deserve our support.
As for fairness, or blind application of law, there are plenty of these shows following the police on the satellte channels, I have lost count of the number of times police officers have given six, seven eight or more warnings of the consequences of particular behaviour continueing. If that's not making sure individuals have the opportunity to AVOID a punishment, what is?
Back to the topic in hand however as yet again, we have gone too global in this discussion. I am fairly certain, though I've not done the research (please provide evidence to the contrary if necessary) that this legislation (remember, due political process and all that) was put in place because OTHER methods had failed. Now it might be that this youth had never been there before, never done anything wrong in his life etc etc. Tough. Agian, to repeat a theme, personal responsibility.
Og course... I might be wrong... after all... it's all a conspiracy...!
-
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).
I will just answer that with a quote found on sky news today
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?"
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.
-
As someone has already said, in this country you are INNOCENT until proven guilty. The right to a fair trial is one of the basic principles of a democracy and one that many people have fought and died to preserve.
Some of you think that the comparison with Nazi Germany is OTT but the erosion of basic rights is how that kind of thing started. Just because you (and I) don't like some little toe-rag riding around on a motorcycle (in this case)and causing a nuisance you think it aceptable for punishments to be handed out by the Police because you would not do that and your vehicles are taxed, tested, insured etc. That's how the Nazis got away with it - "Oh well it doesn't affect me I'm not a Jew..."
Well, what will you think when the Police are given greater powers - things that may result in someone recieving a far greater punishment that a motorcycle being crushed? Don't think it will happen? It is the thin end of the wedge we are looking at here!
Another reason for the Police to not be allowed these powers is the very fact that they are dealing day-to-day with criminal suspects. They will be biased against individuals that they have had dealings with and cannot possibly be impartial in the way a magistrate or a jury can. Also, it is a charter for corruption - officers whose integrity is not all it should be will use these powers to their own advantage.
Police simply enforce the law they don't have a choice - they can't pick and choose what law to uphold
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.
The attitude of "I was only obeying orders" - where have we heard that before?[/quote]
-
But who judges the evidence? "12 good men and true"? Or the local PC and his chain of command. Which would you prefer to be tried, judged and sentenced by?
rubbish, I cant attribute the quote correctly, but it was once said that 12 people without the nous to get out of jury duty are no peers of mine :)
the only differences between a jury trial (on the rare occasions you are allowed one) and (excuse the expression) summary judgement by a police officer at the scene are that the police officer likely makes his mind up as soon as he has seen the facts in front of him, the jury generally make their mind up without facts the minute you enter the dock.
In short, give me the cop on the street, where I can apologise humbly promise to be a good boy in future and never do it again, and hopefully if the wind is blowing right walk away with a well deserved stern warning:)
ATT, I to have dealt with law enforcement both sides of the Atlantic and dare i say it, the carrying of guns has nothing to do with it, (I speak mainly from the southern states) there is still a modicum of respect for others and their property regardless of uniform. I walk into the corner shop there and am called Sir, even the children of the people I stay with address me with similar respect.
BOB696, as with this country the US has a system of court appointed legal counsels for those without the financial means, and from experience they seem to be a darn heap more passionate about what they do than the legal aid monkeys here (on the subject of which, try getting legal aid - its a joke)
DAVE2A, My current boss is "ex-job" He left in the mid 80s as things started getting silly and the financial descicion was easy to make, lots more money in the private sector, the moral choice of upholding laws he felt silly, or having nobody to uphold the law at all was much harder (in the end forced retirement on medical grounds solved that dilemma).
Would you put on that uniform today? I wouldnt, not for triple what terminus may earn today, even tax free! Many of those that do put on the uniform deserve, and recieve my utmost respect, no matter if I have transgressed the law of the land or not.
Next time i am in scotland terminus, theres a few on me for you.
-
but it was once said that 12 people without the nous to get out of jury duty are no peers of mine Smile
or perhaps they just have more sense of civic duty and a respect for justice.
Dave2a has hit the nail on the head with the thin end of the wedge.
I look forward to reading the outrage when a legal 4x4 is crushed because they got lost, just dont forget that the policeman is ALWAYS right.
-
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).
I will just answer that with a quote found on sky news today
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?"
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.
....Huh.....?
Don't see the connection.
-
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.
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
-
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...
That's how the Nazis got away with it - "Oh well it doesn't affect me I'm not a Jew..."
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
-
For those who wish to (or perhaps need to?) review the legislation, Section 152 of the Serious & Organised Crime Act can be found here. (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2005/50015--m.htm#152)
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
-
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.
: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
"A generation that ignores history has no past and no future"
-Robert Heinlein
-
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
-
but it was once said that 12 people without the nous to get out of jury duty are no peers of mine Smile
or perhaps they just have more sense of civic duty and a respect for justice.
My comment was meant in good humour, to illustrate that in many respects the justice system of this fair land is all too often a joke unfortunately. I honestly cannot say when I last (if ever) saw one of my peers sat on a jury, by which I mean white, mid-30's, respectable professional.
Last goodness knows how many times I have sat in crown court, the jury have been almost exclusively the unemployed (dare i say unemployable in many cases?) all of whom generally have a distinct anti-police/establishment leaning, with a smattering of the older retired classes. I have watched serving police officers walk into the courtroom, take one look at the jury and mutter "(s)he's going to walk" (I can sense terminus sat reading and nodding now :) )
The lack of a sense of civic duty and respect for justice, the self and others are exactly why this country is in the state it is in (ill jump off me soapbox now)
-
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
then they came for the aliens
but I've never been at Roswell
Then they came for the conspiracy theorists
But I've never seen a grassy knoll
Then they came for the people who blow things a little out of proportion
And they had big dogs and sharks with 'laser beams' and giants that were 900 ft tall and took away my freedom and put me in a cell where I had to write this with a crayon I made from ear wax.
Then they came for the people who thought crushing a motorbike was the next step to Hitler 2 and WW3
and sudenly I thought wait a minute lets get a sense of proportion here ... but it was too late ... :shock:
:P :P What I think I'm trying to say here in my own humerous way is - there's a law, it was upheld and I'm gonna be brave here and suggest it doesn't bring about the downfall of democracy or restart the cold war - but it will make an uncle somewhere think carefully about lending a motorbike to someone not responsible enough to ride it somewhere legal and safe. I'm not hearing much in the news about an appeal - wonder why?
And yes you can always appeal thats part of our fine democracy - the freedom of information act made the Police far more accountable and transparent - if it's wrong all he has to do is prove it - but there does seem to be a lack of movement in that direction - I would suggest because he can't produce the necessary documents and he knows it.
Edit - oh and yes rangerider i did nod a bit.
Edit 2 - Now you'll have to excuse me I'm off to invade Polan........ nah just kidding :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Edit 3 - and yes before anyone says it I am a bit of a smart a**e
Edit 4 - No more edits I promise :lol:
-
A generation that ignores history has no past and no future
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Thomas Jefferson
-
A generation that compares the nazi invasion of Poland to the crushing of a motorbike used illegally - is a trifle over reactive
Terminus
-
A generation that compares the nazi invasion of Poland to the crushing of a motorbike used illegally - is a trifle over reactive
Terminus
It is not over reaction, it is merely being aware and when you have so many new laws in the last 9 years of this Govt. it kinda makes you think a little deeper, study events past and where they led to.
You cannot turn a blind eye or blame it on the failing of others to adhere to laws already in force, the blame is squarely laid at the door of corrupt and very greedy members of the Govt. and not just MP`s, but all their advisors and the cronies that stand to make lot`s of money from the PUBLIC PURSE.
Social Policy in this country has sucked for years and can only worsen over the next decades, they see it, so do we.
-
Politically I am caught in the middle. I am well aware of the intricacies of many recent laws from an unusual perspective.
I am sure I read somewhere that the current Govt. had brought in more new laws than any other by some considerable margin. I am also aware that many of these laws are at best silly and impracticable, and at worse un-enforcable.
The current incumbents seem all to happy to draw up a kneejerk law in reaction to any focus or pressure group that comes knocking at the door. A prime example (one that affects us as motorists & CB users) is that of using a mobile phone whilst driving. Personally (and I know of several traffic cops that agree) it was my understanding there were already several offences that a driver could be charged with where using a mobile phone (cb/whatever) had the potential to create a problem. The new law only makes it an offence at any time, previously there were charges such as drving without due care, and failing to maintain proper control. both of which apply to CB users too where the new law seems by all accounts to exempt such things. Even in the late 80's Essex traffic cars had a hands free system for the radios for these legal & safety reasons.
Many new laws have been written so vaguely with such blanket coverage our courts will be forever trying to unentangle them. Take gloryfying terrorism, best head to Leeds and tear down that nice new statue of Mandela then!
The legislation that this post originally reffered too as Terminus quite rightly says contains an awful lot of sections that at first glance (and even 2nd & 3rd) contain nothing to do with serious & organised crime. (defining serious crime is for another day :) - if I'm the victim its serious!).
Its a simple ploy used throughout the ages, no different from revealing bad news when the media are concentrating on a bigger issue, after all what MP is going to vote against anything that purports to be against serious crime/terrorism/peadophilia/insert nasty thing here. So the writers just slip in little bits here and there, perhaps at the very last minute. I doubt many MPs read the laws they vote for, and I suspect that any that do lack the ability to effectively understand what they have read.
In short, I regularly deal with some apects of human rights, civil liberties, serious crime & terrorism legislation and am well aware that many "basic rights" have been removed by stealth, with the few remaining to follow. Unfortunately the magna carta was never really enshrined in law the way the US constitution was, and even that has been eroded in recent years.
There are legal and simple ways to bring the castle crashing down by using purely legal methods :)
Having stood many times on both sides of this argument I could go on for hours (Yes I can see you yawning in the back there) - but this was supposed to be about off-roading.
So to the original point, as it was quoted to me (and Im way too lazy to look it up), before seizing the bike for crushing, the offender must be warned to cease & desist, and it is only when the offence continues, or it is believed that the offence may continue/be repeated then the vehicle may be seized.
In the original news story we hear only one side of the argument. Nowhere do we hear how often has this happened, did the youth give the attending police some attitude? had he been asked politely to leave by others? had he already been officialy warned by an officer about his actions & the possible consequences?
Personally I doubt very much that the incident quoted was a "one-off", but simply the end of a long-lived saga.
-
Just to stick my two-pennorth in.
I think it appears VERY harsh on the information given, but as it has been stated we only heard one side of the story.
However I do wonder what the reaction on this site would be if it was some poor chap who had accidentally strayed off a BOAT, onto a bridleway and was faced with having his Land Rover/Suzuki/Mitsubishi/whatever 4x4 crushed without appeal?
But there again 'its all right 'cos its a motorcycle' is the attitude too many seem to be promoting.
-
Just to stick my two-pennorth in.
I think it appears VERY harsh on the information given, but as it has been stated we only heard one side of the story.
However I do wonder what the reaction on this site would be if it was some poor chap who had accidentally strayed off a BOAT, onto a bridleway and was faced with having his Land Rover/Suzuki/Mitsubishi/whatever 4x4 crushed without appeal?
But there again 'its all right 'cos its a motorcycle' is the attitude too many seem to be promoting.
The issue here isn't really that he strayed off the road that alone would be unlikely to result in crushing - it was a trials bike not suitable for the road, therefore uninsured, untaxed etc - the owner would be clearly aware of the limitations of use of such a vehicle (as with mini moto's), especially as he only uses it on a track himself and should not have loaned it to a young lad to go off and play on where he pleased. Things don't just get crushed because you leave the beaten path. That is where the point is blurring - you wouldn't be driving your 4x4 (well i rather hope not) anywhere uninsured untaxed or mot'd or (again I would like to hope) lend it in such an undocumented state to a 17 yr old to drive around.
Had the young lad taken it where he was caught without consent he would be charged with theft and the bike would not have been crushed but as it was the owner has assumed responsibility by saying yes he gave it to the lad and so - squish :shock:
People have a certain amount of personal responsibility for the result of their actions - Ignorance of the law (as any sheriff or judge in the land will be the very first to tell you) is not an excuse.
I don't like using the ignorance of the law is not an excuse line because it sounds harsh but it has to be - or where would you stop "oh sorry I was curious as to what would happen - didn't realise that if I pressed the stop button on that mans life support machine it was murder" (a melodramatic example but used simply to illustrate the meaning of my point)
It's an emotive issue and any issue that involves the law, peoples understanding of the law and how it impacts them and those around them always will be - but Police do not as hinted at in earlier comments just "stick one on you" because they have a bad day - even the Police have to prove their actions were just if an appeal or complaint comes in and paying the mortgage and enjoying life is way more important than just "getting someone" on a bad day.
It'll be one of those never ending debates - there will be give and take but little resolution. I still hold that the fascist and nazi comparison bit is way over the top and that "in my eyes" to use it in comparison to the debate here rather belittles true attrocities and events that have occured in the past.
"look a badger with a gun" *points to the corner* and runs off out of the forum door whilst everyone is looking round :lol:
-
To use the Nazi references etc. in no way belittles the suffering that many endured, it is merely being used as reference to what may happen if these things go unchecked.......It is, as I have stated previously an awareness of the current state of affairs, if you have failed to learn from history, no matter what the scale may be, you have failed.
Now, about the forcing of democracy on Muslims........ :wink:
-
To use the Nazi references etc. in no way belittles the suffering that many endured, it is merely being used as reference to what may happen if these things go unchecked.......It is, as I have stated previously an awareness of the current state of affairs, if you have failed to learn from history, no matter what the scale may be, you have failed.
Now, about the forcing of democracy on Muslims........ :wink:
uh oh was it a muslim bike? or a christian owner? or a buddhist 17 year old? :wink: :lol:
we were discussing the crushing of a bike here and the rights or wrongs as some may feel of the matter - but I'm sure when you put fuel in your car you appologise out loud for any ill doing which was caused during its production or when you drink your coffee you feel compelled to write a letter to the third world producers who the first world market makes unviable, or loath yourself when you buy something produced from the very wood which poor countries are now not allowed to cut down (the rainforrest) even though the first world countries originally made billions on it - next you'll tell me you've placed a convertor on your posterior to reduce any methane gas emissions.
The world is full of rights and wrongs and I'm not going to set about debating them all- but then that wasn't what we were talking about in the first place.
Yes yes I know you're going to rebutt this with but the law is a draconian thing designed to infringe your rights and thereby eat away at your freedom and enslave you then rule you outright and become a facist state then .... I'm not sure where your point will end -
but this I am sure of - the law is not just there to make someones life hell - it's there because it has to be because without it your life would be hell - in fact in many cases a lot shorter -
If you're going to get all philosophical on me at what price is freedom? are you free? what is freedom? and if you truly had absolute freedom to do what you wanted, for things to be the way you wanted them every second of your day, for there to be nothing governing you or holding in check the desires and inhibit the urges of mankind - would that be freedom? Nope it's called anarchy and I doubt it would be an improvement.
It's the human condition to complain about what we have and what we don't have and right and wrong are just sides of a coin seen from different perspectives.
Now that we've moved from the point of the motorbike the 17 year old and the uncle - I'm out. Although I am quite happy and impressed we all managed 5 pages of conflicting opinion without for the most part poking each other in the eyes or pointing a finger and saying "he smells" :lol: maybe there's hope for us yet :wink: :lol: :lol:
-
**Points finger at TERMINUS...**
You smell.....!
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
If only they would take the same 'hard line' when they catch someone exiting through a window with a laptop under their arm. It seems that 'law abiding' citizens who stray outside the law get punished far more harshly than ricidevists.
-
Well, personally, I'd LOVE to see the little s*it's who insist on riding their irritating little 2 strokes around the local streets where I work, and the park behind my workplace; crushed themselves, let alone their little 'buzz machines' - they ride them ON the road; no helmets, no licences (they are too young!!) etc; but the most worrying thing is they have NO SKILL, NO AWARENESS and they do not give a damn!! These idiots come shooting out of side streets with complete disregard for rights of way, bigger, heavier vehicles etc; they are brain-deads who soon, no doubt, will become completely dead! The trouble is, it will be some innocent motorist who is then subjected to the (personal, not judicial) guilt of killing a prat who should NEVER have been on the road in the first place!!
Less of the bleeding hearts guys, we have road traffic laws, most of us comply with them, and it costs us a lot of dosh; one rule for all; end of story!!!
-
To use the Nazi references etc. in no way belittles the suffering that many endured, it is merely being used as reference to what may happen if these things go unchecked.......It is, as I have stated previously an awareness of the current state of affairs, if you have failed to learn from history, no matter what the scale may be, you have failed.
Now, about the forcing of democracy on Muslims........ :wink:
uh oh was it a muslim bike? or a christian owner? or a buddhist 17 year old? :wink: :lol:
we were discussing the crushing of a bike here and the rights or wrongs as some may feel of the matter - Although I am quite happy and impressed we all managed 5 pages of conflicting opinion without for the most part poking each other in the eyes or pointing a finger and saying "he smells" :lol: maybe there's hope for us yet :wink: :lol: :lol:
I too, am most impressed with the conduct of the posters on this topic.
It is nice to be on a forum where there is no need for things to get too personal, and where people are not constantly picking up bad spelling.
I have been a member of many forums where such a debate would have descended into petty name calling and worse.
I would just like to say thankyou for the understanding and tolerence that has been shown for what I have posted, it is nice to agree to disagree without the personal and analytical stuff that occurs on many forums on the net.
-
Any one for a brew??
-
Had a few already!! :oops:
I thought this would have keeled over on its own by now but there is clearly a lot of feeling about this subject.
Personally I think the granting of this punishment is brilliant...if they ever bother to come over and stop the little scrotes that ride on the filed behing my house i will be extremely grateful!
I too like MC because it doesnt get personal and people are keen to try and see the others viewpoints - thats what makes it the nicest forum out there.
-
Sorry Bully, but have you ever considered joining the Ramblers? - THEY tar us (ie 4x4) all with the same brush and insist it is right and proper..... like the road safety campaign tries to say 'think!'
Get a grip
there is right and wrong to every story - 'cos its a two-stroke' doesn't hit me as a valid argument.
I personally hate the [unpleasent fellows] in fiestas who drive up and down our road and would love to see all of them crushed..... lots of fiesta drivers would argue that they are perfectly safe and sensible........
I also hate volvos.... but I am told that is a legacy of when a drove a bike every day in every weather....
-
there is right and wrong to every story - 'cos its a two-stroke' doesn't hit me as a valid argument.
It's not about being a 'two stroke', it's about riding an illegal bike on a public road. If he was driving an illegal Fiesta then that would have suffered the same fate.
If you leave your 4x4 on the street with no tax then that will get crushed too.
-
Heavy handed and out of order.
Thats the trouble with this bloody country.
Get caught burgling a house and you get a slap on the wrists.
In each and every case I now take the law into my own hands.
<EDIT> :roll:
The tide will soon turn and unfortunately the Police will bear the brunt of the publics anger.
I am usually a law biding citizen, but the many new laws coming in make me want to break them more and more.
Totalitarian State is here.
I just hope all the folks who agree with this sort of heavy handed response agree with it when they are on the end of it through no fault of their own, just a simple mistake can lead to this....We are not all perfect and do not know all the laws of the land.
Do we really want the UK to be homogonised?.....The spirit of the people controlled completely.....I don`t think so, but we are going down the path at an alarming rate of knots.
you are so wrong here,both the owner and his couson knew they were breaking the law,but like the minority of youngsters who think they are abive the law,they spoil it for the majority.
I say crush the bike and ban both from owning any vehicle 2/4 wheels for a set period of time.
This action will not stop these or any law breakers,but hopefully this sort of action will make some think twice and not do it.
By the way,from your response i hope you are not affected by these law breakers one day
-
Karen, ive got a grip. I live in the real world but your arguament ...after clearly not bothering to read all the previous posts is silly.
You would like to ban people from driving near you who have a valid driving licence , insurance and have paid their road fund licence....dont think thats likely.
Lets start at the top shall we.
1st The fiesta driver has shown his proficiecy to drive that vehicle by passing a far more difficult test than i did - the 17 year old has taken no test.
2nd. he is insured so if he has an accident the insurerers will pay for any material damage - again the 17 year old was not.
3rd his vehicle is roadworthy ..has an mot. - The 250 crosser cannot pass an mot. It has no light / indicators/ exceeds the legal level for noise.
so me saying i would like the kids who arent old enough to drive/ride stopped from riding illegal bikes on public land is the same as me living on cloud nine and wanting to be a rambler????
karen take a look in the mirror. Its intolerance like yours that causes the friction in society. I merely said im all for law breakers being punished - you want lawful people stopped...would my loud v8 exhaust be ok on your road....because its a landrover?
The problem with the RA is that they do have a blanket view, but so do we to an extent.
So please b4 you talk rubbish , read what people have clearly given thought to b4 you try to be accusatory and downright rude.
Oh and im not an exbiker ...i ride nearly every day , ive commuted for over 15 years by motorbike and push iron.
-
you are so wrong here,both the owner and his couson knew they were breaking the law
The problem I have with this is not the punishment but how the punishment was arrived at.
In this case it is not clear if they DID know they were breaking the law, it is not clear who the witnesses were etc etc. It all comes down to the judgment of ONE man/woman who is only human. That person has decided they are guilty and has decided the punishment. It is a very slippy slope we are on.
Imagine a chief constable who is the member of the RA or friends with a local big wig land owner. He tells all his officers that they will operate a zero tolerence against all "off roaders". Joe in his 90 (gettit?) take a wrong turn off a BOAT onto an old RUPP and PC Greasypoleclimber is there waiting. Joe then has the problem of going to court or appeal to try and get his 90 back with little chance of success as he WAS in the strictess sense breaking the law.
As the law did stand Joe would get to keep his 90 (assuming the PC was satisfied he had correctly identified himself) The PC would then refer it to the CPS who would make a judgment on whether to go to court. In court the CPS would then have to prove he was breaking the law. The judge would then (if found guilty) lay down a sentence that was proportanal to the crime. In the above scenario I doubt it would involve crushing.
A quick fix to the problems and annoyances you are facing is always appealing but the ramifications can be astounding when thought about. Remeber that YOU will be annoyance/problem to somebody else. It might be something simple such as playing your CD player a bit loud after 8pm or your garden isnt immaculate all the time or your m8 parks his car outside their house when he visits etc etc All it takes is that this person knows the law and knows a friendly bobby.
It is all too easy to argue that a law will "never be used that way" but given time it can and probably will.
-
**Points finger at TERMINUS...**
You smell.....!
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah? whats your point :?: :P :P :P :P :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
you are so wrong here,both the owner and his couson knew they were breaking the law
The problem I have with this is not the punishment but how the punishment was arrived at.
In this case it is not clear if they DID know they were breaking the law, it is not clear who the witnesses were etc etc. It all comes down to the judgment of ONE man/woman who is only human. That person has decided they are guilty and has decided the punishment. It is a very slippy slope we are on.
Imagine a chief constable who is the member of the RA or friends with a local big wig land owner. He tells all his officers that they will operate a zero tolerence against all "off roaders". Joe in his 90 (gettit?) take a wrong turn off a BOAT onto an old RUPP and PC Greasypoleclimber is there waiting. Joe then has the problem of going to court or appeal to try and get his 90 back with little chance of success as he WAS in the strictess sense breaking the law.
As the law did stand Joe would get to keep his 90 (assuming the PC was satisfied he had correctly identified himself) The PC would then refer it to the CPS who would make a judgment on whether to go to court. In court the CPS would then have to prove he was breaking the law. The judge would then (if found guilty) lay down a sentence that was proportanal to the crime. In the above scenario I doubt it would involve crushing.
A quick fix to the problems and annoyances you are facing is always appealing but the ramifications can be astounding when thought about. Remeber that YOU will be annoyance/problem to somebody else. It might be something simple such as playing your CD player a bit loud after 8pm or your garden isnt immaculate all the time or your m8 parks his car outside their house when he visits etc etc All it takes is that this person knows the law and knows a friendly bobby.
It is all too easy to argue that a law will "never be used that way" but given time it can and probably will.
At the back of my sisters house lies a unused railline,obviously now with no tracks,there is also a long tunnel(3-400 yrds long)kids on these bikes constantly make a pest of themselves by riding up and down at all hrs(can you imagine the noise inside the tunnel).
this deadline is used(legaly)by famillys and dog walkers,I stick with what i said earlier.
People have allready had the warning,the police are right to carry out the law.
If anyone is in a legal vehicle and accidently makes a wrong turn i dont think they need to fear the law. But if anyone is in a illegal vehicle(car or bike)then i think they SHOULD fear the law.At the moment they dont.
-
Right Bob, I asked my 5 year old son if he was allowed to drive my car...he answered no.When asked why he said because he would get into trouble with a policeman. I dont spend my time putting the fear of god into my kids but I have taught them right from wrong...and more to the point that when he asks to drive(he loves sitting in the disco drivers seat) I tell him he isnt old enough.
So how come a 17 year old(who cannot get a license for a 250- thats the current law) and his 27 year old uncle didnt?? The original post states that the uncle uses the bike legally at a track, he is therefore more than adequately aware of the law.
So back to the establishment being unfare and crushing all these 4x4's . BALLS. it has not happened yet and this law has been around for a few years. Has anyone ever been threatened with it on here????
Please post if you have.
People make mistakes, the legislation is not there to punish people for making errors by taking a wrong turn. The power to confiscate is there to stop people doing the same thing over and over again. This youth would have wet himself if he had got a warning and would have been out again the following day. lets face it the police are stretched way too thin and he knows the odds of being caught again are slim.
-
People make mistakes, the legislation is not there to punish people for making errors by taking a wrong turn. The power to confiscate is there to stop people doing the same thing over and over again. This youth would have wet himself if he had got a warning and would have been out again the following day. lets face it the police are stretched way too thin and he knows the odds of being caught again are slim.
just to quote myself
It is all too easy to argue that a law will "never be used that way" but given time it can and probably will.
-
I see that there are proposals being discussed to give still more power to the police to apply penalties without the need to go court. I think I'm right in saying that a group of police officers suggested that this was inappropriate which I thought was very interesting.
I'm afraid I agree that because a law hasn't been used in a particular way the the potential for what might be abuse is there and hence it is a 'bad thing'.
Didn't they pass some law that allowed existing legislation to be ammended at the discretion of the government at the time without the need to go back to parliament? They kept on banging on that this would never be abused but the potential is there and there'd be nothing you could do about it.
I can see why these laws are passed and the powers granted, and I can see the intention is good and positive. It's possibly fine today with today's circumstances, quality of personnel and responsible chain of command or politicians (although frankly in the case of politicians I doubt it). But what about in a few year's time can we still be sure the same high standards will apply or that political pressure forces different decisions?
What can we do about it? Vote the current lot of politicians out - won't they be replaced by another lot who'll do much the same? It really is very worrying but I suppose it was ever thus.
Mike
-
the fact remains that laws are there for the good of everybody,ok there will allways be a bad apple,but that should,nt stop us trusting the police,if that day arrives.................the law breaker has won,and do we realy want that
-
the fact remains that laws are there for the good of everybody,ok there will allways be a bad apple,but that should,nt stop us trusting the police,if that day arrives.................the law breaker has won,and do we realy want that
That's not the point- should we be permitting laws to be passed that don't allow people the chance to put their case in court?
Trusting the police is a side issue - should we trust the politicians' motives for granting the police these powers?
Indeed are all laws for the good of all of us or for the convenience of the establishment? I can't think of an example but I bet others can of legislation that makes life easier for the government local or national rather than for the general public? Possibly an example close to home: the powers granted to National Parks who can now TRO on their own say so?
Mike
-
makes life easier for the government local or national rather than for the general public?
Speed cameras and associated laws? Bought in on safety grounds but have led to a reduction in traffic cops (who actualy catch people without liscences) and have proved to be one hell of a revenue earner (which the dishonest motorist dosnt pay as they havn't registered the car to themselves).
-
I too, am most impressed with the conduct of the posters on this topic.
It is nice to be on a forum where there is no need for things to get too personal, and where people are not constantly picking up bad spelling.
I have been a member of many forums where such a debate would have descended into petty name calling and worse.
I would just like to say thankyou for the understanding and tolerence that has been shown for what I have posted, it is nice to agree to disagree without the personal and analytical stuff that occurs on many forums on the net.
Without influencing the fact that we disagree....
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
-
[Trusting the police is a side issue
I don't believe it is a side issue. It is clear from the posts made by some of the people on here that they do not trust the police to provide the evidence necessary for these laws to be enforced.
the key issue in all of this discussion is that we are talking about a law that has gone trhough due process and an automatic penalty has been decided.
If a driver was stopped on the highway for ignoring a red light by a police officer who was not equipped with a video camera (whether in a car or on foot) are we really saying that the individual should not suffer the appropriate penalty?
Yes, we do need to be aware of the old Roman saying "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", who guards the guards?. But society needs a method of enforcing the laws that those elected to do so, have passed (whether we, the minority agree or not). The police service is that organisation.
There are safeguards in place, I'm sure TERMINUS can quote eloquently on the processes he has to go through when providing evidence for this kind of offence. And again, this penalty does not mean there is no recourse to the courts, not in this case I suspect the criminal court, rather the civil court.
Skibum
-
re: accidentally making a wrong turn from a boat.
As I understand the relevant legislation, the police CANNOT immediatetly impound your vehicle. You must be warned and given a chance to rectify the problem (get back on the byway, trun the stereo down, stop being an obstruction, whatever you are doing wrong).
It is only if you fail to do so, or (the only grey bit in my mind) the officer believes you will continue to commit the offence, or you commit the same offence again later that the full powers of the act come into play.
-
re: accidentally making a wrong turn from a boat.
As I understand the relevant legislation, the police CANNOT immediatetly impound your vehicle. You must be warned and given a chance to rectify the problem (get back on the byway, trun the stereo down, stop being an obstruction, whatever you are doing wrong).
It is only if you fail to do so, or (the only grey bit in my mind) the officer believes you will continue to commit the offence, or you commit the same offence again later that the full powers of the act come into play.
Just to be clear (I posted a link earlier to the specific legislation) the power to confiscate and crush a vehicle (two or four wheeled) only exists where driver of said vehicle is unable to produce the necessary documentation (Tax, MOT, Insurance etc). In the context of this thread, the bike was not designed for road use and is therefor un-insurable, un-taxable and would never have been granted an MOT. If it had been possible to obtain all the relevant documents for the vehicle and the driver subsequently did (and they were valid for the timne at which they were stopped by the police) then their vehicle would be returned to them.
Again, in this case, as the vehicle was not bilt for road use, there was no need for a period of 7 days to be given for the driver to produce.
Skibum
-
Yeap that about sums it up to be totally honest. By no means is it every officer or indeed the majority but there are enough to taint all of them.
Here are some examples of my dealings with the police. These are personal experiences NOT anecdotal or friends of friends etc.
1) Being assaulted on my doorstep by a drunk. Karen calls 999. Nothing happens. I calm the drunk down rather then beating the crap out of him and he wonders away. 15mins later he returns and starts it up again. Another 999 call, this time I man handle him away from the door.
An hour later we get a call from the police to see if "everything is all right" With a promise they would send an officer around to get a statement. Never turned up.
2) A drunk driver (I assume) ran into the side of our parked car which was off the road in parking bay. This was about midnight. I ran outside and flagged down a police car that was passing. I pointed out the guy who was legging it around a corner and down an ally. The 2 officers inspected the scene then moved the drunks car out of the road. They then spent over an hour in our living room checking out our insurance and other stuff. They even had the nerve to ask if we had been drinking! At no time did they attempt to chase this guy. The 'drunk' came back in the morning and drove off in his car. The police tracked him down after much badgering by us but told us "He denied it and there is nothing we can do. Besides you have fully comp insurance, we checked".
3) 9.30 on a friday evening I was walking along a pavement when I was run over by a car pulling off a pub carpark, the guy wondered what he had hit so he reversed, over my leg. 3 days in intensive care with a head injury and unable to walk for a week afterwards and off work for 5 months returned to work part time for a further 6 months. I employed a solicitor to pursue claims for damages and (as instructed by BT to recoup their losses as they had paid me my full wage) he obtained all the witness statements from the police. The only person who was a witness that didn’t have his job listed was the driver and it turned out he wasn’t breathalyzed. My solicitor dug more and found out he was a serving police officer. The police also refused to take statements from my 2 friends who were 10 yds behind me at the time as they were "not disinterested parties". My solicitor pushed more and more over the months and was stonewalled at every turn. This included the 2 investigating officers going on a rugby tour of New Zealand for 3 months and the records of the incident could not be found. It was getting me down so much (and Karen had just had Michael) that after 2 years I told the solicitor to drop it and just get what he could.
4) Being stopped from entering a village because I was on a motorcycle. This was later challenged in court (the police had also stopped a solicitor on the same day) and the chief constable was reprimanded for abusing his power. Turns out he had a friend in the village who didn’t like all those hooligans riding through his village
5) Coming home from a bike rally we encountered a road block. All motorcyclists were waved over to the side. Cars vans etc were waved through. I was given a rectification notice for faulty fork seals (there was a ring of mud half way up the forks) within the hour I was at an MOT station as it was due in the next week anyway and the bike passed first time. I was with 3 other bikers, Karen was passed, Steve got a fine as his number plate was 5mm too narrow and John got a fine as his number plate bulb was faulty.
6) We owned an empty house that we were doing up for sale and at the time I owned a Peugeot 205 that had a blown head gasket and we parked it outside the house in a parking bay. It had been confirmed earlier with the council that this was indeed off the road and this was pre SORN days. The tax ran out although it still had 6 months MOT and next door complained to the police. Despite it being registered at the house it was parked outside of they came and lifted it one week after the tax expired. We produced the letter from the council and we were told we could have it back from a pound that was 30 miles away. Returning it would be at our own expense. Britania recovery wouldn't/couldn't help us as it was in a pound and given that we had only paid £200 the cost of moving it was prohibitive (none runner remember). So we told them they could have it/crush it whatever. They then tried to bill us for disposal of the car. Told them to take me to court for it and not heard anything since.
Trust the police? Not a damn chance of it. Oh and I have never been in trouble with the police not even as a kid. Never been arrested or even got as much as a parking ticket or points on my license. I would no more trust the police force as I would a complete stranger in the street.
-
Bob696.....I concur with you, I have had very similar experiences myself, infact a tad spooky that they are so similar.
That is why I dish out my own justice now, I have completely given up on the Police in this country and will not even bother to call them now, I handle everything myself.
Last time I was involved with the Police was a couple of months ago, I wound up telling the 4 WPC`s what they needed to do, it was a domestic nuisence in the road that I live in.
I simply said that if they did not cart the woman off to the station, they should come back in 20 mins and to bring back up and a van, as they would need it to take me with them as well!.....They listened and took her away.......For the second time that night :roll:
I am sure that there are effective Police officers out there, but I lost confidence in the service a long time ago, and that is just sad.
I do respect the Police and the job they do, just so long as they respect me for who I am and the life that I want to lead......Anyone who treats me as guilty from the off is in for a big suprise, as an airport security guard in Egypt found out this year :lol:
-
I notice that in some instances the previous complaints are as much (if not more) about the police NOT doing what they shoud/could as much as about them being overly effiecient in upholding the law.
-
Having just read this whole post i feel i must say that its a pleasure to read a robust discussion in progress =D>
bob696 if i had all the grief you have had i think i would have moved, but i totally agree with you in finding the police a waste of time, i reported a suspicious van on a building site near me loading stuff in after hours and was questioned at length by the officer as if it were me who was in the wrong and was i making this up :roll:
-
I notice that in some instances the previous complaints are as much (if not more) about the police NOT doing what they shoud/could as much as about them being overly effiecient in upholding the law.
Perhaps they should get right what they do at the moment rather than 'spreading their wings' so to speak
-
Incredible,..... first their doing too much... now their not doing enough...
**slaps forehead as only homer can**
-
i reported a suspicious van on a building site near me loading stuff in after hours and was questioned at length by the officer as if it were me who was in the wrong and was i making this up :roll:
If you go for a job, the interviewer will often ask probing questions to test your knowledge, competence and experience as well as get to information you didn't even know was relevent.
Interviwing people is a skill and in these instances, I'm confident that all they were doing was trying to get to information you were not even aware you had taken in.
Your perception may be diffirent, but if people act in a way that is diffirent to our expectations (just jump in the police car and chase them) it is very easy to translate that into inappropriate behaviour.
If you go to the doctor and they ask about your snoring when your in for a bad back, do you challenge them in the same way?
Skibum
-
Incredible,..... first their doing too much... now their not doing enough...
**slaps forehead as only homer can**
Perhaps they should get right what they do at the moment rather than 'spreading their wings' so to speak
-
Perhaps they should get right what they do at the moment rather than 'spreading their wings' so to speak
Yep you may have had some bad experiences but then as said earlier there is always a weak link in any line of employment, but for the greater part most are not.
Now...... ... I'm sure there's another debate going on somewhere not too far from here regarding the actions of certain anti 4x4 groups doing something akin to tarrring all with the same brush :shock: ... and there seems to be a general concensus that is a bad thing.
You can't say its bad for one group of people and ok for another :wink:
-
Yep you may have had some bad experiences but then as said earlier there is always a weak link in any line of employment, but for the greater part most are not.
I could not agree with you more tbh and I think I did say something along those lines earlier. I have nothing but respect for the job that police officers do (even the bad ones are up against it) but as has been said they are only human after all.
Police officers have enough on their plate as it is without adding the role of judge and jury to them as well. Let them do the job that Robert Peel organised them to do and leave the sentencing and such to the courts.
-
Yep you may have had some bad experiences but then as said earlier there is always a weak link in any line of employment, but for the greater part most are not.
I could not agree with you more tbh and I think I did say something along those lines earlier. I have nothing but respect for the job that police officers do (even the bad ones are up against it) but as has been said they are only human after all.
Police officers have enough on their plate as it is without adding the role of judge and jury to them as well. Let them do the job that Robert Peel organised them to do and leave the sentencing and such to the courts.
Ah but the implication is that the Police are incapable of doing this - the law with regard to the crushing of vehicles (England and Wales only) has safeguards, this is not something a cop can just do on a whim it has to be evidenced, it has to be failure to desist or failure to provide documentation etc - which in turn have to be proveable.
The point is it is a fast track to decrease the burden on the already struggling courts but the level of evidence has to be the same as for court and the reasons justified fully because if there came a suggestion of someone acting unfairly or that it truly was a cop being spitefull it would have to be proven in the court that this was or was not the case.
You may think they're out to get me but - you'll find the concept of continuing in a good career with a good pension scheme which in effect like everyone else pays the mortgage is far greater than the one of being fired because they wanted to 'get at you' cause they had a bad day!
The law (as I'm sure you are aware) is not upheld by robots, it's upheld by people who when they sign off are just members of the public like you and subject to the same legislation (in fact worse - they are dealt with a lot harsher for any legal misdemeanors - trust me your life compared to the people you think incapable of being routinely fair is a far more free one) :wink:
Edit - sadly you can't have it both ways people want justice but are not happy they are getting it - along come measures to assist and they find a reason to think they will be used to 'abuse' them.
It's one of those you're no good you're not trying hard enough but at the same time you're trying too hard lines - damned if you do - damned if you don't :shock:
Ah well I'm not bitter :D thats us people for you - you could pick any subject you wanted and you'd find everyone hates something but they don't like the solutions either. Fossil fuels V's nuclear energy and unsightly windfarm as just one example (please don't go debating this it's only an example :lol: :lol: )
-
Ah but the implication is that the Police are incapable of doing this - .........
In my experience, there are some officers who are not capable of doing this and could not be trusted to do it, it really is that simple. Customs & Excise have "safeguards" for what they are worth. In a recent case the high court ruled against C&E and C&E thumbed their noses at the court responding that all procedures had been followed so the case was closed and the guys car had been crushed anyway. The court could do NOTHING about it.
The point is it is a fast track to decrease the burden on the already struggling courts
The accountants rule the world as usual.
but the level of evidence has to be the same as for court and the reasons justified fully because if there came a suggestion of someone acting unfairly or that it truly was a cop being spitefull it would have to be proven in the court that this was or was not the case.
So you would have to prove that the cop was being spitefull? Isnt that just saying you would have to prove your innocence in order to prove his spite?
In a court a PCs evidence is judged along with all other evidence. How can an individual be asked to judge his own evidence impartialy? Some officers CAN do it I have no doubt but all of them?
-
So you would have to prove that the cop was being spitefull? Isnt that just saying you would have to prove your innocence in order to prove his spite?
In a court a PCs evidence is judged along with all other evidence. How can an individual be asked to judge his own evidence impartialy? Some officers CAN do it I have no doubt but all of them?
No no no it's not about proving the cops spite it's about proving the judgement was wrong or not lawfull. It's like anything there is a right to appeal the law - but chances are if it go to the stage the car/bike/caravan/small mamal (added for artistic value) was crushed then the law had already been broken on numerous occasions.... you seem to be missing one crucial point this law is not oh you have wandered somewhere you shouldn't have I'll crush your vehicle just like that - it's a culmination of failing to desist, repeat instances and not having the Legal documentation for the vehicle - you may only hear of the one issue that led to the crushing in the press but there is a lot more you didn't see.
People seem determined to simplify the law to oh you did bad me crush car - but it in reality is nothing like that - there are chances to stop the action which may lead to crushing etc.... but in document offences (no licence no insurance not mot or tax) - you deserve to have it crushed outright - because there is no excuse for stealing from the public purse - we pay so should you (you in the rhetorical not an aimed comment there) :wink:
Edit -
The accountants rule the world as usual.
It's not about accountancy bob it's about the increase in criminal behaviour, (and in my own opinion a downward trend in social behaviour) it's a choice either adapt the law to handle them or they overflow and hey presto people start shouting where's the justice! Why can't I get the Police to come round? - erm because they are dealing with the millions of other crimes committed by the people who the courts couldn't fit in this year.
Bigger courts? bigger jails? bigger tax rises? a huge influx of Police? - surely these would be the very things leading to the lack of freedom you seem to dislike - a huge Police presence, jails so big there would be one in everyones neighbourhood, tax rises that push people who are already struggling over the edge (and possibly into criminality) cause we all know what happens when a government announces tax rises - we complain - see its no win and it's not simply as you put it about accountancy - if only it was that simple.
on a side note count the typing errors :lol:
-
No no no it's not about proving the cops spite it's about proving the judgement was wrong or not lawfull.
So you ARE guilty until proven innocent now (well until an individual decides you are guilty at any rate)
but chances are if it go to the stage the car/bike/caravan/small mamal (added for artistic value) was crushed then the law had already been broken on numerous occasions
But isnt that the courts job? Besides I believe that the legislation also carries the words (paraphrasing) " believe the actions will continue" How do you prove your belief or if you are the 'guilty' (not worth calling them the accused anymore) part then disprove the officers belief?
and not having the Legal documentation for the vehicle
I had the legel documentation for my peugot 205
you deserve to have it crushed outright
And there speaks someone who will impartialy apply the law and impartialy decide on the punishment?
edit> I counted four :P
-
see above edit.
No when you are proven guilty it is for reasons - you have the option to appeal - thiat is the way our justice system works.
If you find yourself at the harsh end of this particular legislation then you have been doing something you shouldn't have - it's not just as simple as you keep trying to make it - its not oh you're not meant to be there you should get your car crushed - if you insist on believing this thats your perrogative but it is slightly off base.
As for your last two points they don't quite make sense - what I clearly said was that those who are using vehicles without the proper documantation - tax mot licence and insurance should not be and if they want to take the risk and cheat the rest of us - then fine don't whine when their car is a box of tin. You seem to miss the point no documents is an offence in this country and always has been and for very good reasons.
Ask the people who's cars were wrecked by an ass with no insurance or the tax increases to pay for those that dodge it or the inexperienced no licence driver who kills your friend - tell him it's ok then ....... :shock:
-
No when you are proven guilty it is for reasons
But nobody has proven you guilty, someone has decided your are guilty. There is a BIG difference.
Where do you want it to stop? Should everybody who is court 'red handed' by an officer of the law automaticaly be dealt with? They do that in Brazil you know, they take shop lifters into an ally and blow their heads off. Saves hell of a lot of time in court I must admit.
-
People seem determined to simplify the law to oh you did bad me crush car - but it in reality is nothing like that - there are chances to stop the action which may lead to crushing etc.... but in document offences (no licence no insurance not mot or tax) - you deserve to have it crushed outright - because there is no excuse for stealing from the public purse - we pay so should you (you in the rhetorical not an aimed comment there) :wink:
Hmm, then why have I got the impression from press releases made by the police and others that they will catch transgressors and crush their vehicle? There have been reports in the press and elsewhere of the authorities which includes the police amongst others having a push on illegal driving and cars being crushed? Why does the DVLA show pictures of sad chavs watching their car being taken away to be crushed - with a tagline along the lines of don't pay your tax and we'll crush your car?
It seems that someone wants it all ways - and I'm not suggesting you do Terminus - both looking tough but tempering it with crushing being the net result of repeat offences or flagrant flouting of the law.
I'm not criticising the police for applying the law, I'm moaning because I was stupid enough to let such laws be passed. Now the genie is out of the bottle will it ever be shoved back in - not probable I'd say.
Mike
-
No when you are proven guilty it is for reasons
But nobody has proven you guilty, someone has decided your are guilty. There is a BIG difference.
I agree that is the big difference.
As before: he had the gun in his hand it was still smoking he must be guilty.
Has no-one here read the Father Brown stories?
Mike
-
Hmm, then why have I got the impression from press releases made by the police and others that they will catch transgressors and crush their vehicle? There have been reports in the press and elsewhere of the authorities which includes the police amongst others having a push on illegal driving and cars being crushed? Why does the DVLA show pictures of sad chavs watching their car being taken away to be crushed - with a tagline along the lines of don't pay your tax and we'll crush your car?Mike
The warning in respect of untaxed vehicles is there stark and clear - you shouldn't be driving it untaxed it's illegal and it cheats those of us who do pay tax - so if the car gets crushed who is to blame? the Police...no, The law....no, The person who ignored the warning ... yes.
Police will always have a push on illegal drivers and if they decide its worth the risk then so be it - it's their vehicle it's their risk.
I hear day in day out about how an uninsured driver has hit someone's car and they are left with the bill because there is no insurance to pay up..... It's all very well saying oh but you can't crush their car --- that is until it's you complaining that you car has been written off by a clown with no insurance .... suddenly it's my car is ruined and what are the Police doing about it?
It's certain members of the public who want it all ways and will never be happy ...not even when they are the ones who vote in the government who created the law.
The two above examples are absolutes, its not about tempering it with failure to desist or repeat offending this applies to different crimes where there is an element of "I didn't realise I shouldn't be there" etc ... these elements you will find (or possibly not because the real facts of any given matter are seldom reported for you to read) open to initial warnings and when warnings are ignored - squish.
But driving without insurance or tax for example there are absolutely No excuses for ... there is no misunderstanding here everyone knows its illegal - there should be no opportunity for repeat offence in regard to these matters. As i said above when your car or loved one is wiped out by an unisured driver .. maybe then you'll wish the opportunity for them to do it again is not there.
Edit - bottom line if you want to change something you have to step up to the play - whether that be the power of your vote, counter action in court, exercising your right to peacefull protest or joining the old bill.
I stepped up to the play in my way and I'v never regretted it no matter how many times people generalise. There will always be those who disagree and those who agree, but in the end people do the job so others don't have to. Not everyone wants to see some of the things that really go on in life.
I don't want a pat on the back or a blue peter badge - it's my job (I get paid to do it) and I do it primarily because I love it and I see a side of life I doubt I could ever explain to you, that might explain why some laws may not seem fair but without them you'd be less happy than you think.
I see both sides of the public opinion and that includes my own (I worked for over 9 years before joining) Truth is nobody is ever going to be happy there will always be something one agrees with that another dislikes - ah well whatcha gonna do? :wink: :lol:
-
I actually agree with what you regarding driving uninsured vehicles and unroadworthy vehicles and I can see what you're saying about these being absolutes. I can understand the purpose of such laws but I don't accept that there are never mitigating circumstances.
It's the times when we're assured there are so many warnings ignored etc. that worry me - no I don't know about these warning being ignored as they have not gone through the public courts.
Once again - I'm not digging at the police I'm regretting the laws that have been passed and it as you say all our own fault.
Mike
-
Sorry I was adding an edit to the above post when you posted the last one.
There are no mitigating circumstances driving without tax or insurance, people know they should have it - there is absolutely no reason on the planet to drive without them.
and .... I know you're not digging at the Police :wink:
-
But driving without insurance or tax for example there are absolutely No excuses for ... there is no misunderstanding here everyone knows its illegal - there should be no opportunity for repeat offence in regard to these matters. As i said above when your car or loved one is wiped out by an unisured driver .. maybe then you'll wish the opportunity for them to do it again is not there.
From the first post
Although he was unaware that the gravel path was a public highway, and there were no signs to warn him, an officer confiscated the vehicle and one ridden by his friend, on the spot.
So the police confiscate ALL untaxed vehicles on the spot and crush them I assume from what you say. Is this correct?
errrrrr ... no I didnt think so. Therefore the police are acting as sanctioned 'vigalanties' deciding who gets punished and in what way. If this wasnt the case then ALL untaxed vehicals would be crushed (even a £40k BMW) if found without a SORN OR everyone would be taken to court.
What we have instead is individual police officers interpreting the directions of their Chief Constable (or whoever) as to who is entitled to 'due process'. "Little scrote gave me some lip I'll have his car crushed, nice guy in a nice suit just forgot, he can pay a fine".
I wonder how long it will be until the PC can decide on the fine?
ps can't be bothered to run a spell check
-
It's the times when we're assured there are so many warnings ignored etc. that worry me - no I don't know about these warning being ignored as they have not gone through the public courts.Mike
I can understand your worries but you don't see things from inside the organisation - long gone are the days of Police being able to do as they pleased, everything is about accountability (as it should be) in every single instance the Police have to be able to justify and prove that their actions were lawful. Trust me it's not worth doing something that costs you your job these days... because when a cop breaks the law - the law kicks them harder than they would a general member of the public, because it would be an abuse of trust.
-
From the first post
Although he was unaware that the gravel path was a public highway, and there were no signs to warn him, an officer confiscated the vehicle and one ridden by his friend, on the spot.
So the police confiscate ALL untaxed vehicles on the spot and crush them I assume from what you say. Is this correct?
errrrrr ... no I didnt think so. Therefore the police are acting as sanctioned 'vigalanties' deciding who gets punished and in what way. If this wasnt the case then ALL untaxed vehicals would be crushed (even a £40k BMW) if found without a SORN OR everyone would be taken to court.
Bob yet again you missed the point .... the bike was a trials bike it cannot be insured it cannot be taxed or MOT'd ... it should not be ridden in any public place other than a track designed for it ... not even a gravel track because by law if the place is open to the public to walk or be present it has the same laws as a road.
So regardles of him thinking it was a gravel track or a trail - it is open to the public the law regards insurance applies - to protect the public from being knocked down and injured by an uninsured rider
Edit - it's nothing to do with it being a public highwaty - it is illegal to drive on a road or other public place without insurance covering third party risks for that vehicle.[/b]
-
MIke I think Terminus is saying that it is made pretty clear to the general public that the police now have the power to crush cars/bikes. The people who fall prey to this are not ignorant of the fact. This is advertised on tv and in the paper.
If you watch the police stop type programs you see evidence of it all the time.I have lost count of the times that i have seen the police stop disqualified drivers on those shows - multiple repeat offernder , the police even recognise them when they drive past! These people have proved they have no respect for the law or you and me for that matter.
I got knocked off my bike about 8 years ago , the driver of the nova that pulled out on me left me for dead at the scene. I ended up about 2500 out of pocket after all my expenses and thank god i got paid whilst i was off. I would happily watch them crush peoples cars who dont have the correct documentation as i believe that the guy who could easily have killed me was one of them. If he did he would have stopped and helped me until the paramedics arrived......... next time it could be any of us... crush em its that simple. Maybe if they extend it out to drink drivers then we might see a decline in this stupid, dangerous, ar**hole activity.
-
The mitigtaing circumsatnaces I was thinking of were going away for 4 weeks. Tax due 3 weeks into that 4 week period.
I don't think you can renew before you go.
You can't renew while you're away.
Busted.
But I could be wrong.
Mike
-
Bulli I take your point entirely.
OTOH those repeat offenders will go to court no doubt and hopefully get a good stiff sentence.
Mike
-
The mitigtaing circumsatnaces I was thinking of were going away for 4 weeks. Tax due 3 weeks into that 4 week period.
I don't think you can renew before you go.
You can't renew while you're away.
Busted.
But I could be wrong.
Mike
It's all of our responsibility to tax our cars if you are going away three weeks before tax runs out
1:tax it early - you can do this and you don't lose the three weeks
2:put it on private land or the garage if you got one :wink:
There really isn't a single reason for it not being taxed and we're not talking a few days out - you'll find cops tell you to get it done immediately if it's that margin and accept you turning up to prove you did as case closed.
-
You don't get the reminder early enough to have the form to take to the PO - a lot of older people rely on the reminder.
Untaxed non SORN on provate land still an offence I thought.
I have to say we are counting angels dancing on the head of a pin here. But I am trying to suggest that even in this case it's not black and white.
Mike
-
I don`t suppose there is a place that you can look up all the laws of the land is there?.....On the net especially.
I mean a definitive interpretation of said laws.
-
Mike, i take your point... i have done my last 3 online, its great ...you even get an email confirming that you have taxed it.
I dont think they would simply crush your car at 3 weeks as long as you had insurance and a licence...hope not anyway.
-
You don't get the reminder early enough to have the form to take to the PO - a lot of older people rely on the reminder.
Untaxed non SORN on provate land still an offence I thought.
I have to say we are counting angels dancing on the head of a pin here. But I am trying to suggest that even in this case it's not black and white.
Mike
Like anything owning a car has it's responsibilities and we all forget from time to time but its a disk on your car - it tells you when it runs out it's not that hard to make arrangements, whether that be tax it early or if in doubt call the DVLA they'll tell you the best options - the sorn etc isn't a few days over it's normally about a month I believe so if you're going away for a month you really should be checking - after all you wouldn't forget to lock your house when you were away.
You could say that of anything oh I forgot to insure it again - or I forgot to reapply for my licence when it expired but sadly that doesn't make it right. Would you say you forgot you shouldn't have used your mobile phone (I've seen people try it) or I forgot I had to put the seatbelt on my child.
Yep it can seem unfair but thats the law and it's there because the govt we (or the majority) voted in created it. If I forgot was an acceptable defence it would set a very dangerous precedent. :shock:
Life ain't perfect - if it was I'd be on a beach in the Bahamas with my yaught moored off the bay and drinking a cold alcoholic drink with a bathing beauty next to me 8) :lol: :lol:
-
I don`t suppose there is a place that you can look up all the laws of the land is there?.....On the net especially.
I mean a definitive interpretation of said laws.
That's a good one. If such a thing existed then many lawyers and barristers would be out of work!
Definitive/law - in the same sentence?
Mike
-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/about_legislation.htm - the link to the govt site where laws can be found in date ordered lists or you can use the search to find specific legislation
e.g. Road Traffic Act 1988
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_1.htm
Edit - it does make for hard reading but once you get used to reading 'legalise' it's not too bad :shock: :lol: just read slow and re read a lot ..... law was never a simple thing sadly.
-
and not having the Legal documentation for the vehicle
I had the legel documentation for my peugot 205
Wasn't it the council who had towed away and crushed your car?
Diffirenet circumstances and as my old maths teacher used to say, you can't compare apples and oranges.
Skibum
-
No when you are proven guilty it is for reasons
But nobody has proven you guilty, someone has decided your are guilty. There is a BIG difference
You have proven you guilty by failing to supply the necessary documentation... surely?
-
You don't get the reminder early enough to have the form to take to the PO - a lot of older people rely on the reminder.
I'm sure I made a reference to personal responsibility earlier in this thread... this I think would fall firmly into this category.
It's not the responsibility of DVLA to remind people to tax their cars, neither is it a defence to say I didn't get the reminder in time.
Are you really suggesting that some households have no calander on which they can write a note to self? (Let alone Microsft Outlook, that once set will repeat ad infinitum and repeatedly remind you?)
Skibum
-
it is illegal to drive on a road or other public place without insurance covering third party risks for that vehicle.
So replace my comments about untaxed cars with uninsured cars. Whatever the police are still deciding on the punishment.
It's not the responsibility of DVLA to remind people to tax their cars, neither is it a defence to say I didn't get the reminder in time.
Regarding taxing your car. As Dr Mike says you CANNOT tax you car until you get the form. If it gets lost in the post you are screwed especialy if you have no off road parking. Plod could come along and crush your car through no fault of your own.
You have proven you guilty by failing to supply the necessary documentation... surely?
In law you are not required to give evidence against yourself. Or are we saying that that bit of the british justice system has now been scrapped as well?
I dont think they would simply crush your car at 3 weeks as long as you had insurance and a licence...hope not anyway.
Would or could. This is the root of the problem. They may not but could they if they wanted to and who decides?
-
Bob you CAN tax your car without a renewal...how on earth would you tax a car when you first buy it????? The dvla arent psychic.
-
Regarding taxing your car. As Dr Mike says you CANNOT tax you car until you get the form. If it gets lost in the post you are screwed especialy if you have no off road parking.
Wrong.
You can renew tax with your V5.
As TERMINUS stated higher up THIS page... you can renew your tax earlier and you do not lose out as you can specify when you need it to start from. Post offices hold stocks of all relevant tax discs.
-
In law you are not required to give evidence against yourself.
By providing evidence that your vehicle is taxed, insured and MOT'd, whether at court or at the police station... you are providing evidence in your defence.
Failing to provide evidence in your defence is not testifying against yourself. You have an absolute right to silence... but that silence can work against you as well as for you.
-
You have proven you guilty by failing to supply the necessary documentation... surely?
You cannot prove yourself to be guilty it is as simple as that. It is upto the crown to prove you are guilty. Or am I completly misunderstanding the basis of british justice here?
From a UN web page http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/preamble.asp
Quotes from page 10 and 11
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
A police officer dosn't make up a tribunal, he is not independant (told what to do by his chief constable) and is not impartial (he is a witness to the crime)
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Arguing with a PC is a sure fire way to get the max penalty
It is from a kiddies page so it should be simple to understand.
-
You have proven you guilty by failing to supply the necessary documentation... surely?
You cannot prove yourself to be guilty it is as simple as that. It is upto the crown to prove you are guilty. Or am I completly misunderstanding the basis of british justice here?
See my previous post responding to this point.
OK, I accept that you should not be required to prove yourself guilty.
However, by failing to provide evidence of tax, insurance & MOT (let alone licence) you have failed to prove your innocence.
What's the diffirence?
-
you have failed to prove your innocence.
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
-
From a UN web page http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/preamble.asp
Quotes from page 10 and 11
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
A police officer dosn't make up a tribunal, he is not independant (told what to do by his chief constable) and is not impartial (he is a witness to the crime)
So... why is it an issue that the individual should go through an appeal process...?
There have been posts in here making complaint that the Police are not responding "when they should". The solution it seems is to tie them up in court proceedings instead.
They stop a driver for speeding but can't issue a fixed penalty notice. Instead, they have to fill out the necessary paperwork (probably an hour at least) that's sent on to the CPS who decide whether it should be prosecuted (probably an hour at least), they then (as everyone needs to go to court) refer it for court. It's scheduled by the court system for 18 months hence (terrible backlog you see... all these people will insist on being caught speeding or driving without tax etc, even driving an untaxable vehicle where they shouldn't).
Saturday night, an individual is "in drink" and is arguing with door staff and causing nuisance to other members of the public. Police intervene and warn the individual about his (cuz it usually is!) behaviour and suggests he moves on. The individual ignores this advice and remonstrates with the police, who, give a firmer warning and stronger advice to move on, etc etc till he's nicked. He is detained till Monday morning when he should be going to court to defend his good name (cuz we all need that day in court...) but alas... court is too busy so he is released and sent on his way. 18 months later... a date appears and he is nowhere to be found... apparently he moved house the week after he was arrested to avoid getting a court date. Pity we couldn't just issue him with a fixed penalty ticket (that he could appeal if he felt it unjust... ) that may alter his behaviour next time he is "in drink".
Whatever we think of the much vaunted "British Justice System" it is not capable of dealing in a realistic way with the number of offences that are prevelent in today's society.
As for the police not being independant... who is...? I would argue there are levels of reliability.
I wouldn't want to be accused of murder and have the local constable decide that 30 years should about do it, but the types of offence we are debating... yeah.. ok.. fair cop (if you'll pardon the pun!)
The point made very succinctly by TERMINUS is the days of a quick slap on the back of the head "cuz that's what's best" are long gone. The number of complaints by the public made against police officers and some very high profile cases of abuse have improved the process. Officers heve never been more under the spotlight when it comes to making cases. I for one would not want to work in an environment where every decision I made could result in censure so sver that my livelihood was on the line.
[/i]
-
you have failed to prove your innocence.
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
OK... words of one syllable...
Every driver is required to have certain documetns and is required by law to produce these at the request of a police officer.
If a driver subsequently fails to produce said documents... the police officer is deemed to have proven that none exist as the driver has had a fair opportunity to produce them.
I accept that I should be careful with my phraseology, however... I thought it to be a straightforward explanation... apparently not.
-
I really should not be saying this, but, I am going to anyways.
I know of serving military personnel who have put pressure on the "establishment" to ensure that war crimes commited in Iraq have not gone there full course.
I know of local authority personnel who do not have the resources to do their jobs dilligently to do the job effectively.
And it is public knowledge that various members of Parliament do not know how to do there jobs, are corrupt and do have major conflicts of interest in the pursuit of personal financial gain.
I also know parish councillors who are only there to ensure that they can gain financially via planning decisions etc.
In a word, the Country is full of corrupt figures of authority and incompetent figures of authority.
That is the reason why we should not trust these individuals, I take on board that we elected them, thus we should see them on their way out, but he individuals that replace them will become just as corrupt as time goes by, it is human nature.
Please tell me that there is someone who is above all this, I fear that there is no one, not one person, if, who is totally honest will be able to say that they are.
-
In a word, the Country is full of corrupt figures of authority and incompetent figures of authority.
That is the reason why we should not trust these individuals, I take on board that we elected them, thus we should see them on their way out, but he individuals that replace them will become just as corrupt as time goes by, it is human nature.
I agree... :shock:
I agree that we should not trust corrupt individuals whatever the role in life they fulfill.
So... let's not trust anybody... that'll help... won't it?
Don't trust the paper boy.
Don't trust the milkman.
Don't trust the butcher, baker or candlestick maker.
Don't trust Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble or Grubb.
Don't trust the managers.
Don't trust the investors.
Don't trust the owners.
Don't trust the police.
Don't trust the ambulance.
Don't trust the firemen (oops... covered them)
Don't trust the army, navy or air force.
Don't trust the lawyers.
Don't trust the judges.
Don't trust the jury's.
Don't trust me.
Don't trust you.
Sad.. innit?
Me?
I'd rather trust and be proven wrong than mistrust and be proven right.
-
you have failed to prove your innocence.
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
OK... words of one syllable...
Every driver is required to have certain documetns and is required by law to produce these at the request of a police officer.
If a driver subsequently fails to produce said documents... the police officer is deemed to have proven that none exist as the driver has had a fair opportunity to produce them.
I accept that I should be careful with my phraseology, however... I thought it to be a straightforward explanation... apparently not.
Not sure your arythmatic is up to much tbh.
I am sure that Terminus will correct me if I am wrong (and justly so) but I think the crime you describe is called "failure to produce documents". This IS provable in court. You either have or havn't produced them. It is not possable to prove someone hasn't got the documents and it is against the principles of british law to ask someone to prove their innocence (which you appear to find acceptable and even desirable).
You then draw an interesting scenario of a policeman and a drunk. Who has defined what 'drunk' is? Who has defined what level of 'disturbance' is not acceptable? Is somebody who talks too much and is a bore guilty and subject to a fine or do they have to get violent?
A policemans primary role is to protect the public from harm NOT to enforce the law (thats 3rd on the list behind protecting property). What you are arguing for is the order of these prioroties to be changed. A PC could protect the public (including the drunk btw) by putting him a cell for the night and letting the CPS decide if a crime has been commited based on the evidence provided to them.
As to trust. Scan read this and tell me you would trust a policeman without question
http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/wmidlands.html
-
I really sould stop contributing but ...
Part of the problem here is that some years back, early 70s maybe, the public's confidence in many figures of authority was severely shaken by high profile scandals in almost all walks of life, T Dan Smith planning, Profumo, police corruption, teachers going on strke for the first time (not a scandal but it was a shock) and many others.
Now we are still reaping the problems of that period - add the claim culture we have now and it's a calamity.
But I MUST make this my last comment.
Mike
-
You cannot call someone drunk. You can say in your oppinion they have had too much to drink but not drunk.
Mad init ? :shock:
-
A policemans primary role is to protect the public from harm NOT to enforce the law (thats 3rd on the list behind protecting property). What you are arguing for is the order of these prioroties to be changed.
Absolute nonsense - these are not things listed in priority these are primary duties all of which have equal importance... the order they are written in does not depict a level of importance. :shock: :P
Edit
"failure to produce documents". This IS provable in court. You either have or havn't produced them. It is not possable to prove someone hasn't got the documents
There is an offence of failure to produce but this is different from the crime of not having the documents - failure to produce is used when someone often has certain documents but ignores the law and does not produce them at a designated station in the time period given. If a person is charged with not having insurance for example he cannot also be charged with failing to produce because that is part of the not having them charge in that case.
As for not being possible to prove that someone hasn't got documents thats not true either - in this case the bike was a trails bike and as such is not fit for the road and therefore cannot have documents so the proof is in the fact it is not possible for the documents to exist.
Also the Police and insurers linked a long time ago - they can tell before they even stop you if you are insured using the database and who is insured on the policy to drive. The same applies for the drivers licence database.
Edit 2 (cause I like my edits)
Your link bob relates to the serious crime squad of quite some time back - firstly as I said earlier accountability wise a lot has changed since then (but of course you want to believe it hasn't) there of course are incidents relating to this in the past that will continue to be investigated - secondly stop trying to divert the point. That is in relation to "serious and organised crime" this topic is about penalties given out under lesser crimes.
You seem to want the topic to resort to tickets for murders - proportion is required me thinks :P :)
-
But I MUST make this my last comment.
Mike
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I tried that ages ago but someone mentioned my name and I felt obliged to say something - I keep trying to leave it - ever since it drifted from the initial point - but something always trips my switch again :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
you have failed to prove your innocence.
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
OK... words of one syllable...
Every driver is required to have certain documetns and is required by law to produce these at the request of a police officer.
If a driver subsequently fails to produce said documents... the police officer is deemed to have proven that none exist as the driver has had a fair opportunity to produce them.
I accept that I should be careful with my phraseology, however... I thought it to be a straightforward explanation... apparently not.
Not sure your arythmatic is up to much tbh.
I am sure that Terminus will correct me if I am wrong (and justly so) but I think the crime you describe is called "failure to produce documents". This IS provable in court. You either have or havn't produced them. It is not possable to prove someone hasn't got the documents and it is against the principles of british law to ask someone to prove their innocence (which you appear to find acceptable and even desirable).
You then draw an interesting scenario of a policeman and a drunk. Who has defined what 'drunk' is? Who has defined what level of 'disturbance' is not acceptable? Is somebody who talks too much and is a bore guilty and subject to a fine or do they have to get violent?
A policemans primary role is to protect the public from harm NOT to enforce the law (thats 3rd on the list behind protecting property). What you are arguing for is the order of these prioroties to be changed. A PC could protect the public (including the drunk btw) by putting him a cell for the night and letting the CPS decide if a crime has been commited based on the evidence provided to them.
As to trust. Scan read this and tell me you would trust a policeman without question
http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/wmidlands.html
Show me the quote where I said someone was drunk please.
You can't... I said " in drink" a term similar to under the influence of alcohol. As judged due the the smell of alcohol on the breath or other such symptoms. These days, similar symptoms can indicate being under the influence of drugs.
Hence your argument is diversionary.
-
you have failed to prove your innocence.
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
OK... words of one syllable...
Every driver is required to have certain documetns and is required by law to produce these at the request of a police officer.
If a driver subsequently fails to produce said documents... the police officer is deemed to have proven that none exist as the driver has had a fair opportunity to produce them.
I accept that I should be careful with my phraseology, however... I thought it to be a straightforward explanation... apparently not.
Not sure your arythmatic is up to much tbh.
Aritmetic...? What has that to do whith it? Oh.. I see.. the words were not one syllable.... :lol: :lol:
-
you have failed to prove your innocence.
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
OK... words of one syllable...
Every driver is required to have certain documetns and is required by law to produce these at the request of a police officer.
If a driver subsequently fails to produce said documents... the police officer is deemed to have proven that none exist as the driver has had a fair opportunity to produce them.
I accept that I should be careful with my phraseology, however... I thought it to be a straightforward explanation... apparently not.
Who has defined what level of 'disturbance' is not acceptable?
A member of the public making complaint I believe starts that process... oh... perhaps they aren't independant?
Is somebody who talks too much and is a bore guilty and subject to a fine or do they have to get violent?
I don't know... check the legislation... fair to assume that someone who gets violent will be arrested though
A policemans primary role is to protect the public from harm NOT to enforce the law (thats 3rd on the list behind protecting property).
State your source please
What you are arguing for is the order of these prioroties to be changed.
No I'm not... I'm arguing that the law and penalties as they exist in the example that startesd this thread is not wrong.
A PC could protect the public (including the drunk btw) by putting him a cell for the night and letting the CPS decide if a crime has been commited based on the evidence provided to them.
See my earlier post regarding the workload of the existing system and another posters response regarding increased taxes to provide necessary staff to allow the system to work that way.
You seem to equate the right to go to court first as the only way that is right, I disagree. As long as there is an appropriate appeals process and appropriate day to day management of police officers I am happy.
As to trust. Scan read this and tell me you would trust a policeman without question
http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/wmidlands.html
Oh... yes.. west mids serious crime squad.. fancy.. more injustice coming to light. Any corrupt individual or group leaves a footprint of impact that may not be visible immediately.
As to your question... yes.. I will trust a policeman without question... until they provide me with evidence that they do not deserve my trust.
Nothing you have said has changed my outlook...
I'd rather trust and be proven wrong than mistrust and be proven right.
-
Absolute nonsense - these are not things listed in priority these are primary duties all of which have equal importance... the order they are written in does not depict a level of importance.
Then the UK is in a worse situation than I thought tbh.
There is an offence of failure to produce but this is different from the crime of not having the documents - failure to produce is used when someone often has certain documents but ignores the law and does not produce them at a designated station in the time period given.
Thanks for the correction.
Your link bob relates to the serious crime squad of quite some time back - firstly as I said earlier accountability wise a lot has changed since then (but of course you want to believe it hasn't) there of course are incidents relating to this in the past that will continue to be investigated - secondly stop trying to divert the point. That is in relation to "serious and organised crime" this topic is about penalties given out under lesser crimes.
TBH it is not important if it or hasnt changed. The fact that it happened once many years ago means that it can happen again perhaps many years in the future and will be of a smaller scale and less organised. If things have changed then all well and good it is less likely to happen again on such a scale but no system is perfect. What it does prove is that certain 'bad eggs' are capable of doing these sort of things.
The point about 'serious crime' is taken but is still relevant. The point of my argument is that this is the thin end of the wedge. When does society decide that something is a lesser crime? If this band of crimes is expanded to make more time in courts then when does it stop? When a term in goal is required for instance?
You can't... I said " in drink" a term similar to under the influence of alcohol. As judged due the the smell of alcohol on the breath or other such symptoms. These days, similar symptoms can indicate being under the influence of drugs.
Hence your argument is diversionary.
Not at all. If you want to you can replace the word 'drunk' as I used it with 'a person in drink'. I suppose you could say the person was guilty of being 'in drink and disorderly' if you wanted but the fact remains that the policeman on the spot decides that the person 'in drink' (happy with that?) deserves punishment.
Who has defined what level of 'disturbance' is not acceptable?
A member of the public making complaint I believe starts that process... oh... perhaps they aren't independant?
That dosnt answer the question. It simply states how a process is started
See my earlier post regarding the workload of the existing system and another posters response regarding increased taxes to provide necessary staff to allow the system to work that way.
I did and I will state my point of view again in as simple a set of terms as I can. I think it is immoral for justice to take a back seat to money. If this society has decided that the risk of potential miscarriage of justice being increased is more than offset by savings in the goverment purse then it is on its way down into the sewers along with the crap it is trying to deal with.
As to your question... yes.. I will trust a policeman without question... until they provide me with evidence that they do not deserve my trust.
By which time it will be too late for you and everybody else.
BTW as you seem a trusting sort of fellow (and I like that) I have this tombraider for sale at £3100, it will need shipping from portugal though ....
Time to pack for Malvern ...ta tah for now
-
You can't... I said " in drink" a term similar to under the influence of alcohol. As judged due the the smell of alcohol on the breath or other such symptoms. These days, similar symptoms can indicate being under the influence of drugs.
Hence your argument is diversionary.
Not at all. If you want to you can replace the word 'drunk' as I used it with 'a person in drink'. I suppose you could say the person was guilty of being 'in drink and disorderly' if you wanted but the fact remains that the policeman on the spot decides that the person 'in drink' (happy with that?) deserves punishment.
So you've taken something I've said, quoted it out of context, changed the word and expect me to take your response seriously?
In drink means "influenced by" not necessarely "drunk".
As to your question... yes.. I will trust a policeman without question... until they provide me with evidence that they do not deserve my trust.
By which time it will be too late for you and everybody else.
BTW as you seem a trusting sort of fellow (and I like that) I have this tombraider for sale at £3100, it will need shipping from portugal though ....
Yes... I'll trust you... what colour is it? Oh.. and you won't mind swapping some basic security information so that I can clarify who you are and you can clarify who I am...? For both our protection.
The point is, you seem have decided that because some police in the past have been corrupt, that all police are therefor corrupt. I disagree. I agree it is possible for history to repeat itself but the application of the law of diminishing risks comes into effect, the more safeguards there are, the less likely it is that it will happen again.
What is the alternative, after all, it's feasible that the lawyers could be corriupt, or the judges are corrupt, or the jury is corrupt, or the politicians are corrupt.
Please, help me understand, what is your system that prevents the influence of all these people being involved in the conspiracy?
-
So you've taken something I've said, quoted it out of context, changed the word and expect me to take your response seriously?
I didnt quote out of context I quoted the last part of what you said.
So change the phrase "drunk" to "in drink and argumentative". The question is still who decides the level at which someone deserves a fine? Hence your argument is diversionary.
Yes... I'll trust you... what colour is it? Oh.. and you won't mind swapping some basic security information so that I can clarify who you are and you can clarify who I am...? For both our protection.
But you are a trusting person, my word should be good enough for you I dont need evidence. What do you want protection for anyway?
The point is, you seem have decided that because some police in the past have been corrupt, that all police are therefor corrupt. I disagree. I agree it is possible for history to repeat itself but the application of diminishing risks comes into effect, the more safeguards there are, the less likely it is that it will happen again.
I have NEVER said all police are corrupt and in previous posts I have gone out of my to say that the majority are not. Fair comment on the less likely to happen (just as I said) but how many instances of miss use of this power are acceptable to you? 1, 2 a dozon a 100? Simple way to have zero miss uses/mistakes is not to give the police the power.
What is the alternative, after all, it's feasible that the lawyers could be corriupt, or the judges are corrupt, or the jury is corrupt, or the politicians are corrupt.
Yes the judge might be corrupt but the jury and the barristors at the same time? The press in it as well? The public in the gallery? It is simply safer for all. Miscarriges of justice still occure but in all recent cases I remember it has been down to the 'expert witness'. If the 'expert witness' had fewer controls on him/her how much more likely would a miscarrige be to occur?
-
Yes... I'll trust you... what colour is it? Oh.. and you won't mind swapping some basic security information so that I can clarify who you are and you can clarify who I am...? For both our protection.
But you are a trusting person, my word should be good enough for you I dont need evidence. What do you want protection for anyway?
I'm a trusting fellow yes... that's not the same as a stupid fellow, I know the price of a tomb raider and the dangers of ebay like scams. Hence I'll put safety steps in place.
I trust the police directly because in my opinion the correct safety steps have been put in place and continue to be amended as and when necessary. On top of that, they are more qualified to be both witness providing evidence and agent of the law applying the prescribed punishment.
We trust all kinds of professionals in life, surveyors & bank managers for instance. Each has the potential to cost any of us many thousands of poiunds if they get it wrong. Do we remove their ability to carry out their prescribed role because there is a danger they cannot be trusted?
-
Personally, i do not trust a soul.
This may appear a sad state of affairs upon first glance, but it has enabled me to become experienced in many things in life, as I tend to do most things myself, or learn from professionals whilst I am in their company.
I even did my last divorce myself.
I always question Police, whatever they are doing, I want a reason for their actions everytime......It is the way that you do it that makes the difference.
-
I'm a trusting fellow yes... that's not the same as a stupid fellow
Thats a matter of opinion. :lol:
I would trust very few people with things that are not easly regained. I trusted a complete stranger with a tow rope a few months ago and was plesantly surprised when he bought it back. I would never trust anybody with my good name or something I hold dear. Even for a short time. I have been shafted too many times by 'friends' to trust strangers. To trust a policeman to be perfect and to trust his superiors to make sure he is perfect is plain stupid.
Of course if you believe that the good of the many outways the good of the few (just as the communists and the nazis did) then this law is an ideal solution and trust is not an issue. The chances of you being one of the few is remote after all.
-
Of course if you believe that the good of the many outways the good of the few (just as the communists and the nazis did) then this law is an ideal solution and trust is not an issue. The chances of you being one of the few is remote after all.
:?
Not sure what that means.
I think it's time to agree to differ, I'm not going to persuade you and your certainly not going to persuade me.
-
I would trust very few people with things that are not easly regained. I trusted a complete stranger with a tow rope a few months ago and was plesantly surprised when he bought it back. I would never trust anybody with my good name or something I hold dear. Even for a short time. I have been shafted too many times by 'friends' to trust strangers. To trust a policeman to be perfect and to trust his superiors to make sure he is perfect is plain stupid.
Of course if you believe that the good of the many outways the good of the few (just as the communists and the nazis did) then this law is an ideal solution and trust is not an issue. The chances of you being one of the few is remote after all.
OK ok you can hide in your house and live in a cushioned idyllic existance behind lock and key :P :wink: :lol:
Where do you stop? trust the jury implicitly in a high court case? hmmmm wait how many times have I heard "he's guilty, he looks guilty" or "he must have done it he comes from a dodgy background" these are but a few comments I have heard from 'Your peers' the very same peers who can and do get elected for jury duty - so jury's are not perfect .. then there's judges and sherrifs are they perfect - no by the very basis of your arguement they too are human and make mistakes.
So what exactly is your point? rip it apart and the very basis for your arguement against laws such as discussed in the start of this thread is that Police are not perfect so cannot be trusted to hand out orders to crush vehicles despite the safeguards in place and the appeal system.
ok so the very same applies to the courts, juries judges and sherrifs - all are capable of error all have safegaurds but none are perfect.
So if I lived my life by your premise of trust no-one I'd be very lonely, isolated, so paranoid I'd start thinking the aliens may have escaped Roswell and be coming after mankind and all in all I think 'd be missing out on the main part of life - living it.
Nothing is perfect and nothing is absolute bob so your point of arguement is you want perfect before you will trust anything - good luck :shock: :wink:
Edit - enough with the Nazi's already, its not comparable to the topic - it's melodrama. Do you when you cut your finger start saying oh my god I'm going to die it'll get infected and I'll get blood poisoning and thats my life over?
-
This kind of thing does not do the Police - Public relations any favours.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5286898.stm
Are judges really that far removed from general society?
-
This kind of thing does not do the Police - Public relations any favours.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5286898.stm
Are judges really that far removed from general society?
That's right they are all the same ....... just like everyone who drives a 4x4 is the same and the stop urban4x4 group has a point.
-
Im not sure where the comparison between the communists and the Nazis leads or comes from. The two are separated by vast differences of ideology.(both are too extreme for me but in different directions)
Do you feel worried about recent events ? Do you now find yourself thinking maybe the right wing are right? Then that is a move towards the Nazi point of view.
Shame on anyone who thinks like that.
That was what the Nazis stood for and i have looked everywhere and can find no reference to the German Nazi government giving more powers to Police to remove property.
The atrocities commited within Germany and the occupied countries were carried out by the military or the police supervised by the military...not just the police.Neither did they start by making things illegal for the ENTIRE populace. To use this as a reference is just showing you have a weak argument and simply clouds the issue.Or that you really are paranoid.
Whilst driving into work yesterday i heard 2 adverts for the dvla computer telling me if i didnt have tax they knew who i was, where i live and will eventually crush my car. So wheres the problem its clearly made public . Abide by the rules or face the consequences. It doesnt take away rights of appeal or any freedoms it simplifies the system to deal with people who would otherwise get off scott free and about time too.
-
Of course if you believe that the good of the many out ways the good of the few (just as the communists and the Nazis did) then this law is an ideal solution and trust is not an issue. The chances of you being one of the few is remote after all.
:?
Not sure what that means.
Kudos to you. It takes a big man to admit that they don't understand the root of an argument that have taken such an active part in. Respect as the yoofs would say.
That was what the Nazis stood for and i have looked everywhere and can find no reference to the German Nazi government giving more powers to Police to remove property.
I never said they did . Reread my post and you will see I was referring to ideologies not actions. Both think the 'state' (and hence the public majority) and its well being is more important than the individual.
But to answer your point here is a quote for you
Chancellor Hitler caused the German President in 1933 to issue an emergency decree which suspended until further notice several sections of the constitution. The decree declared it a criminal act to provoke or incite an act contrary to public welfare. The Decree eliminated freedom of the person ....................... the right to privacy in mail and telephones, and the warrant and due process requirements for searches and seizures of private property.
Nazi Justiz: Law of the Holocaust (Praeger Publishers: 1995) page 44-45
The atrocities committed within Germany and the occupied countries were carried out by the military or the police supervised by the military...not just the police. Neither did they start by making things illegal for the ENTIRE populace.
Although your point is of no relevance to the argument I would just like to point out that the Gestapo were not part of the military (as far as I am aware) but a completely separate police type force. In no way could they be viewed as military or even para military.
To use this as a reference is just showing you have a weak argument and simply clouds the issue. Or that you really are paranoid.
Whereas your post has shown you have not understood my posts nor do you understand history and you lack the imagination to take facts and extrapolate consequences from those facts.
Terminus
Yes the jury system is flawed EVERY system is flawed. However, in your favored system if an individual makes a flawed judgment it has a much greater impact on the outcome. If the policeman on the spot for instance decides you are guilty then all parties that get involved after that will simply assume guilt and the 'accused' then has to prove his innocence which is contrary to the way the law works in this country.
Lets look at an example of the 'safeguards' currently in place for a similar on the spot fine system.
If you are clocked speeding by a camera you are required to pay a fine (£40-£60) and receive 3 points on your license. The road conditions time of day do not matter and neither does the degree to which you broke the speed limit (up to a certain extent, twice the speed limit?). If you opt to go to magistrates court you will almost certainly receive 6 points and a several hundred pounds fine. It is straight forward, you broke the law, you pay the fine. However, there is no 'give' in the system. If somebody fitted over sized tires to his landy (say me for instance) and for a brief second I forgot to allow the 10-12% variation on the speedo and I get my photo taken. Yes, I broke the law but even given I have a completely clean license am I likely to got o magistrates and ask for a bit of understanding? Am I hell. Produce photo, wasting the courts time, 6 points, £300 fine.
Mr Little Chav blasts through a 30 at 50 and gets a £40 fine and 3 points (assuming he bothered to register the car to himself in the first place).
Its the law but it isn’t justice.
Edit - enough with the Nazi's already, its not comparable to the topic - it's melodrama. Do you when you cut your finger start saying oh my god I'm going to die it'll get infected and I'll get blood poisoning and that’s my life over?
It is comparable (I could talk about Pinochet or Pol Pot or any number of others if you prefer). Remember that Hitler was elected by the will of the people because he made the right noises and promised quick solutions to social and economic problems. What I have seen through this thread is people clamoring for quick solutions to noisy mini motos and motox bikes, hang the implications and possible consequences. VERY similar to the German people of 1932 (electing Hitler) or the Italian people of 1921 when the elected Mussolini to power. It is the same thought process, the worrying thing is that we already have the government that is prepared to give it to them.
Not being able to see the possibilities simply shows a lack of imagination. Seeing the possibilities but believing they could never happen is foolish
-
Lets look at an example of the 'safeguards' currently in place for a similar on the spot fine system.
If you are clocked speeding by a camera you are required to pay a fine (£40-£60) and receive 3 points on your license. The road conditions time of day do not matter and neither does the degree to which you broke the speed limit (up to a certain extent, twice the speed limit?). If you opt to go to magistrates court you will almost certainly receive 6 points and a several hundred pounds fine. It is straight forward, you broke the law, you pay the fine. However, there is no 'give' in the system. If somebody fitted over sized tires to his landy (say me for instance) and for a brief second I forgot to allow the 10-12% variation on the speedo and I get my photo taken. Yes, I broke the law but even given I have a completely clean license am I likely to got o magistrates and ask for a bit of understanding? Am I hell. Produce photo, wasting the courts time, 6 points, £300 fine.
That is the weakest arguemt you've put forward yet.. you're telling me you object to being caught just because you put on oversize tyres and you forgot? ..... I shan't go down the line of pointing out to you then that technically by law you're speedometer should read accurately ... so the fact you forgot it didn't is a very poor excuse.
Lets face it in the example you give it doesn't matter whether it was a young person zooming along or you forgetting because when someone has to tell Mrs Smith her child died because the driver was going too fast she won't care
I get the feeling your objection to the whole thing is more because you'll get caught and have no excuse than it's unfair :P
Edit - ah yes Hitlers initial legal changes were for minor legistalive changes such as the ones stopping mini moto's or illegal vehicles - a poor comparison used in desperation to over emphasise a weakening point :shock: :P
-
you're telling me you object to being caught just because you put on oversize tyres and you forgot? ..... I shan't go down the line of pointing out to you then that technically by law you're speedometer should read accurately ... so the fact you forgot it didn't is a very poor excuse.
Actualy the point I was makeing was about justice rather than the law, sorry if it wasnt clear. In an ideal world then yes I should have been punished but to the same degree as Mr Chav? Would not something like a a simple fine with no points be a suitable punishment?
As I say its the law but isnt justice. When a society values the law more than justice then it has gone down the pan.
a poor comparison used in desperation to over emphasise a weakening point
You do not say why it is a poor comparison yet acknowledge there are similarities :roll: It appears you cannot argue against the theory so you simply dismiss it as not relevant.
Would you prefer to compare it to the rise of Mussolini? Less emotive and but perhaps with greater similaraties to the current situation. Lesser party of a partnership, party leader that becomes defacto president (or just acts like it), scares the crap out of its people so that new laws can be introduced that favour the goverment. Gets involved in wars it cant win at the behest of the major part of the partnership.
Not being able to see the possibilities simply shows a lack of imagination. Seeing the possibilities but believing they could never happen is foolish
Study the past if you would define the future.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future.
Plutarch (46 AD - 120 AD)
-
Actualy the point I was makeing was about justice rather than the law, sorry if it wasnt clear. In an ideal world then yes I should have been punished but to the same degree as Mr Chav? Would not something like a a simple fine with no points be a suitable punishment?
As I say its the law but isnt justice. When a society values the law more than justice then it has gone down the pan.
Ah I see you want the fine but not to accept the consequences of your actions? So it's more a case of ok I was speeding but why should I get points?
The results of speeding and other such things can often be catastrophic for someone elses life - but you want just a measly fine - thus the more money you have the less you care about speeding because you can afford it - thereby providing no protection for the public - genius!
Currently using a mobile phone is only a fine and as a result it is still all too prevalent - however in the not too distant future it will go to points and then watch the number of offenders drop - simply put points make people think about their actions - fines do not.
But then this is about responsibility - if you have it you are clearly not going to get points or your vehicle crushed - your pre-ambles into history to vindicate your point of view are not comparable because this is about a matter of responsibility an the law doing the best it can to protect the majority of the populous.
Now I see your point clearly you don't want to accept any responsibility so the law is unfair - it counts for all of us, we're not going to invade Poland and you are distorting serious issues in history to justify a paranoia that the law is out to get everyone.
I'm not about to respond in any further depth to your use of Hitler or Mussilini to argue against points or the crushing of a motor vehicle because they are ridiculous and highly over exagerated - its the old can't seem to get my point over try aligning it with something serious to make it stronger - but it doesn't
I imagine many who were affected or incarcerated by Hitlers ambition would be deeply proud to see such a serious matter reduced to a point of arguement for why you think a piece law is unfair - and that personal repsonsibility does not in fact have more to do with it.
-
I'm not about to respond in any further depth to your use of Hitler or Mussilini to argue against points or the crushing of a motor vehicle because they are ridiculous and highly over exagerated - its the old can't seem to get my point over try aligning it with something serious to make it stronger - but it doesn't
Actualy you are wrong to accuse me of aligning it. It is the main point. Hitler, Mussalini, Pol Pot etc started somewhere. They didnt just spring into exsistance as mass murders, they first gained popular support by introducing quick fixes that the majority found popular whilst the minority were accused of standing in the way of progress.
Now I see your point clearly you don't want to accept any responsibility so the law is unfair - it counts for all of us, we're not going to invade Poland and you are distorting serious issues in history to justify a paranoia that the law is out to get everyone.
Yes I use history to get a point across. If you cant learn from others experiences then you are totaly idiot. Others on this thread try pulling at peoples emotions and heart strings with such statements as
The results of speeding and other such things can often be catastrophic for someone elses life
Well doh! I would never have known that
Ask the people who's cars were wrecked by an ass with no insurance or the tax increases to pay for those that dodge it or the inexperienced no licence driver who kills your friend - tell him it's ok then ....... Shocked
It is a sure fire sign that they dont actualy have any real defence of their viewpoint and are relying on emotions rather than logic to get your point across.
I think it was this statement from you Terminus that sums up why the way this law has been implemented is so very wrong.
......you deserve to have it crushed outright
YOU who is so obviously profesionaly impartial :roll: will have the almost sole resposability for conviction and punishment. In this case with only knowing the facts from a newspaper you have decided that the punishment is just.
I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands ONLY with the way the judgment and punishment are arrived at.
If you trust future generations of policemen/women to be as trustworthy as you says todays police are AND you trust future poloticians as much then you really are being foolish.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Thomas Jefferson
-
Bob, Man you really are way off.
YOU who is so obviously profesionaly impartial will have the almost sole resposability for conviction and punishment. In this case with only knowing the facts from a newspaper you have decided that the punishment is just.
Right then ,
Fact? I assume (which is dangerous i know...im sure Hitler assumed :wink: ) that as the artical was written after the uncle wrote in the main hub of the argument is accurate.
The uncle clearly is aware of the law..he states that he legallyuses the bike at a local track. So he lent the bike to his nephew knowing full well that the bike cannot legaly be used anywhere other than private land.
The 17 year old then uses the bike on public land... you with me so far?
So what minor infringement has he commited.
1. No licence.
2. no insurance.
3. No road fund licence.
4. No MOT as the vehicle is not MOTable.
Now we have no information about how he was riding or if he had been warned about his actions etc...but thats frankly irrelevant.
So we go from this poor uncle who is having he bike crushed to Hitler and POL POT for gods sake.
Right then Bob see if you can tell me why those legal infractions should be ignored. Which are not serious? Please tell me, im stupid and have read about Gengis Khans' widespread introduction of the driving test but couldnt see the link. Please enlighten me.
Yes i am taking the mickey, sorry.
I do however think that all of the above are serious and if you dont please tell me why?
-
cheesey peeps,
can you all stop arguing with bob please,hes a teacher,trained never to be wrong & to argue till he's blue in the face :lol: :lol:
(just joking)
-
Maybe that explains it???
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, i love a good argument.
I just think comparing the fate of some muppet who did know the law to the major villains of the last century is crazy.
Lets face it having his bike crushed could turn him into the next Fred West but thats so unlikely that nobody would dream of raising it.
Yes we all learn from history and if the time comes when the Blair Youth march...i will bow my head in shame for not spotting it coming.
-
Bob, Man you really are way off.
Right then Bob see if you can tell me why those legal infractions should be ignored. Which are not serious? Please tell me, im stupid and have read about Gengis Khans' widespread introduction of the driving test but couldnt see the link. Please enlighten me.
Yes i am taking the mickey, sorry.
I do however think that all of the above are serious and if you dont please tell me why?
Where do I say they should have been ignored? Please enlighten me. What I ACTUALY said was
I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands ONLY with the way the judgment and punishment are arrived at.
Is that so hard to understand?
Asking a police officer, who are only human, to impartialy act as judge, jury, defence, CPS and jury is
a)unfair on the police officer
b) 'Justice' on the cheap
Remember the old saying "You get what you pay for" ?
BTW I edited out most of your post because it was just repeating what others have said and was mostly irrelavent anyway.
I just think comparing the fate of some muppet who did know the law to the major villains of the last century is crazy.
This is a little like having a 'discussion' with a 12 year old who hasnt listened to a word you have said and whose opinions have been burnt into him by his parents.
PLEASE read what I write NOT what you think I have written.
Where did I say that the "muppet" was the same as Hitler?
I will quote myself again
Not being able to see the possibilities simply shows a lack of imagination. Seeing the possibilities but believing they could never happen is foolish
Redline STFU :P
-
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
I think I will step in here once again....
I do know of Police officers who do not always do the correct thing, take that how you like.
I also know of a ......... who will cover things up with the aid of the Police Force.
I do know of things that are serious that have been covered up in the past.
No names, no locations, no direct accusations.....I just know these things because I was privvy to the information at the time.
The whole system is corrupt as it stands now, never mind where it is going for the future :roll:
-
No BOB ,
Quote:
I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands ONLY with the way the judgment and punishment are arrived at.
So you would rather have cases which are clear cut , with indefensable guilt put through the courts? Why ? because the Police are all untrustworthy?I htink we are all taxed enough...maybe some simplification is required.
Quote:
Not being able to see the possibilities simply shows a lack of imagination. Seeing the possibilities but believing they could never happen is foolish
I can see the possibilities, i dont dismiss them lightly. The problem i have is that you have taken a simplification of the legal process to allow clear guilt to define the punishment and translated this to a move toward a Nazi like state. The reason i continue to comment is clearly that i dont agree with this.
Quote:
Actualy you are wrong to accuse me of aligning it. It is the main point. Hitler, Mussalini, Pol Pot etc started somewhere. They didnt just spring into exsistance as mass murders, they first gained popular support by introducing quick fixes that the majority found popular whilst the minority were accused of standing in the way of progress.
Yes, point taken on both Hitler.
Mussolini was an elected representitive but was never voted into power. He was asked to form a government by the King in October 1922 when the previous administration failed. He then manipulated the laws to dispand opposition parties and assumed ultimate power.
Thats could happen, i suspect that it wont and you are simply enjoying creating a stir. The likelyhood is very very slim.
PolPot BTW was never elected either .He seized power and the political party(if you should call it that) never had popular support.They simply terrifed all the uneducated peasants that were left.
He simply had sufficient weaponary to subdue any resistance and once you have killed a third of your own populace, mainly intelectuals, there was no resistance.
The premise(sorry cant be bothered to find a quote ..i know you love em) of your case. He seized power of the Kamer rouge when the leader mysteriously disappeared(most think he killed him). So if Blair disappears and 2 jags jumps in maybe you will have the point you clearly seek.
Sorry Bob i know you like show boating .
This was simply about if its right or wrong to destroy anothers property.Rather than what it has become- a debate on the unlikely outcome of empowering the police force.
I think they do a hard job, im not one and dont want to be. My brother BTW is a teacher so im not anti teachers either.
-
sorry ATT but by allowing it you condone it.
-
I see exactly where Bob is coming from, it is easy to understand if you have an open mind, unfortunately many peeps in this country have had their minds washed and closed......By the state, for the state.
That is the reason he makes the analogy, that is all it is at the moment, but I think you will find he is not alone, there are many current Statesmen of this country who do share the same opinion, Anthony Wedgewood Benn is one, just off the top of my head....There are many more who beleive we have already moved into a totalitarian regime.
Go back 20-30 years, see how it was then, go forward another 20-30 years....See if you like the picture, social conditions and regime are akin to compound interest........Open your mind, stand in somebody elses shoes for a change......The picture could be very frightening indeed.
-
sorry ATT but by allowing it you condone it.
I have no choice, I value my own life and that of the one`s that I love......That is the reality.......And, I know it is a sad one, once again, wear my shoes for a while, see what your real feelings are then.
We do not live in a perfect society, we do not live in a just society, we do not live in a protective or free society, we live in a corrupt society and that is controlled by psychological and physical boundaries.....You may wish to turn a blind eye, that is your perogative......And there is nothing wrong with that.
-
Att i understand what you are saying.And yes it is wrong i know i wouldnt want to be in that position but its harldy a generalisation. I have never seen anything that i was unable to freely talk about.I think i am very much in the majority.
what would stop me driving down to you now and having a face to face debate about this?
Nothing. My point is that i quite fancy a pint and nothing and nobody would stop me if thats what i want to do.
I can leave my house now, in an hour. Whenever i am not dictated to.
I can drink when i want , i can eat when i want . I can talk to who i want and most importantly i can say what i want.
Yes if i say something extreme then i should be held accountable but that is hardly a dictatorship is it?
Now BOB will dress that up that restricing my extreme views for the general good is the slippery slope into a dictatorship.
I dont think it is.
-
Now BOB will dress that up that restricing my extreme views for the general good is the slippery slope into a dictatorship.
No it wouldnt for one simple fact ... you are in favour of ristricting the options of the people and letting them suffer justice on the cheap, the powers that be wouldnt want to shut you up but that is by the by.
This was simply about if its right or wrong to destroy anothers property.
I would dispute that as the phrase "it's one of those situations where the police are judge and jury which doesn't seem at all right. " appears half way down the first page.
I REALLY REALLY hope you are right about it never happening, the chances of it happening totaly in my life is slim but the ONLY way to make sure it never happens is not to give the police the power to do it in the first place.
Police powers are expanding there can be little doubt about that. There can also be little doubt that peoples options for doing something different to the 'norm' are also being reduced (most guns being banned after dunblain yet gun crime rises significantly anyway, fox hunting, NERC for example). The goverment want us to work pay taxes go home and watch telly and then die. I really do hope it isnt a trend but I fear it is.
I hated Thather when I was young but at least she was honest unlike these toerags we have at the moment.
-
Att i understand what you are saying.And yes it is wrong i know i wouldnt want to be in that position but its harldy a generalisation. I have never seen anything that i was unable to freely talk about.I think i am very much in the majority.
what would stop me driving down to you now and having a face to face debate about this?
Nothing. My point is that i quite fancy a pint and nothing and nobody would stop me if thats what i want to do.
I can leave my house now, in an hour. Whenever i am not dictated to.
I can drink when i want , i can eat when i want . I can talk to who i want and most importantly i can say what i want.
Yes if i say something extreme then i should be held accountable but that is hardly a dictatorship is it?
Now BOB will dress that up that restricing my extreme views for the general good is the slippery slope into a dictatorship.
I dont think it is.
You can leave your house whenever you like, but once you go into a town or city or in your vehicle, your movements are being monitored...24/7.
They can track you wherever you go, use your bank card or credit card, you leave a footprint, e mail anybody, they are lawfully allowed to monitor your personal e mail.
They know where you shop, where you buy petrol, where you go for your holidays, where you work and for how long, they know everything about you and then that is sold to corporations for vast sums of money.
The Supermarkets are allowed to fine you for parking in their car parks for more than the alloted time, they know this because the DVLA sold them your details, everything you do is monitored.....Why do you think that they do this?....For our own good, no, because they can profit from it and if needs be intensify the surveillance at the flick of a switch.
-
Att , yes they have this ability. I have worked for one huge corporation until recently and we never had any details from the government. I know , i had access to the full database of over 15million people. This came from us , internally . All these people are or had been customers.
Who are these corporations? Who would want your financial information more than a Bank?? Coca cola so they can sell you more stuff? Rubbish.
Yes ANPR exists the company i now work for have done work for the main manufacturer. they could easily be misused but they are used to find the very people this thread is about. People who flaunt the laws by driving without Tax and insurance...a good thing as far as i am concerned.
The conjestion charge doesnt have much of an affect on Sheffiled but i know that too may be coming, good ...i use my bike the road will be safer.
If this vigialnce helped in some way stop the recent would be bombers then im all for it. I will be the first to shout when the elected government of this country use this to oppress the law abiding man.
Yes Bob im no fan of Nerc. I would hope that long term things will become more rational but fear they wont.
Yes Thatcher was harsh but what she said she did . You have to respect that .
The current lot are next to useless, you never know the gneral election may see a change in government...i doubt little will change then either.
Quote:
No it wouldnt for one simple fact ... you are in favour of ristricting the options of the people and letting them suffer justice on the cheap, the powers that be wouldnt want to shut you up but that is by the by.
err...in your words.
quote:
PLEASE read what I write NOT what you think I have written.
No im not . Im not in favour of you and me paying to waste time for someone who is clearly guilty. The bike must have been recovered at the time of the incident. The Bike would have not bene moved as the 17 year old was there. He doesnt dispute where he was and cannot show he had insurance or a licence. case closed.
Yes it is justice on the cheap, cheaper for you and me. If he had a case he would be able to appeal it...he doesnt.So please dont misquote me. The law is the law, we arent debating shades of grey.
-
But the law immediately changes with reference to a Judges ruling.
These are the examples used to enable people to go free in the future.
Back to the bike and the crushing.........Judge Dredd is alive and most definately kicking. :lol: ......As I remember, he also had a Land Rover based vehicle in which he caused mayhem :wink:
-
Att - incorrect fact. Judge Dredd did NOT have a Land Rover based vehicle. He drove a Lawmaster which was a MOTORBIKE (albeit a flying one...)
The Land Rovers were simply taxis.....nothing more. Trouble is you've got that fact wrong....so if we unravel the strings....what do we get? :shock: :twisted: :roll:
-
Att - incorrect fact. Judge Dredd did NOT have a Land Rover based vehicle. He drove a Lawmaster which was a MOTORBIKE (albeit a flying one...)
The Land Rovers were simply taxis.....nothing more. Trouble is you've got that fact wrong....so if we unravel the strings....what do we get? :shock: :twisted: :roll:
The fact that you know more of the film than I do :wink:
-
....the fact I <whispers> actually own a TCV which I was given by Tharg.....
-
who is clearly guilty.
But he has (or rather had) the right to a trial as laid down by previous laws and also that which is required by the UN convention on human rights. I really dont give a poo whether he was guilty or not or what his crime was, its not up for me to decide (or you for that matter). Any society that decides that money is more important than someones rights can no longer be called civalized IMO. Of course the goverment tells everyone it saves them money so everyone is happy. Its not just this yoofs rights that have been erroded it is EVERYONES rights that have been erroded. If you are happy to lose those rights to help Blair and co pay for another war (because I am damn certain you or me wont see any benifit from the money saved) then you dishonour the memories of all those who fought for them from Ollie Cromwell to joe bloggs the union man. And that is a shame both on you and the nation as a whole.
-
Actualy you are wrong to accuse me of aligning it. It is the main point. Hitler, Mussalini, Pol Pot etc started somewhere. They didnt just spring into exsistance as mass murders, they first gained popular support by introducing quick fixes that the majority found popular whilst the minority were accused of standing in the way of progress.
Again the ill founded comparison Harold Shipman started somewhere do you use his example every time you go to the doctor?
This is not about a quick fix invented by a government for no reason - it was created in response to numerous complaints to MP's, Local Authorities and the Police about the inaction regarding the particular crimes you defend - basically the voice of the people (your peers - remember the ones you want in your jury)guided the government into taking action and the laws that now exist are a result of those actions - so people directing the government to take action was the basis for all the new anti social behaviour legislation - oops now when did the people tell Hitler to do something - they didn't it was the other way round - try again.
Yes I use history to get a point across. If you cant learn from others experiences then you are totaly idiot. Others on this thread try pulling at peoples emotions and heart strings with such statements as
The results of speeding and other such things can often be catastrophic for someone elses life
Well doh! I would never have known that
Well now firstly no matter how serious the debate I never felt the need to resort to names and I do not see disagreeing with, what I believe is an overeactionary point, as idiotic, I have enough confidence in my point.
Second you seem to miss a simple point it is an emotive issue to the victims of crime - it may mean nothing to you and you may think the law is there for no reason but its to protect people from having to needlessley suffer that negative emotion because of others less thoughtful.
I think it was this statement from you Terminus that sums up why the way this law has been implemented is so very wrong.
......you deserve to have it crushed outright
YOU who is so obviously profesionaly impartial :roll: will have the almost sole resposability for conviction and punishment. In this case with only knowing the facts from a newspaper you have decided that the punishment is just.
Again you attempt to use a line out of context to cling to your arguement :roll: , if you go back and re-read that you'll find the whole quote as follows
there are chances to stop the action which may lead to crushing etc.... but in document offences (no licence no insurance not mot or tax) - you deserve to have it crushed outright - because there is no excuse for stealing from the public purse
Show me where I was talking directly about this particular incident based on any newspaper article - it seems blatantly clear to me I am stating that in dcoument offences where the driver HAS NO INSURANCE, MOT, OR TAX then their vehicle deserves to be crushed because there is no excuse for this we all have to pay this and evasion costs other people financially and worse! (oh dear are you going to complain about that being emotive) There is no reference to this specific case - but then it suited your arguement better to quote it out of context I imagine :P
I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands ONLY with the way the judgment and punishment are arrived at.
Yes yes you just want the fine and not the points that was clear.:shock:
It seems polite debate is faltering so I shall bow out at this stage 8) :)
Edit - plus if we go round in circles anymore one or more of us are gonna get dizzy and fall flat on our backsides :P :lol: :lol: :lol: No more mom I'm gonna chuck :lol: :lol:
-
You know - all this arguing is not going to stop the bike being crushed.
All we have is part of the picture for one side of the coin as reported by the media. You remember the media, the people who brand 4WD owners as reckless people who pollute and tear up the countryside.
We're using this to support our opinions without knowing all the facts.
For all we know this may not have been the first time for the rider, or the bike owner. For all we know he may have been offered the option of a fine, and chose to have the bike crushed. Bottom line, we were not there, so we don't know.
My point is - we don't know all the facts, and as each case is dealt with for it's specific facts, then you cannot blanket all previous and future incidents with the same outcome.
This topic has turned into an argument over what the picture should be for a jigsaw with half the pieces missing.
Horness
-
Again the ill founded comparison Harold Shipman started somewhere do you use his example every time you go to the doctor?
Not every time I go to the doctors but if a load of OAPs suddenly start to die I am certainly going to draw comparisons. With your theory, nobody would notice because nobody would learn and we would get another shipman.
regarding the particular crimes you defend
Now you are getting insulting and prove that you have failed to understand where I am coming from tbh. I do not and have not and will not defend someone for commiting a crime. It is the LAW I am opposed to and the manner in which it is instigated. I do hope you can see the difference.
Yes I use history to get a point across. If you cant learn from others experiences then you are totaly idiot.
There is no name calling there unless you admit that you are unwilling to learn from others experience in which I stand by my statement. Perhaps it would have been better to say "If anybody fails to learn from others experience then they are total idiots"
dcoument offences where the driver HAS NO INSURANCE, MOT, OR TAX then their vehicle deserves to be crushed
I have never said they didnt. What I have said is that YOU shouldnt be deciding it.
I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands ONLY with the way the judgment and punishment are arrived at.
Yes yes you just want the fine and not the points that was clear.Shocked
NO NO NO. I have no idea where you get the points idea from unless it was the example I used of a speed camera and an alternative punishment. You wernt just quoteing me out of context to try and make some purile point were you? I will say it again (but try and make it simple)
I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands (i.e. untaxed cars/bikes are crushed) ONLY with the fact that POLICE officers are told to be judge and jury
Policemen are NOT impartial and they are under orders, so subject to the will of another. Defy the will of the 'other' and they risk their job.
-
quote:
I have NO problem with the basis of the law as it stands (i.e. untaxed cars/bikes are crushed) ONLY with the fact that POLICE officers are told to be judge and jury
Policemen are NOT impartial and they are under orders, so subject to the will of another. Defy the will of the 'other' and they risk their job
right let me get this straight. You agree that uninsured untaxed vehicles should be crushed. You feel that the police having these powers is a move towards a police state because of the lack of a trial and seemingly instant justice.
If im right your key concern was that it is impossible for the police to be impartial.
I agree they are human but there is no need for a trial in this kind of instance. The youth/uncle will have had an opportunity to produce his documents.
This process saves both on time and financially. It may seem like hard justice but it does give a very serious reminder of the consequences of ignoring the law.
The police are still accountable. If there was any doubt about the guilt in THIS case then the news article would not be about the uncle saying it was unfair. Journalists love that kind of thing any misdeed by the officers involved would have been in the public gaze immediately. There has been no such outcry.
I understand you feel that this is a vision of things to come and you are right we should take our queues from the past. Up to now i feel confident in the law and how it is being enforced, i hope that this is no longer an isolated incident.
Btw several people have likened this to our plight as green laners. Just remember is is people like this lad that have caused most of the noise nuisance that we have been blamed for.
-
right let me get this straight. You agree that uninsured untaxed vehicles should be crushed. You feel that the police having these powers is a move towards a police state because of the lack of a trial and seemingly instant justice.
BINGO! :D Go up the ladder
agree they are human but there is no need for a trial in this kind of instance. The youth/uncle will have had an opportunity to produce his documents.
This process saves both on time and financially. It may seem like hard justice but it does give a very serious reminder of the consequences of ignoring the law.
OOOOOPPPPPS back down the snake. Justice on the cheap, you get what you pay for ...yadda yadda yadda
Just remember is is people like this lad that have caused most of the noise nuisance that we have been blamed for.
So that makes it right to reduce everyones rights because he is a minority and not one of your 'crowd' and this step down the evolutionary ladder of civalization isnt going to have any effect on you (we hope)
-
so the setting of a specific penalty for a specific crime is justice on the cheap? How so.
Reduced cost justice maybe but none the less a clear penalty for an undeniable crime.
The dvla have the power to remove and crush untaxed vehicles, is this an erosion of rights? No. If you have taxed your vehicle or declared it sorn then they wont come and crush it. Simple really.
The process is a simplification of the process not a move away from it.
Maybe other crime would benefit from clear penalties. Lets face is the jury system requires beyond reasonable guilt. It takes months and costs thousands to put a case through all of which we pay for.
quote:
So that makes it right to reduce everyones rights because he is a minority and not one of your 'crowd' and this step down the evolutionary ladder of civalization isnt going to have any effect on you (we hope)
its nothing to do with crowds, my rights have been changed , how? Only if i break the law. Im not suggesting he should have his rights reduced.I dont think he has. If he had a leg to stand on im sure some bleeding heart liberals would give him his day in court.
For Gods sake prisoners in this country, sorry they are not even inmates but customers, have more rights than you or i. They have more opportunity to make money from the system than we do. 1 wrong word or action by the system and hey presto easy street.PS i know a couple of people who work in cat a prisons. Its like being on holiday(other than you cant go out!)
-
so the setting of a specific penalty for a specific crime is justice on the cheap? How so.
Reduced cost justice maybe but none the less a clear penalty for an undeniable crime.
.................
The process is a simplification of the process not a move away from it.
Lets get away from this specific incedent for a moment and imagine another plausable scenario with the same people.
The uncle takes nephew to an official motox track, the bike is trailered. Uncle watches nephew but gets a little bored and wonders off to have a coffee and a chat with m8s. Nephew finds a hole in a fence and goes onto a neibouring field (might not even realise its not on the track). Chief constable has told all police in the area to crush all bikes found in a public place (I believe thats in the original scenario but cant be asked to go look). Farmer complains. PC arrives and siezes bike and it is taken off to be crushed. The new law says he can do that and there is no doubt that the crime has been committed. BUT does it warrent the destruction of the bike? Who has been punished, the nephew or the Uncle. The uncle took resonable precations and acted in a responsable manner (there is no way you can watch a teenager all the time and even when you do they do stupid things) Another variation on this is that you get an old time copper who comes along, drags nephew to uncle gives them a telling off and tells the course to get the fence fixed. Jobsworth bobby mentioned before simply argues that in his belief the actions would continue and he was 'only following orders' (and getting brownie points from the chief constable) Which is the better solution? Which is the JUST solution.
Ther is no doubt a crime has been committed but a judge/magistrate is another layer towards a sensable approach to punishment.
It will be argued that there are 'safeguards' but I bet a pound to a penny that this will just ensure that procedures have been followed and not concern themselves as to whether it is right or not.
my rights have been changed , how?
If a policeman says you are guilty of a crime then you are now guilty of that crime. You will recieve the same punishment for a minor transgression as you would for a major transgression.
Human rights are never important to someone until they need them themselves.
If he had a leg to stand on im sure some bleeding heart liberals would give him his day in court.
By inference you wouldnt? Even if he had a leg to stand on? How do you decide if he had a leg to stand on anyway? Who decides? You can cut all this crap out by simply ensuring that if someone wants to go to court then they can. Its simple.
-
By inference you wouldnt? Even if he had a leg to stand on? How do you decide if he had a leg to stand on anyway? Who decides? You can cut all this crap out by simply ensuring that if someone wants to go to court then they can. Its simple.
______________________________________________
no i wasnt saying anything of the kind, if they want to go to court they can.Im just saying that this guy hasnt got a leg to stand on.
Just so that you know. There is always a right of appeal.
Check it yourself if you want to, you, me , everyone has the right to appeal. None of your basic rights as a resident in the Uk have been altered.
There is a risk to appeal...you get costs and would end up paying storage at around £40 a day. Could be expensive.
But hey you and I wouldnt dream of having an uninsured untaxed vehical would we.
As for the other scenario i think you are right , he would appeal it- he may even win.
It is a different scene altogether not what we have been discussing so i take your point but frankly its irrelevant, you still have the right to appeal. I just think it is real justice to crush the vehicle , it stops them doing it for a while...lets face it scutters always find a way.
-
Jeez, you guys go some dont you.
Id have thought that instead of crushing what is a very valuable commodity, sieze it, then re-sell it at auction. Stick the money back into the coffers then pretty soon, we can afford another beat bobby! (or maybe some more missiles for the war effort!!)
Either way, crushing seems a sad waste.
As far as the crime goes tho, if we all know our vehicle is at risk from crushing or seizure, we might all be a bit more carefull as to where we drive it??
As far as cameras/big brother efforts to be able to track us wherever the heck we go, what the hell. Ive done nothing wrong, so if they want to keep tabs on me, then I say go for it. At the point I break the law, they'll be able to catch and deal with me. Ill try to keep to the straight and narrow eh!
Just adding me 2 cents worth.
Rolla :wink:
-
Ummm. A law was broken and the enforcement officers went by the letter of the law and enforced it.
Where is the problem here? Some prat thought he could flaunt the law and let his nephew or whoever use his bike in the public domain. Quite frankly the bike deserves to be crushed.
As for all this human rights, merry kaftan wearing crap. Behave, abide by the law and it wont ever be in your face. Yes the easy option is always reported and we all get annoyed that law abiding tax payers seem to be targets. Thats only because we have become so scared to actually enforce anything deemed controversial by the pc brigade, human rights, liberals. That this is the only section of society left and we all know we wont stand up and complain.
...and if we do its on relatively closed forums like this!
-
if you take an untaxed, un liceced and un insured vehicle out into the public domain and you get caught. tough [!Expletive Deleted!].
its your own fault. full stop.
i beleive they take the vehicle away into storage while they process the offence, then if you are guilty they crush the vehicle and charge you for storage.
if he's inocent it will come out and he will get the bike back.
if you cant take the punishment, dont do the crime.
-
There is a risk to appeal...you get costs and would end up paying storage at around £40 a day. Could be expensive.
So now you are saying that appeals are only available to the rich?
:roll: If you are poor just accept what the nice policeman has to say as you cant afford justice.
As far as an appeal goes, having read section 152, it would appear there is no provision for appealing the 'conviction' but you can appeal for the return of the vehicle. So you are still guilty, you just get your car/bike back. Sounds like a good cop out to me.
What was frightning about it was the bit about can be siezed upto 24 hours later and officers can force entry without warrent if they suspect it may be within. Wow but is that open to abuse.
As for all this human rights, merry kaftan wearing crap. Behave, abide by the law and it wont ever be in your face.
I have been waiting for a comment like that for a fair bit. Believe me I am far from a merry kaftan wearing hippy and to make such comments shows a poor grasp of the issues and a very selfish thought process *I'm all right jack so screw you". TBH that reminds me of the thought process of the anti-social scum bags that you so greatly decry.
if he's inocent it will come out and he will get the bike back.
How will it come out that he is innocent? There is no trial and the appeal is only for the return of the vehicle
AND EVERYBODY IS ASSUMING THAT POLICEMEN NEVER MAKE MISTAKES
-
Lets get away from this specific incedent for a moment and imagine another plausable scenario with the same people.
The uncle takes nephew to an official motox track, the bike is trailered. Uncle watches nephew but gets a little bored and wonders off to have a coffee and a chat with m8s. Nephew finds a hole in a fence and goes onto a neibouring field (might not even realise its not on the track). Chief constable has told all police in the area to crush all bikes found in a public place (I believe thats in the original scenario but cant be asked to go look). Farmer complains. PC arrives and siezes bike and it is taken off to be crushed. The new law says he can do that and there is no doubt that the crime has been committed.
WRONG! The before any seizure or destruction can take place, there must be the warning to cease and desist.
If little nephew switches off the bike and pushes it back through the fence as far as the seizure under PRA goes it cannot be done. However there can still be siezure under many other different points of law, uninsured, untaxed, unroadworthy (I don't think there is the chance of seizure for un-liscened rider).
To put the boot firmly on our own feet, can we in all honesty say we have never been driving along, seen some other driver perform a silly move and thought........
"If I were a cop I'd throw the bl**dy book at that moron"
I ask you all to imagine how this country would be if EVERY single offence, from the kid nicking a mars bar from tescos (police caution - guess its ok for them to act as judge & jury then? :) ) through every automated speeding ticket, every buglary, every murder all had to be tried in front of 12 men good ant true? heck the country would close down overnight as we would all be sitting on the bench in judgement on someone else.
Estimates put 1 in 5 cars in my locality as uninsured, never mind no tax, MOT or licensed driver, thats everything from 50 quid fiestas to 40 grand discoverys! Rumour has it that the record for longest distance for an ANPR equipped car driving from the police garage to the first alert is........
.....
.....
.....
just over 1/2 mile, and thats with all the little scrotes having learnt to avoid the area like the plague! If taking all these uninsured drivers off the road by making their life a living hell drops my insurance premium, Im all for it.
-
and getting brownie points from the chief constablete
I'm not debating the issue further....but the above did make me laugh so hard i nearly had an accident....you have no idea how far off the mark that is ... but then if you don't understand it just asume how it must work and pretend you know - it's easier :P
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
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.
Now if a 'normal' member of the public were so unfortunate all he or she would have to do would be produce their documents and hey presto most of the problem goes away.
That is how it will come out that they are innocent. You are taking this example and applying it to all things.
Say you renew you tax today online and you were really unfortunate and got pulled because your tax was out of date. You being a little stroppy had the car taken off you. All you would have to do to get it back is produce proof that you had infact applied for your new licence.
Wow you have proved your innocence. Not easy for a 17year old who is guilty though is it :cry:
-
WRONG! The before any seizure or destruction can take place, there must be the warning to cease and desist.
Extract from the act
The constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.
Please read the act before you comment on it.
police caution - guess its ok for them to act as judge & jury then?
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).
automated speeding ticket
Same as a caution but with a fine and points
every buglary, every murder
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
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
(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.
Wow you have proved your innocence.
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.
You are taking this example and applying it to all things.
I appear to be talking about the section 152 whilst you are concentrating on a single case.
-
You refuse to see the possability that a policeman can make a mistake...
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.
...and that there are circumstances where the law is inappropriate
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.
-
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.
checks and balances are in place to mitigate this risk.
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.
I don't see any post where a poster has said "all laws are appropriate".
I never said they did nor did I ever imply it myself. The quote of me you used in full is
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I suspect I am not the only one who has done this, but am I really leaving myself open to prosecution?
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:
-
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.
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:
-
WRONG! The before any seizure or destruction can take place, there must be the warning to cease and desist.
Extract from the act
The constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.
Please read the act before you comment on it.
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
police caution - guess its ok for them to act as judge & jury then?
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).
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.
automated speeding ticket
Same as a caution but with a fine and points
every buglary, every murder
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.
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! :)
There is no comparision to the laws you mention and section 152
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.
As for seeing where law may not be appropriate, in my line of work this particular aspect/case is of negligble significance.
-
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
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.
I don't see any post where a poster has said "all laws are appropriate".
I never said they did nor did I ever imply it myself. The quote of me you used in full is
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.
Please explain to me the circumstances that the law has ignored?
-
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.
Its linked to from this thread earlier. Go look for it.
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.
No it isnt. Here is the glove box version for you
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.
http://www.together.gov.uk/article.asp?aid=1714
Emphasis is mine
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.
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.
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:
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.
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)
-
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.
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:
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
-
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......
-
My appologies over the shouting down accusation... it was unfounded and I had indeed misread your first paragraph. :oops:
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.
If this situation existed with no checks and balances then I would be as concerned as you.
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.
Please explain to me the circumstances that the law has ignored?
Honest mistakes for one. There is NO flexibility in the law or the sentence.
-
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.
Yes they did :D
WRONG! The before any seizure or destruction can take place, there must be the warning to cease and desist.
RangeRider
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.
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.
-
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.
-
that everyone has right to appeal against a vehicles confiscation
Having read the legislation on line everyone has the right to appeal but it can only be granted on the grounds of the car/bike having been stolen AND you took adequate precautions to stop it being stolen. I really would like someone to prove me wrong on that because 'assumed guilt' is a very worrying trend.
-
I agree and an assumption of guilt is not the premise that uk law is based upon.
I can see your argument that until someone is proven guilty then they are by definition innocent. You also dont like the idea of someone being able to make that decision unchallenged, i also agree that is not good.
The problem is that the confiscation/crushing is a good thing but there is no way of having an adhoc trial when this arises and yes the police are making an assumption of guilt based on the facts as they present themselves.
The key checks are in place...ie people can produce their documents to prove the police wrong.This would stop the crushing etc...the main question still remains when is guilt apportioned? Is it when the person is stopped or when they fail to produce their documents?
-
the main question still remains when is guilt apportioned? Is it when the person is stopped or when they fail to produce their documents?
Well with every other law of this land (as far as I know and certainly with all laws that predate this goverment) It is when a jury or magistrates say they are and not before
yes the police are making an assumption of guilt based on the facts as they present themselves.
More correctly as the police percieve them to be and as they understand them to be.
The key checks are in place
I disagree. There is no check of circumstances or of the policeman. Indeed, given that the police may sieze the car/bike upto 24 hours later from a locked premisies there isnt even a garentee that it is the right car/bike, just the policemans word. And lets face it, 1 green kmx looks pretty much like another.
-
The fact that one green kmx looks like any other may be the exact reason for taking the bike at the time..... easy for someone to switch with a mates that is legit ......
so when is guilt arrived at with speeding? Unless you go to court you accept your guilt when you accept the points and fine.
So surely not producing your documents is admitting guilt. If i was stopped i could produce all my documents and would be glad to do so.
-
The fact that one green kmx looks like any other may be the exact reason for taking the bike at the time..... easy for someone to switch with a mates that is legit ......
If they could only take the bike at the time of the offence then I would agree with your reasoning but the 24 hour rule is open to both missuse and honest mistakes.
So surely not producing your documents is admitting guilt.
No, not producing your documents is just that, not producing your documents. You COULD have the documents (and are therefore innocent) you just havent produced them. You are just asking in a round about sort of way for people to prove their innocence again.
Wouldnt section 152 be a whole lot fairer and in keeping with british justice system (not to mention the UN human rights stuff) if it worked the same way as speeding tickets?
-
Wouldnt section 152 be a whole lot fairer and in keeping with british justice system (not to mention the UN human rights stuff) if it worked the same way as speeding tickets?
Maybe.... go on....?
-
With speeding tickets either camera or police officer. You are asked to accept the fixed penalty points and fine (in other words admit guilt). If you fail to accept them then you go up in front of the beak where you may or may not get a heavier penalty or even be found not guilty (although this is unlikely but did happen to the moped driver who was clocked at 58mph :lol:)
Simply put it is a true safety net where everything can be presented to the court.
-
Bob,
i agree with the ethos but lets face it going to court over fixed penalty notice is like commiting suicide.
The magistrates look very unkindly on it and see it as wasting their time.
I once was stupid enough to do just that. I had photographic proof that the officers statement was not accurate....err still got the points(according to duty brief i was lucky???) but got 150 instead of 40 quid.
The photos were concrete evidence of the inaccurate nature of the officers statement. The only reason i wanted my day in court was because of the attitude of the officer. He was full of it and suffered short mans syndrome.
I dont see how this would benefit anyone. You are guilty as far as the beak is concerned.
-
The photos were concrete evidence of the inaccurate nature of the officers statement. ................................ He was full of it and suffered short mans syndrome.
Isnt this EXACTLY why we should have GOOD safety nets in place.
Just imagine if an officer of that type KNEW you were never even going to get a chance in court.
In the case you mentioned I am sure you could have appealed the beaks decision and gone to a full jury. It only becomes pointless if you are "chancing your arm". The magistrate is just a link in a chain.