A crushing blow

[att]

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:

[rangerider]

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.

[beast5680]

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:

[Bob696]

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

[Skibum346]

Incredible,.....  first their doing too much... now their not doing enough...

**slaps forehead as only homer can**

[Skibum346]

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

[Bob696]

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

[Terminus]

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  

[Bob696]

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.

[Terminus]

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)  

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: )

[Bob696]

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?

[Terminus]

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)

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:

[Bob696]

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

[Terminus]

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:

[Bob696]

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.

[drmike]

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

[drmike]

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

[Terminus]

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?    :lol:

[drmike]

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

[Terminus]

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  

[Bob696]

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

[Terminus]

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.

[Terminus]

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]

[Bulli]

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.

[drmike]

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

[drmike]

Bulli I take your point entirely.

OTOH those repeat offenders will go to court no doubt and hopefully get a good stiff sentence.

Mike

[Terminus]

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  

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.

[drmike]

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

[att]

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.

[Bulli]

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.