A crushing blow

[Terminus]

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:

[drmike]

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

[Terminus]

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.

[Skibum346]

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

[Skibum346]

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?

[Skibum346]

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

[Bob696]

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?

[Bulli]

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.

[Skibum346]

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.

[Skibum346]

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.

[Bob696]

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.

[Skibum346]

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?

[Bob696]

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.

[Skibum346]

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]

[Skibum346]

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.

[att]

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.

[Skibum346]

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.

[Bob696]

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

[drmike]

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

[bullfrog]

You cannot call someone drunk. You can say in your oppinion they have had too much to drink but not drunk.
Mad init ? :shock:

[Terminus]

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  :)

[Terminus]

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:

[Skibum346]

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.

[Skibum346]

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:

[Skibum346]

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.

[Bob696]

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

[Skibum346]

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?

[Bob696]

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?

[Skibum346]

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?

[att]

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.