A crushing blow

[Terminus]

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:

[Horness]

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

[Bob696]

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.

[Bulli]

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.

[Bob696]

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)

[Bulli]

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!)

[Bob696]

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.

[Bulli]

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.

[rollazuki]

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

[bigblue]

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!

[muddyjlx]

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.

[Bob696]

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

[rangerider]

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.

[Terminus]

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:

[Bulli]

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

[Bob696]

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.

[Skibum346]

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.

[Bob696]

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.

[muddyjlx]

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.

[att]

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?

[Bob696]

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

 

[Terminus]

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:

[rangerider]

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.

[Skibum346]

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?

[Bob696]

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)

[Bob696]

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

[Bulli]

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......

[Bob696]

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.

[Bob696]

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.

[Bulli]

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.