Forum back online. Please post!
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Oh and erm as to the last point *hate me if you want* but ...... Raises hand to the "never broekn the law regarding not driveing/rideing somewhere they shouldnt? or driveing something they where not licensed to? be it forklift truck or 1000cc superbike?" :)
You're basically correct if it has right of access to the public then it is covered by the road traffic act .. if it is private with no right of access then it's not.A road or any place to which the public have a right of access.You can be charged with driving on a place other than a public road - e.g through a town park or on a field to which the public have a right of access.
Quote from: "Terminus"Oh and erm as to the last point *hate me if you want* but ...... Raises hand to the "never broekn the law regarding not driveing/rideing somewhere they shouldnt? or driveing something they where not licensed to? be it forklift truck or 1000cc superbike?" :)Lies! :P
What everyone seems to be forgetting here is that the owner of the bike is the one who is being punished yet it is not he who is at fault.
the law was the law in Nazi Germany and look where that led.
The part of this press release that really troubles me is "Section 152 of the Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005 gives police the power to seize bikes used on public highways without insurance and without an appropriate licence"Serious and organised crime ?I thought that was sawn off shotguns and the like not spotty teenagers riding round the woods.Maybe the Chief Constables wife ran off with a hairy biker :)
Quote from: "Terminus"Sorry but YES it is his fault - ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse - if you lend any motor vehicle to another it is legally YOUR responsibilty to know the use it will be put to but more importantly that the rider/driver is insured to use the vehicle.You can and would be charged if you loaned your car to a mate and he/she was stopped and found to be uninsured - the charge is that you did cause or permit the driver/rider to drive said motor car/motor cycle without insurance.You are correct but the point is that nowhere is it mentioned that the owner has been charged or convicted with anything. They have taken his property and are going to destroy it as far as I can see without him being found guilty of anything. The rider is obviously guilty as he was caught in the act of using an untaxed, uninsured unlawful vehicle so deserves any punishment coming to him. I am not trying to defend HIS actions, which are obviously wrong. If it were HIS vehicle then crush it!If you loaned your Freelander to a mate in a private field (with no public access, with landowners permission etc. etc. and therefore not requiring tax and insurance) and he assured you that he would only drive within that field but then went out onto the public road and was stopped, you would be charged as you say "that you did cause or permit the driver/rider to drive said motor car/motor cycle without insurance". You know that you have done no wrong but you think having the vehicle taken from you without a chance to prove that you were not guilty is right?Comparisons with Nazi Germany may sound over the top but when you start to allow the Police to punish people without them having the chance to defend themselves in court it is the start of a slippery slope toward a fascist state.
Sorry but YES it is his fault - ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse - if you lend any motor vehicle to another it is legally YOUR responsibilty to know the use it will be put to but more importantly that the rider/driver is insured to use the vehicle.You can and would be charged if you loaned your car to a mate and he/she was stopped and found to be uninsured - the charge is that you did cause or permit the driver/rider to drive said motor car/motor cycle without insurance.
(By the way... despite the Chief Constable "crusading" for crushin... I'm certain it has been done through a by law of some kind that had to go through the necessary POLITICAL process - Terminus... comments?).SKibum
Once legislation has been passed the Police have a duty to enforce it (whether or not you agree with it) :shock: :)
It may not have been a Porsche or Ferrari, but Nick Pagano felt like a king of the road when his parents handed over the keys of his 18th birthday present. But the university student spoke of his shock last night after a council towed away and crushed his beloved first car into a cube without apparent warning. The 19-year-old and his parents were left fuming after their 17-year-old Fiat Panda disappeared from its parking place near the University of East Anglia and was scrapped six days later. The family, from Campion Road, Thetford, is now facing a £155 bill from Norfolk County Council after the cherished vehicle was deemed to be abandoned. Mr Pagano, who has just finished a first year chemistry course at the UEA, said he would have to give up his summer barman job in Norwich because of the loss of his car. "We assumed that the car had been stolen on June 8 and reported it to the police, but on Saturday we received a letter from the council saying that it had been destroyed. I was quite surprised because we received no communication from the council until then," he said. Mr Pagano said the F-reg car was in an "immaculate" condition for its age and only had 40,000 miles on the clock when he legally parked it on Bridge Farm Lane, a housing estate near the university campus, on June 4. But when the student returned four days later after completing his end of year exams and subsequent celebrations, the red Fiat was gone. During his absence, a rear side window had been smashed and Norwich City Council identified the Fiat as an abandoned vehicle with no tax disc. Mother Liz Pagano said the incident was "difficult to comprehend" because the car contained work clothes, documents, and important university coursework. She added that the car had five months tax and she was planning to take the matter to the small claims court. Some of the student's science coursework had been returned, but most of the papers were still missing, she claimed. "It is such a pity because he has not had the car for long and it has always been looked after. It was not abandoned in any shape or form and it is not justified to scrap the car because we have spent a lot of money to keep it on the road. It has recently had a new clutch, steering column and had 11 months MOT," she said. Mark Langlands, spokesman for Norfolk County Council, said legislation gave authorities the power to destroy cars which posed a potential hazard. "The car was collected on June 8 as an abandoned vehicle at the request of Norwich City Council and was taken to our storage compound. It had no tax disc displayed and its rear side window had been smashed. A notice was attached to the car on June 7 warning the owner that it needed to be moved within 24 hours, but no action was taken." "We have spoken to Mrs Pagano about her complaint and we will respond to her fully in due course once we have spoken to the staff involved," he said.
You're really, really sure the copper would have made a different decision? You're really, really sure he might not make a mistake just as we might make a mistake?So, you're quite happy that the training the police receive is so good that a decision with large implications should be the hands of a newly qualified cop with no appeal?By and large I'm sure they do make the right decision but if there's no second chance then they have to be bang on every time. Isn't that a bit unfair on the cops?Mike
Quote from: "att"The Police have their hands tied by legislation......And quite often their own low IQ. :roll: I take exception to that, everyone has a point of view but if you can't make it without such insults perhaps its not worth making.Cheers
The Police have their hands tied by legislation......And quite often their own low IQ. :roll:
Thanks for your input Terminus, I don't know the procedures that lead up to these decisions. If you'll reply just once more you could perhaps explain to us just how these situations work.Could I make representations to the sargeant, inspector or whoever regarding the circumstances?I still don't feel it's right that these decisions are made without the option of going to court and I'm not sure that it's fair on you and your colleagues to be expected to make fair judgements.I'd just return to the question as to where the line is drawn regarding the decisions the police should make without the support of the courts.It's certainly interesting law and I am assuming it's introduction was to ease the load on the courts so that they can deal with cases promptly. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied in my opinion.In the case we are discussing the uncle is smarting because of prompt delivery of what in law is justice and that's the idea I guess.I'm sure that you had no intention of associating me with any fascist comments as I haven't made any and wouldn't while others have.Mike
