39 replies to this topic

[Big Sam]

It's all about resources. A Tory MP came out today to complain about policing for their conference, considering that GMP had to lose nearly 40% of its front line staff and cut tens of millions from its budget every year what do they expect?

[Cooperman]

Who "really" doesn't know who was driving their car two weeks ago?

Quite a few, actually. When I ran a business with 4 pool cars I couldn't have told you who was driving any of them at any time. We didn't keep a log book and the law didn't require us to. If you have 2 employees who take a company car or van out together neither are going to confess if they go through a camera a bit quick.

I often drive my wife's car and she drives mine. On two-week a holiday I couldn't definitely tell you, 14 days later, which of us was driving at any particular time and who was reading the map, or a newspaper.

But it's not about that. It's about there not being any evidence except a confession secured by threats of double the penalty for not 'fessing up' or naming someone who will. To me that is not English justice and flies in the face of our hard-won freedoms and legal protection developed over centuries. The system works like this: 'We have a photograph of a car with a registration number listed to you. We believe this car was committing an offence. You WILL tell us who was driving it or face serious penalties, but apart from the evidence you WILL provide, we have no evidence against any specific person'.

Now to me that represents a slippery slope.

[Carlos W]

It's all about resources. A Tory MP came out today to complain about policing for their conference, considering that GMP had to lose nearly 40% of its front line staff and cut tens of millions from its budget every year what do they expect?

I read that article. It was very well written.

[CityEPete]

But we know the option to rip up the ticket if no one takes it doesn't work as that's how it was before, everyone with more than one person insured on a car would never get points ever again!

Most camera fines involve a picture of the driver now ime anyway although you might need to ask for it or log in to view a video of a bus lane fine for example.

Everywhere I've used a van with multiple divers I was required to fill in the log book each day, we don't swap them now and on the rare occasion we would for an mot or service the company job sheets would show Who went where that day.

Edited by CityEPete, 13 October 2015 - 08:30 PM.

[Cooperman]

There is no legal requirement for a company to keep a log of who drives which company vehicle when or where. If the law required it, then it should say so.

 

I have absolutely no issue with people who are alleged to have committed any kind of offence being prosecuted, but the idea of saying, in effect, "We believe an offence has been committed and we also believe that you know the identity of the person concerned, even though we don't. If you do not tell us who it was, then you will be prosecuted for not telling us and will face double the penalty which would apply.

However, if someone is suspected of being involved in, say, a robbery, the same logic does not apply unless the prosecution have direct and certain evidence of obstruction of the police.

This is not about motoring offences, it is about the fundamental rights not to have to self-incriminate under English Law. The basic right of innocent until PROVEN guilty has been removed, with the proof relying on self-incrimination. It was also always the case that a wife could not be compelled to provide evidence to convict her husband and vice-versa. Now that does not apply as a wife must name her husband if he was driving or face double the penalty.

The caution for drivers should now be and in effect is: "You are suspected of committing an offence, or of knowing someone who has. You DO NOT have the right to remain silent, but if you do remain silent you will be prosecuted for remaining silent and punished at double the standard sentencing tariff for the alleged offence"

It's bad law enacted for all the wrong reasons and it goes against our basic rights under English Law.

Edited by Cooperman, 13 October 2015 - 10:00 PM.

[Ethel]

I think the argument would be proportionality. 60 quid 'n 3 points vs potential loss of life. They could argue knowing who else has driven your car is a civic duty similar to not leaving the keys in the ignition or parking with the handbrake off.

Neil & Christine Hamilton did famously get off with a defence of not knowing who was behind the wheel when they were both in the car.

[xrocketengineer]

From the State of Texas, where drinking and driving is considered a

sport, comes a true story about drinking wisely.

Recently a routine police patrol was parked outside a local neighborhood bar.

Late in the evening the officer noticed a man leaving the bar so intoxicated

that he could barely walk. The man stumbled around the parking lot

for a few minutes with the officer quietly observing. After what seemed an

eternity and trying his keys on five different vehicles, the man

managed to find his own car, which he fell into. He was there for a

few minutes as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off.

Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on and off (it was a dry

night), flicked the hazard flasher on and off, tooted the horn and

then switched on the lights. He moved the vehicle forward a few inches,

reversed a little and then remained stationary for a few more minutes as more

patrons left in their vehicles. At last he pulled

out of the parking lot and started to drive slowly down the street.

The police officer, having patiently waited all this time, now

started up his patrol car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled

the man over and carried out a Breathalyzer test. To his amazement

the Breathalyzer

indicated no evidence of the man having consumed alcohol at all!

Dumbfounded, the officer said "I'll have to ask you to accompany me

to the Police station. This Breathalyzer equipment must be broken."

"I doubt it," said the man, "Tonight I'm the designated decoy."

[Cooperman]

If they want to know who is driving a vehicle at a specific time and place, it should be the law for each and every driver to keep a detailed journey & driver log. That happens in aviation. If it is not a legal requirement, then they are relying on human memory, which can be seen to be potentially flawed.

 

It is badly written law and is a direct contravention of basic English law. By the same token, would it be OK to torture a suspected terrorist on the basis that he knows who has committed a terrorist attack, or who is about to, as the torture may prevent loss of life? The principle is the same, it is just the degree which is different.

 

A bad principle and thin end of the wedge.

 

If you want to enforce the law in a fair manner, then send out officers in marked cars to stop offenders, caution them and prosecute as necessary. Hand held speed cameras with a police officer down the road to stop drivers is fine, as the evidence is right there.

[Spider]

From the State of Texas, where drinking and driving is considered a

sport, comes a true story about drinking wisely.

Recently a routine police patrol was parked outside a local neighborhood bar.

Late in the evening the officer noticed a man leaving the bar so intoxicated

that he could barely walk. The man stumbled around the parking lot

for a few minutes with the officer quietly observing. After what seemed an

eternity and trying his keys on five different vehicles, the man

managed to find his own car, which he fell into. He was there for a

few minutes as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off.

Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on and off (it was a dry

night), flicked the hazard flasher on and off, tooted the horn and

then switched on the lights. He moved the vehicle forward a few inches,

reversed a little and then remained stationary for a few more minutes as more

patrons left in their vehicles. At last he pulled

out of the parking lot and started to drive slowly down the street.

The police officer, having patiently waited all this time, now

started up his patrol car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled

the man over and carried out a Breathalyzer test. To his amazement

the Breathalyzer

indicated no evidence of the man having consumed alcohol at all!

Dumbfounded, the officer said "I'll have to ask you to accompany me

to the Police station. This Breathalyzer equipment must be broken."

"I doubt it," said the man, "Tonight I'm the designated decoy."

 

Bhahaha,,,,,,,

 

Reminds me of a short story when I was working in the Philipinnes

 

The boss of the site where I was working invited us (ex-pats) all to a BBQ, we all drove and I noticed everyone was getting stuck in to the beer and before long, most people I would guess would be way over the limit,,,, limit??  actually what was the limit ???  I as the Boss (who was clearly the most intoxicated) and all he said is it's only illegal to drink and drive if you can't get the keys in the ignition.

 

 

Another true and VERY sobering story (and a common one).

 

A mate of mine was nicked and in a big way for 'Drink Driving' and he was even driving. We were all at a party and a few had too much. My mate went to his car to sleep it off, got in to the driver's seat and put the radio on, engine was OFF. Lost his license for 2 years. I've heard many similar stories.

 

Apparently it is an offense to be in the drivers seat if you are over the limit (and I'm not sure but maybe just being in a vehicle). It's apparently also to be on a bicycle and a horse while over the limit too.

[xrocketengineer]

Sometimes, it is completely ridiculous. Years ago, one of my co-workers got a ticket for having "an open (beer) container " while driving. It did not matter how much he argued that the can had no beer, he still got the ticket. When he went to court, he took the can with him to show the judge that he chews tobacco and that the can was his "spittoon". The judge dismissed the case but told him to use a soft drink can next time.

 

On the other hand, when my daughter was younger, she was staying the night with a group of friends at another's friend house. After everybody was asleep, they woke up with a loud crash. As they went to investigate, they found that a drunk driver had crashed into one of their cars that had been parked between the road and a ditch, which by the way was where their car ended up at. They called the police and when they came, they said that they could not issue a citation because nobody witnessed the man driving drunk. But the police manage to give the man a ride home. The owner of the car in the ditch had to hitch a ride.

Edited by xrocketengineer, 15 October 2015 - 06:02 PM.