Mum got an NIP, 40 in a 30 but the letter is LATE
Discussion
daemonoid said:
Zeeky said:
Burglary is a crime the consequences of which can be serious. Speed limits are regulations that when contravened have no significant adverse affect on one's life other than not being allowed to drive. Driving is a licensable activity. Selling alcohol is a licensable activity. You cannot do so without identifying yourself as being the licensee which makes identifying you should you commit a regulatory offence on licenced premises obvious.
Being an RK, holding a driving licence etc comes with responsibilities. You don't have the same rights as when minding your own business in your own home or moving around by foot in public.
A publican does not have to identify himself as the one serving at the time if they sold alcohol to a minor. They still have the right to not self incriminate. It's obvious who owns / runs a pub from the plaque above the door, just as it is who owns / keeps a vehicle from the V5. Being an RK, holding a driving licence etc comes with responsibilities. You don't have the same rights as when minding your own business in your own home or moving around by foot in public.
Are you advocating that the name on the V5 is the person who gets the penalty regardless of who was actually driving?
Anyway, enough of the BS. This has nothing whatsoever to do with being against self incrimination. It's about people who are against enforcement of speed limits being annoyed because a potential loophole to enable getting out of points and a fine has been closed.
fluffnik said:
Devil2575 said:
This has nothing whatsoever to do with being against self incrimination.
Yes it is.Some of us consider that basic rights should trump administrative convenience every time.
The state should serve us, not vice versa.
fluffnik said:
Yes it is.
Some of us consider that basic rights should trump administrative convenience every time.
The state should serve us, not vice versa.
The convenience lies not with administration but with the population who have the human right to be protected from harm by licensed drivers of vehicles.Some of us consider that basic rights should trump administrative convenience every time.
The state should serve us, not vice versa.
singlecoil said:
fluffnik said:
Some of us consider that basic rights should trump administrative convenience every time.
The state should serve us, not vice versa.
But when 'basic rights' conflict with public safety? What then? The state should serve us, not vice versa.
BennyF said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
10 Pence Short said:
fluffnik said:
Some of us consider that basic rights should trump administrative convenience every time.
The state should serve us, not vice versa.
The convenience lies not with administration but with the population who have the human right to be protected from harm by licensed drivers of vehicles.The state should serve us, not vice versa.
I'm unconvinced that S172 and the rackets it supports protect anyone from any harm whatsoever.
Devil2575 said:
This has nothing whatsoever to do with being against self incrimination. It's about people who are against enforcement of speed limits being annoyed because a potential loophole to enable getting out of points and a fine has been closed.
I love argument by assertion - it's one of the most pathetic of logical fallacies.fluffnik said:
singlecoil said:
fluffnik said:
Some of us consider that basic rights should trump administrative convenience every time.
The state should serve us, not vice versa.
But when 'basic rights' conflict with public safety? What then? The state should serve us, not vice versa.
The actual enforcement mechanism doesn't concern me as long as it works and doesn't cost too much.
fluffnik said:
10 Pence Short said:
fluffnik said:
Some of us consider that basic rights should trump administrative convenience every time.
The state should serve us, not vice versa.
The convenience lies not with administration but with the population who have the human right to be protected from harm by licensed drivers of vehicles.The state should serve us, not vice versa.
I'm unconvinced that S172 and the rackets it supports protect anyone from any harm whatsoever.
In any case, discussing the merits of licensed status distracts from the main point- that the balance of convenience for protection with regards the 172 should fall in line with that of protecting the public as a whole over any assumed loss of right inferred by having to name a driver.
Einion Yrth said:
Devil2575 said:
This has nothing whatsoever to do with being against self incrimination. It's about people who are against enforcement of speed limits being annoyed because a potential loophole to enable getting out of points and a fine has been closed.
I love argument by assertion - it's one of the most pathetic of logical fallacies.How many of those on here protesting about S172 also coincidentally object to enforcement of speed limits.
singlecoil said:
The only reason that many people (including myself) observe (mostly) speed limits is the fear of being caught exceeding them. Now if it wasn't for that fear it wouldn't concern me greatly if I chose to drive at a speed I consider safe, but which may well be in excess of the speed limit, but it does concern me if other do, because I know that they are not such good drivers as I am. As I accept that I cannot be exempted from limits that apply to others.
The actual enforcement mechanism doesn't concern me as long as it works and doesn't cost too much.
I don't break the limit in many cases because I choose not to. I find that more often than not the limit is perfectly adequate and a comfortable speed. The actual enforcement mechanism doesn't concern me as long as it works and doesn't cost too much.
I do break the limit from time to time but not as a matter of course.
Motor vehicles are dangerous and if abused, even without any malicious intention, they can cause serious injury and death.
The most basic human right is the right to life.
I am not suggesting failure by a state to regulate its road traffic would be a violation of any law or convention, hence my use of 'human right' without capitalisation. That does not alter the fact that the rights of people to be protected by such regulation should come before any rights you or others may feel are compromised by having to name a driver on a form.
From my reading of ECHR cases on the subject of s172, it is the principle above allied to the low level consequences of compliance or failure to comply with s172 that put pay to the notion that it is incompatible with Human Rights legislation.
The most basic human right is the right to life.
I am not suggesting failure by a state to regulate its road traffic would be a violation of any law or convention, hence my use of 'human right' without capitalisation. That does not alter the fact that the rights of people to be protected by such regulation should come before any rights you or others may feel are compromised by having to name a driver on a form.
From my reading of ECHR cases on the subject of s172, it is the principle above allied to the low level consequences of compliance or failure to comply with s172 that put pay to the notion that it is incompatible with Human Rights legislation.
Oh, just to update you (and wind up the 'SHE IS GUILTY AND SHOULD DO TIME' brigade)... the Police dropped it, not only that they wrote a letter apologising.
Faith, somewhat restored. Have fun
Edited to add: Thank you to those who provided very useful information and *constructive* criticism... and I'm not talking about the ones that believe unquestionably in our government/police force.
Faith, somewhat restored. Have fun
Edited to add: Thank you to those who provided very useful information and *constructive* criticism... and I'm not talking about the ones that believe unquestionably in our government/police force.
Edited by Moogle on Wednesday 13th June 09:40
ferrariF50lover said:
It's all very simple.
Pre-Gidden, the law related to the Interpretation Act 1978 s7,which allowed that once a letter had been correctly addressed, prepaid and posted, that it was 'served'.
The Justices in Gidden held that this was not, in fact, the correct way and that 'service' meant an item of post having been received by the intended recipient. This had the effect of making service by post a rebuttable presumption.
Thus, upon the sending of the NIP, it is for the defendant to show on the balance of probabilities that he did not receive it, and so it was not served, within the fourteen whole days after the date of offence.
This is achieved by the serving of a signed s9 Witness Statement to that effect.
The prosecution then must show, beyond all reasonable doubt, by cross examination at Court or by some other compelling evidence, that the content of the s9 is false and that the service of the NIP was valid.
So, in this case, mummy dearest serves upon the CPS the aforementioned s9, the Crown Prosecutor decides that he has bigger fish to fry than a petty speeding matter, and duly drops the case like a hot potato. You get a NOD in the post, job done.
HTH,
Simon.
SO Simon, I was flashed on the 20th November in the Limehouse tunnel, it is now the 5th December, thats 15 days after the event, should the NIP arrive now I can return it with an accompanying letter of "late service" or should I get the postman to witness the opening of the mail and sign accordingly?.Pre-Gidden, the law related to the Interpretation Act 1978 s7,which allowed that once a letter had been correctly addressed, prepaid and posted, that it was 'served'.
The Justices in Gidden held that this was not, in fact, the correct way and that 'service' meant an item of post having been received by the intended recipient. This had the effect of making service by post a rebuttable presumption.
Thus, upon the sending of the NIP, it is for the defendant to show on the balance of probabilities that he did not receive it, and so it was not served, within the fourteen whole days after the date of offence.
This is achieved by the serving of a signed s9 Witness Statement to that effect.
The prosecution then must show, beyond all reasonable doubt, by cross examination at Court or by some other compelling evidence, that the content of the s9 is false and that the service of the NIP was valid.
So, in this case, mummy dearest serves upon the CPS the aforementioned s9, the Crown Prosecutor decides that he has bigger fish to fry than a petty speeding matter, and duly drops the case like a hot potato. You get a NOD in the post, job done.
HTH,
Simon.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff