Cynical mobile scamera
Discussion
gone said:
gone said:
Perfectly!
Duty of care is to everyone on the road and in its vicinity to make sure that people are safe and drivers comply with the rules!
Wrong! Almost, but complying with rules was superfluous. One can comply completely with the rules and yet not display duty of care. You are conflating two different things.
It was not superflous at all.
I agree that you can comply with the rules but not show a duty of care. That is the specific behaviour of an individual and more to the point an individual private motorist who has a duty of care to everyone else when driving. The duty of care bestowed on public authorities is to make sure that those who have a personal duty of care to others actually comply with it!
Duty of care is for the police service to protect the public by making those who should abide by rules comply with them. Thereby they are collectively complying with the duty of care bestowed on them in enforcing the rules.
>> Edited by gone on Monday 1st August 13:08
>> Edited by gone on Monday 1st August 13:08[/quote]
You are a bit confused. Perhaps it is easier to see when compliance and duty conflict. (arguably compliance can be considered as duty to the state/crown)
A good example recently was the guy getting done for moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle. His duty was clear. Unfortunately there are plenty of people like you who are unable to differentiate the different duties, hence our annoyance at plods/magistrates not displaying discretion/common sense.
s2art said:
You are a bit confused. Perhaps it is easier to see when compliance and duty conflict. (arguably compliance can be considered as duty to the state/crown)
A good example recently was the guy getting done for moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle. His duty was clear. Unfortunately there are plenty of people like you who are unable to differentiate the different duties, hence our annoyance at plods/magistrates not displaying discretion/common sense.
S2art, I think you are on rocky ground here. I doubt very much that you are better informed than Gone of his duty (or compliance if you prefer). Gone and the other BiBs are mandated to apply the law, not the form of law that you personally would prefer. Mon Ami Mate said:
You are a bit confused. Perhaps it is easier to see when compliance and duty conflict. (arguably compliance can be considered as duty to the state/crown)
A good example recently was the guy getting done for moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle. His duty was clear. Unfortunately there are plenty of people like you who are unable to differentiate the different duties, hence our annoyance at plods/magistrates not displaying discretion/common sense.
If you are right then no plod can use discretion. Is that what you mean? That when there is a conflict between compliance and duty of care we must just behave like automatons? That magistrates/judges cannot take circumstances into account? etc. etc.
s2art said:
If you are right then no plod can use discretion. Is that what you mean? That when there is a conflict between compliance and duty of care we must just behave like automatons? That magistrates/judges cannot take circumstances into account? etc. etc.
Funnily enough we used to have a copper around these parts who seemed to be implying just that...that the scope of police to use their discretion was being heavily restricted or withdrawn...after all, in these "complicated" times, it's far simpler to just enforce-by-the-numbers than actually THINK about a situation...just think of all those bad criminals who could get off paying their taxes!!! So yes, i think that probably IS happening.
(Note - not against BiB, just against this "dumbing-down" government who don't seem to realise that people are most effective at their jobs when they have to THINK!!!)
PS - what's happening with some of the posts on here??? I've got quotes of missing posts appearing!!!
PPS - gone - I guess we'll disagree here - a proven intent to obey the law at the same time as a very transient breach (braking while crossing speed limit change) should not be considered a criminal offence on it's own...current policies and Orwellian language notwithstanding, I can't see how such an action breaches the driver's duty-of-care to a sufficient degree to warrant prosecution "in the public interest".
s2art said:
s2art said:
You are a bit confused. Perhaps it is easier to see when compliance and duty conflict. (arguably compliance can be considered as duty to the state/crown)
A good example recently was the guy getting done for moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle. His duty was clear. Unfortunately there are plenty of people like you who are unable to differentiate the different duties, hence our annoyance at plods/magistrates not displaying discretion/common sense.
If you are right then no plod can use discretion. Is that what you mean? That when there is a conflict between compliance and duty of care we must just behave like automatons? That magistrates/judges cannot take circumstances into account? etc. etc.
We should be grateful if Police show discretion in our favour, because they are not mandated to. The bottom line is that the law says you must be travelling at a speed within the limit, at the start of the limit. If you don't like the law take issue with the legislators, not the enforcers. There are many laws I don't like and I take issue with the legislators as often as I possibly can!
Mon Ami Mate said:
Mon Ami Mate said:
s2art said:
You are a bit confused. Perhaps it is easier to see when compliance and duty conflict. (arguably compliance can be considered as duty to the state/crown)
A good example recently was the guy getting done for moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle. His duty was clear. Unfortunately there are plenty of people like you who are unable to differentiate the different duties, hence our annoyance at plods/magistrates not displaying discretion/common sense.
If you are right then no plod can use discretion. Is that what you mean? That when there is a conflict between compliance and duty of care we must just behave like automatons? That magistrates/judges cannot take circumstances into account? etc. etc.
We should be grateful if Police show discretion in our favour, because they are not mandated to. The bottom line is that the law says you must be travelling at a speed within the limit, at the start of the limit. If you don't like the law take issue with the legislators, not the enforcers. There are many laws I don't like and I take issue with the legislators as often as I possibly can!
We should be grateful? That the police can show common sense? I think you have it backwards. Not that long ago, certainly within my memory, it was expected that the police would use their common sense. Remember, they are supposed to be bobbies not gendarmes.
Yowsa - what a response! To summarise then, he should just bend over and be shafted - if you can't do the time then don't do the crime eh?. Has anyone any views on the mobile camera being covered by the warnings for the fixed camera or is this just a minor technicality that wouldn't get him off the charge anyway?
s2art said:
We should be grateful? That the police can show common sense? I think you have it backwards. Not that long ago, certainly within my memory, it was expected that the police would use their common sense. Remember, they are supposed to be bobbies not gendarmes.
I don't like it any more than you do, but it's no good blaming the Police. They enforce the Government's law - that is their job. A previous Government gave them different instructions. We know that this Government has instructed the Police to be tough on motorists and lenient on just about everybody else, so when we get in our cars we should expect to be targeted. When we then get caught and punished for trivial offences we should save our anger for the real villains of the piece - the Government, not the Police.
Mon Ami Mate said:
We should be grateful? That the police can show common sense? I think you have it backwards. Not that long ago, certainly within my memory, it was expected that the police would use their common sense. Remember, they are supposed to be bobbies not gendarmes.
I don't like it any more than you do, but it's no good blaming the Police. They enforce the Government's law - that is their job. A previous Government gave them different instructions. We know that this Government has instructed the Police to be tough on motorists and lenient on just about everybody else, so when we get in our cars we should expect to be targeted. When we then get caught and punished for trivial offences we should save our anger for the real villains of the piece - the Government, not the Police.
Point taken. But remember that the Police in this country are supposed to be semi-autonomous, locally directed. Too much centralisation may have occurred, but the Police chiefs are just as guilty as the government for just bending over to the current politicos. Again, not that long ago, they were much more independantly minded.
s2art said:
s2art said:
We should be grateful? That the police can show common sense? I think you have it backwards. Not that long ago, certainly within my memory, it was expected that the police would use their common sense. Remember, they are supposed to be bobbies not gendarmes.
I don't like it any more than you do, but it's no good blaming the Police. They enforce the Government's law - that is their job. A previous Government gave them different instructions. We know that this Government has instructed the Police to be tough on motorists and lenient on just about everybody else, so when we get in our cars we should expect to be targeted. When we then get caught and punished for trivial offences we should save our anger for the real villains of the piece - the Government, not the Police.
Point taken. But remember that the Police in this country are supposed to be semi-autonomous, locally directed. Too much centralisation may have occurred, but the Police chiefs are just as guilty as the government for just bending over to the current politicos. Again, not that long ago, they were much more independantly minded.
The Police have been politicised, as much as the rest of the public services. Sir Ian Blair. Richard Brunstrom. Career Blairites dancing to the devil's tune.
thepilsbury said:
Has anyone any views on the mobile camera being covered by the warnings for the fixed camera or is this just a minor technicality that wouldn't get him off the charge anyway?
'Get off' a charge of doing 6mph above the limit?
What planet are you on? Now if he was a burglar.....
Mon Ami Mate said:
Mon Ami Mate said:
s2art said:
We should be grateful? That the police can show common sense? I think you have it backwards. Not that long ago, certainly within my memory, it was expected that the police would use their common sense. Remember, they are supposed to be bobbies not gendarmes.
I don't like it any more than you do, but it's no good blaming the Police. They enforce the Government's law - that is their job. A previous Government gave them different instructions. We know that this Government has instructed the Police to be tough on motorists and lenient on just about everybody else, so when we get in our cars we should expect to be targeted. When we then get caught and punished for trivial offences we should save our anger for the real villains of the piece - the Government, not the Police.
Point taken. But remember that the Police in this country are supposed to be semi-autonomous, locally directed. Too much centralisation may have occurred, but the Police chiefs are just as guilty as the government for just bending over to the current politicos. Again, not that long ago, they were much more independantly minded.
The Police have been politicised, as much as the rest of the public services. Sir Ian Blair. Richard Brunstrom. Career Blairites dancing to the devil's tune.
Just think if Gone has said that. There would be an armed response unit arriving at his desk within a few minutes
I've come to understand Gone's responses more recently in light of the resident BiB getting a rollocking for voicing opinions. He just tells you the law in an unemotional dictator kind of way. Pity our BiB have to act like this. I'm sure most BiB exceed 30 in a 30 quite often like the rest of us. I'm sure they have views on 'rigid' enforcement too. But the law is the law. Sigh.
I'd sooner have people like Gone posting and as a result I'm a damn site more aware of what to expect when I'm out there driving.
Even the lurking Destroyer's comments were useful - reminding me of the old adage of keeping your friends close but your enemies (Destroyer, not Gone BTW!) closer!
Even the lurking Destroyer's comments were useful - reminding me of the old adage of keeping your friends close but your enemies (Destroyer, not Gone BTW!) closer!
gone said:
The spirit of the law relates to a duty of care. Or dont you understand the term 'spirit of the law'?
Perfectly!
Duty of care is to everyone on the road and in its vicinity to make sure that people are safe and drivers comply with the rules!
Would that the police were just as vigilante at enforcing other laws, breaking and entering, theft from cars, drug taking.
Better still instead of persecuting the motorist we could ring the police every couple of years and report ourselves for speeding. We could then be given a crime reference number and the heinous crime would not be persued any further.
I find it quite spectacular the enthusiasm the police have for a fund raising crime.
s2art said:
You are a bit confused. Perhaps it is easier to see when compliance and duty conflict. (arguably compliance can be considered as duty to the state/crown)
A good example recently was the guy getting done for moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle. His duty was clear. Unfortunately there are plenty of people like you who are unable to differentiate the different duties, hence our annoyance at plods/magistrates not displaying discretion/common sense.
You don't know me so how can you form an opinion about what I would do?
I am not confused!
Mon Ami Mate said:
Cheers. Police use discretion all the time. Some people do not particularly like how I use it when they are punished. Some are very grateful in the way I use discretion FPT instead of court or even on the very minimal occasion, a warning rather than a penalty
Police (as do all public authorities) have a duty of care to the public. That is set out within the doctrine of HR. That would include making sure that rules within society are being adhered to. Sadly for many, that includes motoring law
voyds9 said:
Would that the police were just as vigilante at enforcing other laws, breaking and entering, theft from cars, drug taking.
We are. Burglary is at an all time low. Car crime is also falling. Violent crime is increasing!
Very soon the law on common assault is to be changed. It is to become arrestable. If you have a row with someone and push them, you will be arrested! This will be ideal for delaing with domestic disputes where someone is slapped rather than punched.
Police are being pushed hard to make sanction based detections. Sanction based detection is a detection where an arrest is made and a charge/caution or FPT is the outcome.
voyds9 said:
Better still instead of persecuting the motorist we could ring the police every couple of years and report ourselves for speeding. We could then be given a crime reference number and the heinous crime would not be persued any further.
It would! My staff are on the ball in following up enquiries where there is the posibility of a SBD.
The home office are driving us to increase efficiency and value for money. It is happening, believe me!
voyds said:
I find it quite spectacular the enthusiasm the police have for a fund raising crime.
I think you will find that anything that makes life safer for communities is a target which is met with enthusiasm by the modern police service.
gone said:
voyds9 said:
Would that the police were just as vigilante at enforcing other laws, breaking and entering, theft from cars, drug taking.
We are. Burglary is at an all time low. Car crime is also falling. Violent crime is increasing!
Very soon the law on common assault is to be changed. It is to become arrestable. If you have a row with someone and push them, you will be arrested! This will be ideal for delaing with domestic disputes where someone is slapped rather than punched.
Police are being pushed hard to make sanction based detections. Sanction based detection is a detection where an arrest is made and a charge/caution or FPT is the outcome.
Figures go down it is due to police efficency, figures go up it is due a change in how crimes are recorded
gone said:
voyds9 said:
I find it quite spectacular the enthusiasm the police have for a fund raising crime.
I think you will find that anything that makes life safer for communities is a target which is met with enthusiasm by the modern police service.
More people killed on the roads than last year despite over 6000 fixed cameras and 3500 mobile sites, with successful policing like that perhaps it's time for less enthusiasm.
>> Edited by voyds9 on Monday 1st August 20:12
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff