Discussion
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
If they can take your liberty for such reasons, then taking your licence is of little consequence in such matters IMHO.
I strongly disagree. Putting somebody in jail is hopefully a last resort and reserved for people who are a threat to society or have committed a serious crime.
Taking away somebody's driving license is a much lesser punishment, but still has a very big impact on somebody who depends on their ability to drive. This is probably more harmful than a hefty fine, since the fine doesn't stop you working, driving to visit family and friends, going to the shops and so on. Losing your license a very big consequence, and also something that can be done quite cheaply. To allow this to be used just as a way to punish somebody for minor offenses I think is disgraceful. I think people should be entitled to drive as long as they do it safely and competantly, it should not be viewed as a privilege to be taken away if you do anything naughty.
It's not as daft a system as it seems at first
Quinny said:
Ok so someone who dosen't pay up to the CSA can have his licence taken away, and this could be a real punishment, although I think it's totally out of order for a non motoring offence
But what about the guy who dosen't drive, and also refuses to pay up to the CSA?
He obviously receives a different punishment,
Where's the fairness in that?
But what about the guy who dosen't drive, and also refuses to pay up to the CSA?
He obviously receives a different punishment,
Where's the fairness in that?
It's not just taking it away, if you don't have one you are disqualified from applying for one, so even those who don't have one yet can be punished.
vonhosen said:
But you can go to prison for maintenance non payment, you don't have to be a threat to society, it's just one up from disqualification for non payment.
I regard CSA payments as similar to a fine in the sense that ultimately the court will set an amount that it believes you can afford, and if you fail to pay that amount then you can end up in prison. I don't particularly like the beligerant way the CSA in particular goes about charging fathers, but I agree with the principle that ultimately non-payment of fines will lead to prison.
What I object to is the use of a driving license as a way to penalise somebody. What next, take away your license to keep a dog, or your TVR license, or revoke planning permission, or stop you going abroad on holiday for a couple of years, for unrelated offenses? I think this approach is fundamentally wrong. I also think that driving licenses in particular have been probably singled out because the current government has a long term goal of reducing access to and use of private transport, but that's a separate issue.
I often find myself agreeing with ,at the least the principle of, what VH posts. But not in this case. So a man who does not pay maintenance may have his driving license taken away? If that prevents him earning who does that help - certainly not the mother & child(ren).
I may have a license to own a shotgun, would that be taken away if I was found to kerb-crawling or not paying maintenance?
I may have a license to own a shotgun, would that be taken away if I was found to kerb-crawling or not paying maintenance?
Edited by Philbes on Sunday 6th August 15:59
Edited by Philbes on Sunday 6th August 16:00
I could be 
They might decide f-f-f-for sp-sp-eeding..next.. Ach! Philbes said:
I often find myself agrreeing with ,at the least the primciple of, what VH posts. But in in this case. So a man who does not pay maintenance may have his driving license taken away? If that prevents him earning who does that help -certainly not the mother & child(ren).
I may have a license to own a shotgun, would that be taken away if I was found to kerb-crawling or not paying maintenance?
I may have a license to own a shotgun, would that be taken away if I was found to kerb-crawling or not paying maintenance?
The premise is that the person has the means to pay but simply refuses. Whilst the state (we) pays for the keeping of his offspring, he spends his money on himself & his own pursuits. Losing his licence to drive may encourage him to pay his maintenance as it is now adversely affecting him & his life. If he still does not, then prison is the next & last option which will cost considerably more to that state (us) than taking his licence would. His losing his ability to earn/pay is not going to make any difference if he already has the means but refuses anyway. If he pays the disqualification can be removed.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 6th August 15:44
vonhosen said:
Quinny said:
Ok so someone who dosen't pay up to the CSA can have his licence taken away, and this could be a real punishment, although I think it's totally out of order for a non motoring offence
But what about the guy who dosen't drive, and also refuses to pay up to the CSA?
He obviously receives a different punishment,
Where's the fairness in that?
But what about the guy who dosen't drive, and also refuses to pay up to the CSA?
He obviously receives a different punishment,
Where's the fairness in that?
It's not just taking it away, if you don't have one you are disqualified from applying for one, so even those who don't have one yet can be punished.
But that assumes they want one. Some people are a lot happier as a lycra lout. They get to be an obnoxious twazak und do not get any punishment for this.
As for CSA und its proposed replacement. I am totally against for following reasons:
1. Removing the privileged or rather earned right to drive a car by passing test und keeping relatively safe und compliant would really limit job prospects. He may be required to drive on company business from time to time. He may be suited to delivery drives for internet shopper vans or whatever, He cannot get freelance taxi work (if qualified for this) How can someone pay out if lack of driving licence prevent securing of well paid job out of town,, in business park miles out of town or if job require odd bit of driving.
2. Tagging - that implies "criminal" und what if job has shifts? Shiftss which are not in bus time tabled hours? Und he has this "curfew"?
3. Taking passport? What if job has element of business travel? Not everyone has passport just for jollies....
Ist ridiculous to do this und you that too lieber von if you are honest with yourself
One ist not saying man should not be responsible for what he sires und reaps the sows he seeds (und I am sure the pay on word will not be lost on lieber cymtriks
with whom I had argument on this subject as man ist just as responsible). But... there are - und we all know this - some out there who have the one night stands .. several one night stands und does not know which of these men ist Papa. She pick the one she think ist the "richest" - und he get lumbered as he cannot disprove without paternity test - which she refuses to allow child to have of course.
Ja - cymtriks - I know darned well that there are some nasty little pieces of work around - my argument with you was tarring us all the same und suggesting we should get sack for having kittens (Ist off topic - sort of... we are on about losing licence for something not related to skill of driving to COAST - so not too far a drifter ) So - these persons get hit with whammy of tags, driving ban - because they cannot afford to hand over something which they have not negotiated nor even in line with their financial commitments.
That ist wrong. Wrong to point of "anarchic" or simple rebellious behaviour for some.
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
Yes I'm aware of this trend in the punishment system, but it seems wrong to me that one can lose a driving licence for something that is not really a driving offence. IMHO it is hardly compatible with a decent justice system but we seem to be losing that anyhow, we have been for quite some time.
BTW hello Von - been on holiday?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
BTW hello Von - been on holiday?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Hello, a short break
All of the offences I mentioned were either connected with driving offences or the vehicle was used in committing the offence.
Oh welcome back Von, but was there not a case down south a few months ago whereby a chap got done for warning about a speed trap and he was not using his car at the time? He was merely standing at the road side with a notice or something. He lost his licence all the same IIRC.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
WildCat said:
As for CSA und its proposed replacement. I am totally against for following reasons:
1. Removing the privileged or rather earned right to drive a car by passing test und keeping relatively safe und compliant would really limit job prospects. He may be required to drive on company business from time to time. He may be suited to delivery drives for internet shopper vans or whatever, He cannot get freelance taxi work (if qualified for this) How can someone pay out if lack of driving licence prevent securing of well paid job out of town,, in business park miles out of town or if job require odd bit of driving.
2. Tagging - that implies "criminal" und what if job has shifts? Shiftss which are not in bus time tabled hours? Und he has this "curfew"?
3. Taking passport? What if job has element of business travel? Not everyone has passport just for jollies....
Ist ridiculous to do this und you that too lieber von if you are honest with yourself
One ist not saying man should not be responsible for what he sires und reaps the sows he seeds (und I am sure the pay on word will not be lost on lieber cymtriks
with whom I had argument on this subject as man ist just as responsible). But... there are - und we all know this - some out there who have the one night stands .. several one night stands und does not know which of these men ist Papa. She pick the one she think ist the "richest" - und he get lumbered as he cannot disprove without paternity test - which she refuses to allow child to have of course.
Ja - cymtriks - I know darned well that there are some nasty little pieces of work around - my argument with you was tarring us all the same und suggesting we should get sack for having kittens (Ist off topic - sort of... we are on about losing licence for something not related to skill of driving to COAST - so not too far a drifter ) So - these persons get hit with whammy of tags, driving ban - because they cannot afford to hand over something which they have not negotiated nor even in line with their financial commitments.
That ist wrong. Wrong to point of "anarchic" or simple rebellious behaviour for some.
They already have the means to pay, it is because they simply choose not to that they get disqualified. How does affecting their job/ability to pay suddenly stop them paying when they already have the means to but choose not to ?
They've made their choice on that score already.
It's not designed that people who can't afford pay get disqualified, it's people who can afford to pay but simply refuse to.
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
Yes I'm aware of this trend in the punishment system, but it seems wrong to me that one can lose a driving licence for something that is not really a driving offence. IMHO it is hardly compatible with a decent justice system but we seem to be losing that anyhow, we have been for quite some time.
BTW hello Von - been on holiday?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
BTW hello Von - been on holiday?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Hello, a short break
All of the offences I mentioned were either connected with driving offences or the vehicle was used in committing the offence.
Oh welcome back Von, but was there not a case down south a few months ago whereby a chap got done for warning about a speed trap and he was not using his car at the time? He was merely standing at the road side with a notice or something. He lost his licence all the same IIRC.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Yes true.
He was convicted of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.
The duty being on that occasion dealing with speeding offences, so it was vehcile related.
I wonder what car you drive vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
Yes I'm aware of this trend in the punishment system, but it seems wrong to me that one can lose a driving licence for something that is not really a driving offence. IMHO it is hardly compatible with a decent justice system but we seem to be losing that anyhow, we have been for quite some time.
BTW hello Von - been on holiday?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
BTW hello Von - been on holiday?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Hello, a short break
All of the offences I mentioned were either connected with driving offences or the vehicle was used in committing the offence.
He has a placard with 30 mph - Slow Down written on it. As such he was being responsible und telling people to slow down - which ist what the prats claim they are doing
Oh welcome back Von, but was there not a case down south a few months ago whereby a chap got done for warning about a speed trap and he was not using his car at the time? He was merely standing at the road side with a notice or something. He lost his licence all the same IIRC.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Yes true.
He was convicted of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.
The duty being on that occasion dealing with speeding offences, so it was vehcile related.
He has placard with 30 mhp on it. He was doing what the prats should have done - simply telling people the limit und hoping they's slow it down a bit.
Edited by WildCat on Sunday 6th August 16:28
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
Yes I'm aware of this trend in the punishment system, but it seems wrong to me that one can lose a driving licence for something that is not really a driving offence. IMHO it is hardly compatible with a decent justice system but we seem to be losing that anyhow, we have been for quite some time.
BTW hello Von - been on holiday?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
BTW hello Von - been on holiday?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Hello, a short break
All of the offences I mentioned were either connected with driving offences or the vehicle was used in committing the offence.
Oh welcome back Von, but was there not a case down south a few months ago whereby a chap got done for warning about a speed trap and he was not using his car at the time? He was merely standing at the road side with a notice or something. He lost his licence all the same IIRC.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Yes true.
He was convicted of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.
The duty being on that occasion dealing with speeding offences, so it was vehcile related.
It had nothing to do with his use of a vehicle though, and therefore removing his licence was IMHO a quite inappropriate punishment. Mind you, I don't think he should have been punished at all for warning about an accident blackspot. He should have been commended.
You do appear to be working on the basis that the government can make whatever rules it likes, whether or not they are a reasonable response to a problem. Might is right, eh? Well no it isn't always right.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
Yes I'm aware of this trend in the punishment system, but it seems wrong to me that one can lose a driving licence for something that is not really a driving offence. IMHO it is hardly compatible with a decent justice system but we seem to be losing that anyhow, we have been for quite some time.
BTW hello Von - been on holiday?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
BTW hello Von - been on holiday?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Hello, a short break
All of the offences I mentioned were either connected with driving offences or the vehicle was used in committing the offence.
Oh welcome back Von, but was there not a case down south a few months ago whereby a chap got done for warning about a speed trap and he was not using his car at the time? He was merely standing at the road side with a notice or something. He lost his licence all the same IIRC.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Yes true.
He was convicted of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.
The duty being on that occasion dealing with speeding offences, so it was vehcile related.
It had nothing to do with his use of a vehicle though, and therefore removing his licence was IMHO a quite inappropriate punishment. Mind you, I don't think he should have been punished at all for warning about an accident blackspot. He should have been commended.
You do appear to be working on the basis that the government can make whatever rules it likes, whether or not they are a reasonable response to a problem. Might is right, eh? Well no it isn't always right.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
As we've already discussed it doesn't have to be in relation to *his* driving. This case nevertheless related to vehicle offences being commited & the mans part in the obstruction of justice being administered for those offences being commited. The court was of the opinion that the man wasn't warning of a collision hot spot, he was instead warning drivers so that they could change there behaviour short term in order to evade capture for an offence they were already commiting.
They can make such laws where they hold a sufficient majority & sway to get them through parliament. We can show our displeasure at the ballot box, which didn't happen in sufficient numbers at the last 3 elections did it ?
The problem with removing a driving license for non-payment of CSA money is that the CSA is full of I can only assume on drugs halfwits, who no doubt will randomly submit the wrong info. People who lose their cars can often lose their jobs, so they not only don't pay the CSA money, but they then claim benefits as well. The amount the CSA decides is "reasonable" can be utterly preposterous, and has led to suicides.
Plus, I utterly object to a punishment being levied which has nothing to do with the crime. I suppose once the CSA have revoked your license then you just drive without a license, and of course you also can't get insured. Still....
Plus, I utterly object to a punishment being levied which has nothing to do with the crime. I suppose once the CSA have revoked your license then you just drive without a license, and of course you also can't get insured. Still....
vonhosen said:
The premise is that the person has the means to pay but simply refuses. Whilst the state (we) pays for the keeping of his offspring, he spends his money on himself & his own pursuits.
You have made the assumption that the bloke can afford to pay the maintenance. A colleague of mine genuinely couldn’t afford to pay (the CSA had hit him really hard); he was working overtime to keep up, it was already affecting the lives of his girlfriend and her child. He seriously considered sticking two fingers up at the system by ‘somehow’ being made redundant (he had a very understanding manager). Disqualification would have sent him over the edge.
> net benefit to all involed: -ve.
vonhosen said:
Losing his licence to drive may encourage him to pay his maintenance as it is now adversely affecting him & his life.
Taking a step back, what about a situation of a kerb crawler (or someone warning of speed traps ahead
or whatever) who is already paying CSA whose income depends on being able to drive - what then? (just now noticed SSS’s post) Removal of a persons means (or tool) to make income is a really daft thing to do.
vonhosen said:
WildCat said:
As for CSA und its proposed replacement. I am totally against for following reasons:
1. Removing the privileged or rather earned right to drive a car by passing test und keeping relatively safe und compliant would really limit job prospects. He may be required to drive on company business from time to time. He may be suited to delivery drives for internet shopper vans or whatever, He cannot get freelance taxi work (if qualified for this) How can someone pay out if lack of driving licence prevent securing of well paid job out of town,, in business park miles out of town or if job require odd bit of driving.
2. Tagging - that implies "criminal" und what if job has shifts? Shiftss which are not in bus time tabled hours? Und he has this "curfew"?
3. Taking passport? What if job has element of business travel? Not everyone has passport just for jollies....
Ist ridiculous to do this und you that too lieber von if you are honest with yourself
One ist not saying man should not be responsible for what he sires und reaps the sows he seeds (und I am sure the pay on word will not be lost on lieber cymtriks
with whom I had argument on this subject as man ist just as responsible). But... there are - und we all know this - some out there who have the one night stands .. several one night stands und does not know which of these men ist Papa. She pick the one she think ist the "richest" - und he get lumbered as he cannot disprove without paternity test - which she refuses to allow child to have of course.
Ja - cymtriks - I know darned well that there are some nasty little pieces of work around - my argument with you was tarring us all the same und suggesting we should get sack for having kittens (Ist off topic - sort of... we are on about losing licence for something not related to skill of driving to COAST - so not too far a drifter ) So - these persons get hit with whammy of tags, driving ban - because they cannot afford to hand over something which they have not negotiated nor even in line with their financial commitments.
That ist wrong. Wrong to point of "anarchic" or simple rebellious behaviour for some.
They already have the means to pay, it is because they simply choose not to that they get disqualified. How does affecting their job/ability to pay suddenly stop them paying when they already have the means to but choose not to ?
They've made their choice on that score already.
If you remove their means of earning that money - defeat objective of getting the cash from them. There are other means. Normally it go via payroll und they deduct at source und pay over end of month to the agency concerned. They do not have to write out cheque themselves. Payroll clerks deal with this.
Man can give up job und go on benefit himself .. but even then up to this CSA to then liaise with the benefit office und take what could be afforded out of handouts. There are all kind of means open to secure that paternal responsibility.
But removing driving licence und potential job prospects ist not the way to collect monies due to ex-wife or girlfriend left holding the baby. Und the one night stand lad - he never 100% certain ist his - und she will not agree to test the child to establish for sure.
Of course - there are ways und means not to pro-create in first place
(Not that they worked for me.. had Lukas und Rachael unexpectedly - but I see them as a miracle bonus given what happened. I could never imagine life without them -- love all my kittens anyway.) Und am happily married to Mad Doc too.
vonhosen said:
It's not designed that people who can't afford pay get disqualified, it's people who can afford to pay but simply refuse to.
Unless self-employed - this go through a payroll department und they deduct at source. Some may change jobs or go on dole to get out of it - but that ist when they get stung with the arrears on top. Und when they demand half the earnings at that point.. that ist when it get very difficult for these men. Especially if no access rights either. So - whilst I say man should be responsible und pay for nights of hot passion und woman should not be left holding a baby with zero help from him - there still has to be modicum of reason applied.
Restricting job prospects und travel ist not this modicum of reason.
vonhosen said:
This case nevertheless related to vehicle offences being commited & the mans part in the obstruction of justice being administered for those offences being commited. The court was of the opinion that the man wasn't warning of a collision hot spot, he was instead warning drivers so that they could change there behaviour short term in order to evade capture for an offence they were already commiting.
And this sign does what exactly?
(I think I can guess what your next comment will be: 'RASCS')
vonhosen said:
They can make such laws where they hold a sufficient majority & sway to get them through parliament. We can show our displeasure at the ballot box, which didn't happen in sufficient numbers at the last 3 elections did it ?
The required ‘swing’ might be achieved if people were informed of and understood the hidden and manipulative strategies like RTTM.
jasandjules said:
The problem with removing a driving license for non-payment of CSA money is that the CSA is full of I can only assume on drugs halfwits, who no doubt will randomly submit the wrong info. People who lose their cars can often lose their jobs, so they not only don't pay the CSA money, but they then claim benefits as well. The amount the CSA decides is "reasonable" can be utterly preposterous, and has led to suicides.
Plus, I utterly object to a punishment being levied which has nothing to do with the crime. I suppose once the CSA have revoked your license then you just drive without a license, and of course you also can't get insured. Still....
Plus, I utterly object to a punishment being levied which has nothing to do with the crime. I suppose once the CSA have revoked your license then you just drive without a license, and of course you also can't get insured. Still....
The CSA can't impose a disqualification, the court does.
If you drive whilst disqualified then you'll receive the same fate awaits you as anyone else who does that.
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
This case nevertheless related to vehicle offences being commited & the mans part in the obstruction of justice being administered for those offences being commited. The court was of the opinion that the man wasn't warning of a collision hot spot, he was instead warning drivers so that they could change there behaviour short term in order to evade capture for an offence they were already commiting.
And this sign does what exactly?
(I think I can guess what your next comment will be: 'RASCS')
vonhosen said:
They can make such laws where they hold a sufficient majority & sway to get them through parliament. We can show our displeasure at the ballot box, which didn't happen in sufficient numbers at the last 3 elections did it ?
The required ‘swing’ might be achieved if people were informed of and understood the hidden and manipulative strategies like RTTM.
Signs warn you that you are in a camera enforcement area. The sign is not a specific warning of the individual site placement. It is a generic, not a specific warning, that is merely designed for you to obey the limit through the entire area. It is not designed or displayed just to change the behaviour on approach to the actual enforcement site (as it was adjudged the man in this cases' warning was intended to do).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff