From Todays Telegraph Motoring Section ...
Discussion
From Todays Telegraph Motoring ...
Reality vs perception
(Filed: 07/05/2005)
You don't need to drive a sports car to find yourself in trouble with the law, says Austin Williams
Drive a bright yellow sports car or a snazzy, high-performance motorbike and you'll undoubtedly get stares, but you shouldn't be pestered by the authorities, should you? Well, you (and a number of other categories of motorist) might be if the police use their latest powers to the utmost. In fact, based on the accusation of a single individual, you could find yourself as a defendant in court proving your innocence before a charge of anti-social driving.
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, unlike the Road Safety Bill (see Motoring, April 30), didn't fail the pre-election wash-up process and last month was given a rubber stamp, with a few House of Lords amendments and without the much-publicised offence of incitement to racial hatred.
Apart from setting up the FBI-style Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Act also gives the authorities powers to stop motorists and forcibly take their fingerprints using new portable technology being tested in Northamptonshire. Like that illiberal old 1990s saw, "If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear", here the counter-argument is that if you are against it, you are giving succour to terrorists. Indeed, as retinal scans are now commonplace at airports, who can object to a measly fingerprint?
But the question of who decides what activity is criminal was never addressed, and now we seem to have lost sight of that argument. Besides, civil liberties concerns are regularly brushed aside these days, especially in the transport sector, where motorists will swallow anything.
The Department for Transport boasts that Operation Laser demonstrated the value of automatic number-plate recognition. This technology, which has been funded from fixed-penalty revenue, "will enable officers in equipped vehicles to identify any vehicles of interest". So what, exactly, is a "vehicle of interest"?
Well, the Home Office, in its latest Roads Policing Strategy, talks of vehicles that are driven in an anti-social manner. Before you breathe a sigh of relief that this couldn't possibly mean you, it is worth noting that it ranges from undisciplined lane behaviour and verbal abuse to "generally threatening driving and riding". This new category of driving will attract police interest and extends the classification of errant behaviour beyond the standard list of dangerous, careless or erratic driving.
Have you ever sworn at a fellow knight of the road? Was this a stressed-out symptom of driving life, or latent, violent road rage? It won't necessarily be up to you to decide, given that criminal sanction arises from a perception of events, rather than the reality of the situation.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has just established a Road Policing Intelligence Forum, which notes that "bad driving, even where not leading to a collision, is threatening and intimidating to other drivers". It is sufficient that this threat is merely perceived by the self-proclaimed victim. The targeted individual will have to prove his or her innocence.
But given that ACPO states that "vulnerable and disadvantaged people particularly need proactive road policing", victims will have moral authority and superior believability. You'd hardly think, given the hype, that being a victim of crime is now less likely than at any time since the British Crime Survey began in 1981.
The Home Office document sees the overall objective as delivering "the target of 1.25 million offences brought to justice by 2007-08". But given that "bringing someone to justice" now includes cautions, penalty notices, TIC (supplementary offences taken into consideration), formal warnings and reprimands, the target culture of the police could see many erstwhile law-abiding citizens reported in the statistics. The new National Policing Plan states that when these once law-abiding motorists have been identified as perpetrators, "we must ensure that criminals are denied the use of our roads".
We can only imagine what this means. While we might nod when some chav is barred from driving, his licence revoked and his car crushed, we should be aware that the same state powers are waiting to be used on less obvious targets. Rights, as they used to say in the old days, are universal, which means that an assault on one person, however much we might not like that individual, is an assault on us all.
Recognising this, the authorities are clamouring to respect diversity and appear even-handed (the new policing plan has removed the reference to the Evangelical Alliance as one of the key stakeholders mentioned in the previous one). But more importantly, the police have adopted a more community-centred approach to criminality, which can only exacerbate the problem.
"Target setting," says the Home Office, "should ideally be a bottom-up process so that communities have local ownership of targets." This implies that locals can determine who should be targeted. If you've recently upset your neighbour, look out for police stopping you to inspect your tyre treads. If your leylandii are upsetting the local busybody, prepare for an early-morning breath test.
If you think all this is a bit of an over-reaction, you should be aware that, apart from animal-rights protesters, the only other cause worthy of direct mention in the 2005 policing plan is set out in clause 3.51, which states "Forces should prepare for the implementation of the Hunting Act". Sounds ominous? Not a bit of it. As they say, if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear...
• Austin Williams is chairman of the Transport Research Group.
E-mail Austin.Williams@construct.emap.com, or visit www.futurecities.org.uk.
Reality vs perception
(Filed: 07/05/2005)
You don't need to drive a sports car to find yourself in trouble with the law, says Austin Williams
Drive a bright yellow sports car or a snazzy, high-performance motorbike and you'll undoubtedly get stares, but you shouldn't be pestered by the authorities, should you? Well, you (and a number of other categories of motorist) might be if the police use their latest powers to the utmost. In fact, based on the accusation of a single individual, you could find yourself as a defendant in court proving your innocence before a charge of anti-social driving.
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, unlike the Road Safety Bill (see Motoring, April 30), didn't fail the pre-election wash-up process and last month was given a rubber stamp, with a few House of Lords amendments and without the much-publicised offence of incitement to racial hatred.
Apart from setting up the FBI-style Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Act also gives the authorities powers to stop motorists and forcibly take their fingerprints using new portable technology being tested in Northamptonshire. Like that illiberal old 1990s saw, "If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear", here the counter-argument is that if you are against it, you are giving succour to terrorists. Indeed, as retinal scans are now commonplace at airports, who can object to a measly fingerprint?
But the question of who decides what activity is criminal was never addressed, and now we seem to have lost sight of that argument. Besides, civil liberties concerns are regularly brushed aside these days, especially in the transport sector, where motorists will swallow anything.
The Department for Transport boasts that Operation Laser demonstrated the value of automatic number-plate recognition. This technology, which has been funded from fixed-penalty revenue, "will enable officers in equipped vehicles to identify any vehicles of interest". So what, exactly, is a "vehicle of interest"?
Well, the Home Office, in its latest Roads Policing Strategy, talks of vehicles that are driven in an anti-social manner. Before you breathe a sigh of relief that this couldn't possibly mean you, it is worth noting that it ranges from undisciplined lane behaviour and verbal abuse to "generally threatening driving and riding". This new category of driving will attract police interest and extends the classification of errant behaviour beyond the standard list of dangerous, careless or erratic driving.
Have you ever sworn at a fellow knight of the road? Was this a stressed-out symptom of driving life, or latent, violent road rage? It won't necessarily be up to you to decide, given that criminal sanction arises from a perception of events, rather than the reality of the situation.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has just established a Road Policing Intelligence Forum, which notes that "bad driving, even where not leading to a collision, is threatening and intimidating to other drivers". It is sufficient that this threat is merely perceived by the self-proclaimed victim. The targeted individual will have to prove his or her innocence.
But given that ACPO states that "vulnerable and disadvantaged people particularly need proactive road policing", victims will have moral authority and superior believability. You'd hardly think, given the hype, that being a victim of crime is now less likely than at any time since the British Crime Survey began in 1981.
The Home Office document sees the overall objective as delivering "the target of 1.25 million offences brought to justice by 2007-08". But given that "bringing someone to justice" now includes cautions, penalty notices, TIC (supplementary offences taken into consideration), formal warnings and reprimands, the target culture of the police could see many erstwhile law-abiding citizens reported in the statistics. The new National Policing Plan states that when these once law-abiding motorists have been identified as perpetrators, "we must ensure that criminals are denied the use of our roads".
We can only imagine what this means. While we might nod when some chav is barred from driving, his licence revoked and his car crushed, we should be aware that the same state powers are waiting to be used on less obvious targets. Rights, as they used to say in the old days, are universal, which means that an assault on one person, however much we might not like that individual, is an assault on us all.
Recognising this, the authorities are clamouring to respect diversity and appear even-handed (the new policing plan has removed the reference to the Evangelical Alliance as one of the key stakeholders mentioned in the previous one). But more importantly, the police have adopted a more community-centred approach to criminality, which can only exacerbate the problem.
"Target setting," says the Home Office, "should ideally be a bottom-up process so that communities have local ownership of targets." This implies that locals can determine who should be targeted. If you've recently upset your neighbour, look out for police stopping you to inspect your tyre treads. If your leylandii are upsetting the local busybody, prepare for an early-morning breath test.
If you think all this is a bit of an over-reaction, you should be aware that, apart from animal-rights protesters, the only other cause worthy of direct mention in the 2005 policing plan is set out in clause 3.51, which states "Forces should prepare for the implementation of the Hunting Act". Sounds ominous? Not a bit of it. As they say, if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear...
• Austin Williams is chairman of the Transport Research Group.
E-mail Austin.Williams@construct.emap.com, or visit www.futurecities.org.uk.
Unless enough people vote against socialist-style government, they'll get the government and the lowered quality of life they deserve (well the ones who vote for any control freakery thinking it won't affect them. The rest don't deserve it but they should make their objections known in any way they know and not sit back).
The Wiz said:
From Todays Telegraph Motoring ...
Reality vs perception
(Filed: 07/05/2005)
... Well, the Home Office, in its latest Roads Policing Strategy, talks of vehicles that are driven in an anti-social manner. Before you breathe a sigh of relief that this couldn't possibly mean you, it is worth noting that it ranges from undisciplined lane behaviour and verbal abuse to "generally threatening driving and riding". This new category of driving will attract police interest and extends the classification of errant behaviour beyond the standard list of dangerous, careless or erratic driving.....
"Will attract police interest," it says.
That's always assuming there are any Trafpol left out on the road, I suppose ...?
The Wiz said:
From Todays Telegraph Motoring ...
In fact, based on the accusation of a single individual, you could find yourself as a defendant in court proving your innocence before a charge of anti-social driving.
I just can't see this happening.
If a MOP is given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to give 'expert' evidence for the prosecution against another MOP in a driving case, then surely a MOP would have to be believed when it's his word against a cops too?
They are both obviously experts after all.
They can't have it both ways.....can they?
of course they can...silly me
Looks like the police need to "solve" more crimes.
Right now, they don't prevent it very well, and when it does happen, they generally fail to solve it. All looks bad statistically.
Now they are moving to "make up" crimes, and make everyday people criminals even more, because they won't be any trouble and have money for fines, have a house and a car, and a real address etc.
Much easier to solve these "made up" crimes. They catch 1000's more criminals, they manage to fine them and solve the cases against them, but actual crime doesn't drop or get solved, but the figures look great on paper for Bliar to spout out!
Fcuking wnakers pushing this law through. ASBO's are already used for non-intended purposes.
Is revving my engine to the redline to accelerate anti-social, even if I don't exceed the limit? Probably find myself being pulled over for it soon enough, even though there is no law against it.
Even not letting someone out at a junction might be seen as anti-social by that person, who is then an "expert" in court against the driver who didn't let them out??
If they seriously push this crap out, everyday people really will start to loose trust in the police more than they already do.
Feel sorry for police. They are resigned to doing bugger all for the people, and just end up working against the people. All the while the real crims run around having fun.
Dave
Right now, they don't prevent it very well, and when it does happen, they generally fail to solve it. All looks bad statistically.
Now they are moving to "make up" crimes, and make everyday people criminals even more, because they won't be any trouble and have money for fines, have a house and a car, and a real address etc.
Much easier to solve these "made up" crimes. They catch 1000's more criminals, they manage to fine them and solve the cases against them, but actual crime doesn't drop or get solved, but the figures look great on paper for Bliar to spout out!
Fcuking wnakers pushing this law through. ASBO's are already used for non-intended purposes.
Is revving my engine to the redline to accelerate anti-social, even if I don't exceed the limit? Probably find myself being pulled over for it soon enough, even though there is no law against it.
Even not letting someone out at a junction might be seen as anti-social by that person, who is then an "expert" in court against the driver who didn't let them out??
If they seriously push this crap out, everyday people really will start to loose trust in the police more than they already do.
Feel sorry for police. They are resigned to doing bugger all for the people, and just end up working against the people. All the while the real crims run around having fun.
Dave
Ist what Stalin und Honecker did.
Ist technology being used for sake of it - und to dictate.
But Bliar's popularity ist waning.... the vultures want his job. But we like them even less than Bliar really.
But this will be his death knell. East Germans were pushed too far - und Wall crumbled.
We are being pushed too far und there will be eruption before long - as human beings will not wish to become prisoners of technological gimmicks und will rebel - und we no longer believe the lies of phoney wars und nightmare politics - which seek to make each of us a terrorist threat until proven otherwise..
Technological gimmick will not catch a crook. Bobby's nose und human instinct recognises far faster.
Real police making real value and human judgements - based on human logic. Machine ist only as programmed und cannot discern subtlest hints - which lead to baddy actually being detected.
These idiots - never developed the one brain cell they were born with
Ist technology being used for sake of it - und to dictate.
But Bliar's popularity ist waning.... the vultures want his job. But we like them even less than Bliar really.
But this will be his death knell. East Germans were pushed too far - und Wall crumbled.
We are being pushed too far und there will be eruption before long - as human beings will not wish to become prisoners of technological gimmicks und will rebel - und we no longer believe the lies of phoney wars und nightmare politics - which seek to make each of us a terrorist threat until proven otherwise..
Technological gimmick will not catch a crook. Bobby's nose und human instinct recognises far faster.
Real police making real value and human judgements - based on human logic. Machine ist only as programmed und cannot discern subtlest hints - which lead to baddy actually being detected.
These idiots - never developed the one brain cell they were born with
This goes on everywhere. My local paper this AM has a story about a Dispersal Order in Mattishall ; a quiet village in central Norfolk. This allows the Police to disperse groups of 2+ people who might cause alarm to someone.
Personally I think it's utterly pointless and scary.
We are going towards a society where you can petition for ASBOs and the person may not even know it's been taken out, and where the judiciary can invent crimes to suit itself on hearsay or because "someone might feel harrassed".
All this backed up by a CYA only mentality in the "Police Service" and a focus purely on meeting political targets.
The chance to abuse this kind of junk is obvious and the cops have a lousy record in reclassifying things when it suits them or they are under pressure to do sob ; for example Greenpeace / Prescott
Meanwhile, needless to say, there is an ongoing battle in parts of Norwich to get the Police to take any notice of anything at all.
(Also, the local Police are wasting £150k on a system to text alerts to all the Neighbourhood Watch people's mobiles (seriously). Quite *why* it costs this I do not know !).
Personally I think it's utterly pointless and scary.
We are going towards a society where you can petition for ASBOs and the person may not even know it's been taken out, and where the judiciary can invent crimes to suit itself on hearsay or because "someone might feel harrassed".
All this backed up by a CYA only mentality in the "Police Service" and a focus purely on meeting political targets.
The chance to abuse this kind of junk is obvious and the cops have a lousy record in reclassifying things when it suits them or they are under pressure to do sob ; for example Greenpeace / Prescott
Meanwhile, needless to say, there is an ongoing battle in parts of Norwich to get the Police to take any notice of anything at all.
(Also, the local Police are wasting £150k on a system to text alerts to all the Neighbourhood Watch people's mobiles (seriously). Quite *why* it costs this I do not know !).
Mr Whippy said:
Looks like the police need to "solve" more crimes.
Right now, they don't prevent it very well, and when it does happen, they generally fail to solve it. All looks bad statistically.
Now they are moving to "make up" crimes, and make everyday people criminals even more, because they won't be any trouble and have money for fines, have a house and a car, and a real address etc.
Much easier to solve these "made up" crimes. They catch 1000's more criminals, they manage to fine them and solve the cases against them, but actual crime doesn't drop or get solved, but the figures look great on paper for Bliar to spout out!
Fcuking wnakers pushing this law through. ASBO's are already used for non-intended purposes.
Is revving my engine to the redline to accelerate anti-social, even if I don't exceed the limit? Probably find myself being pulled over for it soon enough, even though there is no law against it.
Even not letting someone out at a junction might be seen as anti-social by that person, who is then an "expert" in court against the driver who didn't let them out??
If they seriously push this crap out, everyday people really will start to loose trust in the police more than they already do.
Feel sorry for police. They are resigned to doing bugger all for the people, and just end up working against the people. All the while the real crims run around having fun.
Dave
Agree 100%.
Feel sorry for the decent BiB who would rather catch one serious criminal than fifty people doing 35 in a 30 (obviously not in Thames Valley).
Sad thing is now we've got more of fzcking Bliar, not only will this get *worse* the money will run out : starting about now.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff