Police impound speeders cars
Discussion
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,15149-1742065,00.html
This really is a new low; IIRC there was a discussion on here a while back when the law was going to go through; now they are seizing cars without, it would seem, the owner being charged or convicted of anything in a court of law. Just when you think this country cannot sink any lower, something like this always comes along. :mad::furious:
This really is a new low; IIRC there was a discussion on here a while back when the law was going to go through; now they are seizing cars without, it would seem, the owner being charged or convicted of anything in a court of law. Just when you think this country cannot sink any lower, something like this always comes along. :mad::furious:
Eeek!
And who says your driving anti-socially? A supposed "trusted" memeber of the public who thinks your revving too hard?
I seriously hope that it's only police that can make the distinction for the anti-social behaviour cause for impounding your car.
And lets just hope that Plod in that position use PROPER discretion, not just being arrogant fooks after some more money $$$
Dave
And who says your driving anti-socially? A supposed "trusted" memeber of the public who thinks your revving too hard?
I seriously hope that it's only police that can make the distinction for the anti-social behaviour cause for impounding your car.
And lets just hope that Plod in that position use PROPER discretion, not just being arrogant fooks after some more money $$$
Dave
Surely this section is ridculous;
"Under section 59, drivers are warned for a first offence, but if the car is caught again within a year, regardless of who is at the wheel, it can be seized."
So is it the car that's breaking the law then or the Driver? if so, why not give the points to the car
Reading this you could be driving your new car, that someone else got caught in before you bought it and get it confiscated, and what about Hire Cars?
Perhaps there's not enough 'crime' for the Police to deal with nowadays?
"Under section 59, drivers are warned for a first offence, but if the car is caught again within a year, regardless of who is at the wheel, it can be seized."
So is it the car that's breaking the law then or the Driver? if so, why not give the points to the car
Reading this you could be driving your new car, that someone else got caught in before you bought it and get it confiscated, and what about Hire Cars?
Perhaps there's not enough 'crime' for the Police to deal with nowadays?
catso said:
Surely this section is ridculous;
"Under section 59, drivers are warned for a first offence, but if the car is caught again within a year, regardless of who is at the wheel, it can be seized."
So is it the car that's breaking the law then or the Driver? if so, why not give the points to the car
This gets around the problem of drivers saying it was not them driving.
It is not designed for speeders, but yoblets on scramble bikes, mini-motos and chavs in Corsas doing burnouts etc... in the local B&Q carpark.
It is the PERSON not the car that receives a warning. You cannot warn a car. It will be quite good at ridding roads of the chavs and their uninsured cars, which are driven dangerously. In my force the fee for getting the car back is circa £110 plus daily storage.
Trust me, this is A GOOD THING. I'd be utterly gobsmacked if any PHer had their car seized under this legislation.
It is the PERSON not the car that receives a warning. You cannot warn a car. It will be quite good at ridding roads of the chavs and their uninsured cars, which are driven dangerously. In my force the fee for getting the car back is circa £110 plus daily storage.
Trust me, this is A GOOD THING. I'd be utterly gobsmacked if any PHer had their car seized under this legislation.
xxplod said:
It is not designed for speeders, but yoblets on scramble bikes, mini-motos and chavs in Corsas doing burnouts etc... in the local B&Q carpark.
It is the PERSON not the car that receives a warning. You cannot warn a car. It will be quite good at ridding roads of the chavs and their uninsured cars, which are driven dangerously. In my force the fee for getting the car back is circa £110 plus daily storage.
Trust me, this is A GOOD THING. I'd be utterly gobsmacked if any PHer had their car seized under this legislation.
xxplod, we'd love to believe you on this, but check that Times article again:
times said:
Speeding drivers now risk having their cars impounded. Police forces around the country are turning to a little-known law that allows them to seize vehicles being driven “anti-socially” — causing alarm, distress or harassment. That includes excessive speeding and racing. Owners are charged £105 to get their vehicle back. If they don’t pay, it can be crushed after 21 days.
Police in Lincolnshire earlier this month seized a Citroën Saxo belonging to a driver who had done 50mph in a 30mph zone. They used powers under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, the first time they have used the powers in this way since they came into effect in 2003.
OK so it may have been a chav this time but note that the "police... are turning to a little-known law... includes speeding". I'm not advocating speeding in built-up areas, but how long until the police see yet another way to make money out of speeders and impound the cars of all drivers with 6 points (ie. 2nd offence, as described?). Laws -- especially bad laws -- are used in ways not envisaged by lawmakers. This could well be one of those situations.
xxplod said:
It is not designed for speeders, but yoblets on scramble bikes, mini-motos and chavs in Corsas doing burnouts etc... in the local B&Q carpark.
It is the PERSON not the car that receives a warning. You cannot warn a car. It will be quite good at ridding roads of the chavs and their uninsured cars, which are driven dangerously. In my force the fee for getting the car back is circa £110 plus daily storage.
Trust me, this is A GOOD THING. I'd be utterly gobsmacked if any PHer had their car seized under this legislation.
Excellent, someone daring to say it might be a good idea (admittedly a rozzer!!!). I drive as hard and fast as anyone, but I ain't worried, 'cos I ain't no brain dead chav, burning up the local estate. Honestly, do you really think that the BiB would rather pick on you speeding (assuming you ain't doing 90mph every day in the same spot) than pick on the brainless drugged up un-insured wastes of space that can only string 2 words together if they are "F**K You".
By the way, I aprreciate the innocent until proven guilty, but this law (and principle) has been around a while. For example, the Peelers have been allowed to confiscate poachers equipment when "caught in the act". I didn't hear anyone shouting about that. Well, only the poachers.
So, xxplod, get out there and nick 'em, confiscate their car, some of us support ya!
Big Fat F'er said:
It is not designed for speeders, but yoblets on scramble bikes, mini-motos and chavs in Corsas doing burnouts etc... in the local B&Q carpark.
It is the PERSON not the car that receives a warning. You cannot warn a car. It will be quite good at ridding roads of the chavs and their uninsured cars, which are driven dangerously. In my force the fee for getting the car back is circa £110 plus daily storage.
Trust me, this is A GOOD THING. I'd be utterly gobsmacked if any PHer had their car seized under this legislation.
Excellent, someone daring to say it might be a good idea (admittedly a rozzer!!!). I drive as hard and fast as anyone, but I ain't worried, 'cos I ain't no brain dead chav, burning up the local estate. Honestly, do you really think that the BiB would rather pick on you speeding (assuming you ain't doing 90mph every day in the same spot) than pick on the brainless drugged up un-insured wastes of space that can only string 2 words together if they are "F**K You".
Yes. It all helps the statistics. Why bother chasing real criminals when you can harrass effectively innocent people.
Big Fat F'er said:
By the way, I aprreciate the innocent until proven guilty, but
There is no "but". Anyone who says "I believe in 'x' but" doesn't believe in it at all.
Big Fat F'er said:
It is not designed for speeders, but yoblets on scramble bikes, mini-motos and chavs in Corsas doing burnouts etc... in the local B&Q carpark.
It is the PERSON not the car that receives a warning. You cannot warn a car. It will be quite good at ridding roads of the chavs and their uninsured cars, which are driven dangerously. In my force the fee for getting the car back is circa £110 plus daily storage.
Trust me, this is A GOOD THING. I'd be utterly gobsmacked if any PHer had their car seized under this legislation.
Excellent, someone daring to say it might be a good idea (admittedly a rozzer!!!). I drive as hard and fast as anyone, but I ain't worried, 'cos I ain't no brain dead chav, burning up the local estate. Honestly, do you really think that the BiB would rather pick on you speeding (assuming you ain't doing 90mph every day in the same spot) than pick on the brainless drugged up un-insured wastes of space that can only string 2 words together if they are "F**K You".
By the way, I aprreciate the innocent until proven guilty, but this law (and principle) has been around a while. For example, the Peelers have been allowed to confiscate poachers equipment when "caught in the act". I didn't hear anyone shouting about that. Well, only the poachers.
So, xxplod, get out there and nick 'em, confiscate their car, some of us support ya!
Ist problem .. ist few BiB on road anyway to do this.....
Ist also problem if you get the rogue jobsworthy BiB who ist disgrace to the uniform he wear too.. und some are sadly slipping recruitment net - nicht? Only take one to ruin reputation of all - nicht?
Ist question of professional judgement und some sadly lack this skill.
If person ist stopped und found to be drunk, without licence, drunk/drugges, in stolen car, in throwaway pool car...ist reasonable to take the car. If routine pull for OTT speeding in built up area - ist verbal NOIP or whatever... if education required - then the lecture und end of matter ...
But some may abuse power as Sergeant Cashman und the pensioner lasty year
where he was banned under this provision for reminding drivers to drive at 30 mph - which ist exactly what the prats say they intend .. Think that episode alone proved the real intent.. Ist still unbelievable 12 month on from incident....madasafish said:
The Sergeant Cashman case is not new. 40 years ago people were being fined for the same offences..:-)
>> Edited by madasafish on Tuesday 23 August 15:29
But they did not get a driving ban or an ASBO.. und ist also case where court refused to give ASBO to arsonist (she set fire at random to cars in Merseyside) . Apparently banning her from having lighter und matches violated her human right as she smoked fag.
I do not think people in UK were being fined for warning of speed trap like this ....it was not case of hiding talivan or behind bush mit hairy dryer in those days. Police followed the person for three quarter mile or so....as they did not have these long distance digital doody-dahs. Und if anyone flashed that police were larking about down side street up the road... they would not have been any wiser given technology of those days.
It was wrong to ban the bloke from driving for telling drivers to slow down in 30 mph zone. Ist whole point of scamerati per their own words on their own websites at which they try to justify their dubious existence.. nicht>
Or are you Steviebabes under a new name
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff