Here’s a new industry for those who defend
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg9px4q0y6o
I wonder if an exceptional hardship argument will be wrongly applied to these cases.
I wonder if an exceptional hardship argument will be wrongly applied to these cases.
Zetec-S said:
Pure speculation on my part, but I would expect a significant overlap between benefits cheats and people driving without a valid licence/insurance anyway...
When I started as a police officer, I mentioned I found it difficult to work out what cars/people to stop for a check. An experienced PC told me those who commit one offence are significantly more likely to commit another. If I saw a car without a tax disc, or faulty light, and, oddly, merely dirty, I'd give it a pull. I was never the best thief taker on the streets, and I merely strove to be adequate, but I got loads of process, and lots of arrests by following that suggestion. One that falls outside this bit of stereotyping is two-up motorcycles. I always, stopped them, but always got offences and almost as often, prisoners.
My understanding is that they have already had relatively high success on combatting benefits fraud.
Followed by spending loads and loads of money to fight it further, moving from detecting intentional fraud to spending 3-4x as much to find people who messed up applications (where fraud could be stopped more easily by simplifying the system, or providing services to help with applications - but they don't want to do that, as the 'fraudsters' in question are claiming X by mistake, while not claiming Y and Z (more than X...)).
If budget is the issue there is a strong argument that tax evasion is a much bigger issue than benefits fraud (and arguably closing loopholes for tax avoidance). Of course that would affect the wealthy/politically connected...
WRT driving bans, given it seems extraordinarily difficult to ban someone for threats + minor violence during road rage (got out of car, so 'not a driving issue'... Note that the law does allow driving bans/points for offences like this) do we really think courts will ban people for offences with absolutely no connection to driving...
Followed by spending loads and loads of money to fight it further, moving from detecting intentional fraud to spending 3-4x as much to find people who messed up applications (where fraud could be stopped more easily by simplifying the system, or providing services to help with applications - but they don't want to do that, as the 'fraudsters' in question are claiming X by mistake, while not claiming Y and Z (more than X...)).
If budget is the issue there is a strong argument that tax evasion is a much bigger issue than benefits fraud (and arguably closing loopholes for tax avoidance). Of course that would affect the wealthy/politically connected...
WRT driving bans, given it seems extraordinarily difficult to ban someone for threats + minor violence during road rage (got out of car, so 'not a driving issue'... Note that the law does allow driving bans/points for offences like this) do we really think courts will ban people for offences with absolutely no connection to driving...
papa3 said:
Derek Smith said:
One that falls outside this bit of stereotyping is two-up motorcycles. I always, stopped them, but always got offences and almost as often, prisoners.
Presumably you mean scrotes 2 up rather than a Goldwing with a combined passenger age of 120+....I was on holiday in the Peak District with my family and needed some medicine on a Sunday. I asked next door and was told there was a pharmacy in Matlock, but to be careful, as motorcycle gangs 'hang about' in the area. As the medicine was for my daughter, I bravely ventured forth, and spent the waiting time for the preparation examining the lovely bikes and talking to the middle-aged riders, all of whom could afford these bikes costing a lot more than my car. Mind you, that went for their leathers as well. A very pleasant bunch.
I'd have stopped them, if only for a chat.
ChevronB19 said:
I find it difficult to understand, as it would seem to be an additional punishment for someone who has a driving licence over and above that for those who don’t. Law is meant to apply equally to all (and yes, I know in reality it doesn’t).
That's my take on it. It feels a bit like inventing new ways to make life crap for the law abiding whilst ignoring people who are harder to deal with.Super Sonic said:
I wonder what other non motoring offences they will be disqualifying people for next.
It always comes up as a possibility whenever anyone on PH lets slip that they go to the pub on a bicycle. It (driving ban) has never happened as far as I know for at least two good reasons:1. There seems no reason why someone should be punished more simply because they have a driving licence.
2. It would lead to more drinking and driving, on the basis that a relatively less irresponsible option had been made considerably less attractive.
I would think both of these arguments are relevant to these proposals, 1. Is the same, 2. Would raise the probability that those affected would just continue to drive without a licence and head further to the ‘dark side’.
If you take away the licence of a benefit fraudster they'll probably ignore it and carry on driving. When or if they're caught driving without a licence, if those programmes like 'Police Cops Action!' are anything to go by, they'll get a small fine.
The law works best against people who don't want to be fined or go to jail. That's you and me. If you have no money and don't mind a spell inside, you can do what you like it seems.
The law works best against people who don't want to be fined or go to jail. That's you and me. If you have no money and don't mind a spell inside, you can do what you like it seems.
I tend to peruse the local court reports in local papers, and it is very common to see people with no licence or especially no insurance, so I doubt this really touches the sides, be better off spending more money dedicating staff to more rigorously investigate benefits cheats than waste time on this.
There must be a whole group of these debtors/offenders for whom removal of driving license would be really stupid, ie those who are driving for work. Deliveries etc.
You can't encourage repayment of debts by making work harder .
I guess courts would have the sense not to remove licences in these cases.
What I find hard to understand is how this penalty would be effective on people who already ignore fines and don't care about prison.
You can't encourage repayment of debts by making work harder .
I guess courts would have the sense not to remove licences in these cases.
What I find hard to understand is how this penalty would be effective on people who already ignore fines and don't care about prison.
Derek Smith said:
If I saw a car without a tax disc, or faulty light, and, oddly, merely dirty, I'd give it a pull.
Hope that last bit is hyperbole! Can I ask why you'd be pulling over two up on a bike; not sure police officers should be pulling over anyone going about their daily business unless you can see an offence is being committed? Genuine question, I'm intrigued whether this was/is standard practice.mikeyr said:
Derek Smith said:
If I saw a car without a tax disc, or faulty light, and, oddly, merely dirty, I'd give it a pull.
Hope that last bit is hyperbole! Can I ask why you'd be pulling over two up on a bike; not sure police officers should be pulling over anyone going about their daily business unless you can see an offence is being committed? Genuine question, I'm intrigued whether this was/is standard practice.In practice life is too short for actual random stops. If past experience has found that a decent percentage of (for example) motorbike riders in one part of town are not legal then the legal riders may find they are getting stopped as well.
Often just a hunch. Last time I was stopped by the police it was 3am. I had passed a police car sitting in a garage forecourt then at the next junction turned off the main road I was on. He thought perhaps I had turned off to avoid him and followed me and stopped me.
Perfectly polite. Asked where I was going (home) and queried my indirect route. I told him it was faster as it avoided 3 sets of lights. Asked where I had been visiting my mum in hospital - and I was on my way in 2 minutes.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
Edited by irc on Friday 24th January 11:39
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff