Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf
Discussion
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
Nice theory, but the attitude the State is promoting with regard to speeding deserves plenty of contempt.
You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, you can fight against it. Lawfully that is.LetsTryAgain said:
roachcoach said:
That being said (as I've already posted) with stuff like this, you're going to have the proverbial book, desk, chair and anything else to hand flung at you and the fool has no-one to blame but himself.
It's a bit like punching the queen and expecting to have the same punishment as punching Bob down the pub - that's not how it works in this country and you don't have to like it but that is the reality.
You're right there.It's a bit like punching the queen and expecting to have the same punishment as punching Bob down the pub - that's not how it works in this country and you don't have to like it but that is the reality.
Or that imbecile Prescott punching someone for having an egg thrown at him.
JNW1 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
JNW1 said:
Now I know the response will be "ah, but seeking to avoid the speeding conviction was PCOJ and that's very serious don't you know" but, in all honestly, a large proportion of the public would say that's nonsense in a situation like this and that you ought to view it in the context of the original offence.
So if I get prosecuted for dropping a bit of litter and a witness is asked to appear for the prosecution it’s OK if I send my mates round to threaten to burn their house down unless they withdraw? After all, the “original offence” is minor isn’t it?However, to come back to our original subject, perhaps a different way of looking at it is what course of justice was actually being perverted; if justice had taken its proper course would it have mattered or would it have been of little or no consequence either way? I'd say the latter in which case I don't see a prison sentence was a proportionate response.
How about flytipping - that OK too?
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
Nice theory, but the attitude the State is promoting with regard to speeding deserves plenty of contempt.
You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, you can fight against it. Lawfully that is.Homosexuality used to be illegal, isn't now.
Roman Rhodes said:
JNW1 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
JNW1 said:
Now I know the response will be "ah, but seeking to avoid the speeding conviction was PCOJ and that's very serious don't you know" but, in all honestly, a large proportion of the public would say that's nonsense in a situation like this and that you ought to view it in the context of the original offence.
So if I get prosecuted for dropping a bit of litter and a witness is asked to appear for the prosecution it’s OK if I send my mates round to threaten to burn their house down unless they withdraw? After all, the “original offence” is minor isn’t it?However, to come back to our original subject, perhaps a different way of looking at it is what course of justice was actually being perverted; if justice had taken its proper course would it have mattered or would it have been of little or no consequence either way? I'd say the latter in which case I don't see a prison sentence was a proportionate response.
How about flytipping - that OK too?
And no flytipping isn't ok - on the whole it's far more annoying than speeding IMO but sadly the authorities seem far less keen to do anything about it....
Edited by JNW1 on Wednesday 25th April 22:49
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
Nice theory, but the attitude the State is promoting with regard to speeding deserves plenty of contempt.
You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, you can fight against it. Lawfully that is.Homosexuality used to be illegal, isn't now.
Schmed said:
Lot of questions for one evening, Vonhosen. “Tell me your plans: Actions, change, timescales” all sound to me like the language of the police state... Hypothetically if something was in the pipeline do you really think the specifics would be announced on a public forum?
Yes, it'd be some mass undetected organised rebellion 
LetsTryAgain said:
roachcoach said:
That being said (as I've already posted) with stuff like this, you're going to have the proverbial book, desk, chair and anything else to hand flung at you and the fool has no-one to blame but himself.
It's a bit like punching the queen and expecting to have the same punishment as punching Bob down the pub - that's not how it works in this country and you don't have to like it but that is the reality.
You're right there.It's a bit like punching the queen and expecting to have the same punishment as punching Bob down the pub - that's not how it works in this country and you don't have to like it but that is the reality.
Or that imbecile Prescott punching someone for having an egg thrown at him.
cmaguire said:
Politics on that one, not this one though.
Because the reality is most people don't care. They use vehicles to get from A to B for social and economic reasons. They aren't interested in 'making progress' / petrol head things, or what may or not be the most appropriate speed for the circumstances. La Liga said:
Schmed said:
Lot of questions for one evening, Vonhosen. “Tell me your plans: Actions, change, timescales” all sound to me like the language of the police state... Hypothetically if something was in the pipeline do you really think the specifics would be announced on a public forum?
Yes, it'd be some mass undetected organised rebellion LetsTryAgain said:
roachcoach said:
That being said (as I've already posted) with stuff like this, you're going to have the proverbial book, desk, chair and anything else to hand flung at you and the fool has no-one to blame but himself.
It's a bit like punching the queen and expecting to have the same punishment as punching Bob down the pub - that's not how it works in this country and you don't have to like it but that is the reality.
You're right there.It's a bit like punching the queen and expecting to have the same punishment as punching Bob down the pub - that's not how it works in this country and you don't have to like it but that is the reality.
Or that imbecile Prescott punching someone for having an egg thrown at him.
cmaguire said:
Politics on that one, not this one though.
Because the reality is most people don't care. They use vehicles to get from A to B for social and economic reasons. They aren't interested in 'making progress' / petrol head things, or what may or not be the most appropriate speed for the circumstances. La Liga said:
ecause the reality is most people don't care. They use vehicles to get from A to B for social and economic reasons. They aren't interested in 'making progress' / petrol head things, or what may or not be the most appropriate speed for the circumstances.
You'll get no argument from me on that, it is exactly why the authorities get away with peddling the crap they do about how bad speed is. Because most people don't care enough to object, or are not affected anyway.Silence doesn't indicate approval however, contrary to what the authorities would have us believe.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
Nice theory, but the attitude the State is promoting with regard to speeding deserves plenty of contempt.
You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, you can fight against it. Lawfully that is.Homosexuality used to be illegal, isn't now.
The same can happen with speeding if there is social will to force the political change.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
The political view changed as a result of social change.
The same can happen with speeding if there is social will to force the political change.
Morality and enlightenment are all the rage in modern society.The same can happen with speeding if there is social will to force the political change.
We both know this subject will never be in the frame.
Of course that could change, but I don't see evidence to support it doing so.
cmaguire said:
Silence doesn't indicate approval however, contrary to what the authorities would have us believe.
Absolutely right! I've seen the line pedalled several times on different threads to the effect "people have a say at the ballot box, if you don't like the way things are with the implementation of speed limits vote for someone who will change it". However, the reality is come a general (or even local) election people are voting on a range of issues and, with the best will in the world, speeding will be way down the priority list unless and until either speed limits are reduced even further and/or the punishment for transgression becomes more severe. The only way you'd find out people's views on the specific issue of speeding would be to have some sort of referendum on the subject and that simply isn't going to happen. However, those who believe that an absence of mass protest against speed limit enforcement is indicative of a majority being in agreement with what's happening are misguided in my view; IMO all it shows is that people have other things to think about which they consider more important.
JNW1 said:
cmaguire said:
Silence doesn't indicate approval however, contrary to what the authorities would have us believe.
Absolutely right! I've seen the line pedalled several times on different threads to the effect "people have a say at the ballot box, if you don't like the way things are with the implementation of speed limits vote for someone who will change it". However, the reality is come a general (or even local) election people are voting on a range of issues and, with the best will in the world, speeding will be way down the priority list unless and until either speed limits are reduced even further and/or the punishment for transgression becomes more severe. The only way you'd find out people's views on the specific issue of speeding would be to have some sort of referendum on the subject and that simply isn't going to happen. However, those who believe that an absence of mass protest against speed limit enforcement is indicative of a majority being in agreement with what's happening are misguided in my view; IMO all it shows is that people have other things to think about which they consider more important.
I see pressure groups campaigning on transport issues, but I don't see pressure groups promoting the changes for higher speed limits. Your opponents appear better organised, more passionate & committed. Pro higher limits etc are very fringe one man bands lost in background noise.
It's alright saying you need a referendum but you are only going to get them on massive issues & if you remain silent (as I've pointed out above) they definitely aren't going to be having referendums. Even then I can't (or don't think) speed limits is referendum potential. You need a hell of a lot of visible support & sustained pressure for a referendum.
PixelpeepS3 said:
the sting in the tail for me is the law that states the police can't ask you to do anything that could incriminate yourself, except ask you who was driving and then punish you with a more harsh a penalty than the offence if you DON'T answer...?!
Because driving is a licenced activity. Everybody isn't free to do it.The Highest (European) Courts have ruled on it.
Sec 172 is not an admission of guilt & is a proportionate requirement within the licenced activity.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff