Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf
Discussion
La Liga said:
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
Anyway, PtCoJ, isn't that what Police Officers do every time they break the speed limit (not in the course of their duty) and don't report themselves??
Where is the perverting?Greendubber said:
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
Anyway, PtCoJ, isn't that what Police Officers do every time they break the speed limit (not in the course of their duty) and don't report themselves??
Where is the perverting?
Cat said:
The Selfish Gene said:
I believe it makes it 'trivial' because it shows the law up for being incorrect, or outdated.
i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
According to the lunchtime news today a large percentage of people, particularly young people, in some areas are ignoring the rules on carrying offensive weapons. So by your logic carrying offensive weapons is trivial or prohibiting possession is out of date?i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
Cat
jm doc said:
La Liga said:
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
Anyway, PtCoJ, isn't that what Police Officers do every time they break the speed limit (not in the course of their duty) and don't report themselves??
Where is the perverting?The Selfish Gene said:
TooMany2cvs said:
The Selfish Gene said:
Simply though - I'd reduce the number of road users and increase the standard of driving for those that are left.
I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
Ummm... <scratches head>I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
It already is a privilege not a right... It has been for, well, ever since driving licences started to be issued and could be withdrawn.
k wit can get qualified for a few hundred quid.I'm talking about 15/20k worth of training and an IQ level higher than a vegetable.
kwit” isn’t issuing traffic regulations.The Selfish Gene said:
TooMany2cvs said:
The Selfish Gene said:
Simply though - I'd reduce the number of road users and increase the standard of driving for those that are left.
I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
Ummm... <scratches head>I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
It already is a privilege not a right... It has been for, well, ever since driving licences started to be issued and could be withdrawn.
k wit can get qualified for a few hundred quid.I'm talking about 15/20k worth of training and an IQ level higher than a vegetable.
Roman Rhodes said:
jm doc said:
La Liga said:
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
Anyway, PtCoJ, isn't that what Police Officers do every time they break the speed limit (not in the course of their duty) and don't report themselves??
Where is the perverting?Roman Rhodes said:
I was just making a simple point:
Some are arguing that a PCoJ charge was inappropriate because speeding is a trivial matter. I asked whether they should just be let off and whether the same would apply to someone who had been flytipping. Flytipping doesn't kill people, speeding can kill people - so flytipping, by that measure, must be even more trivial than speeding. Your belief that nobody is killed by speeding is risible. By your logic, the woman in this case http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/25/young-woman-died-car... just needed to be a better driver so that she could get the car round the bend at 69mph? It doesn't matter whether someone is charged with dangerous driving, reckless driving or whatever if the cause of the accident is excessive speed. Therefore your response to my exaggerated example "how on earth could driving past a school at 100mph when children are being escorted across the road ever be considered "just" speeding?" is irrelevant (apart from the fact that no-one said it anyway).
Why do you think we have speed limits?
In terms of the PCOJ aspect, I think there's a question as to whether it's an appropriate use of that particular charge to pursue what was in the first instance a trivial offence. I think in these speeding cases it's being used to make a point but that's probably no great surprise given the investment North Yorkshire have made in their camera fleet. Some are arguing that a PCoJ charge was inappropriate because speeding is a trivial matter. I asked whether they should just be let off and whether the same would apply to someone who had been flytipping. Flytipping doesn't kill people, speeding can kill people - so flytipping, by that measure, must be even more trivial than speeding. Your belief that nobody is killed by speeding is risible. By your logic, the woman in this case http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/25/young-woman-died-car... just needed to be a better driver so that she could get the car round the bend at 69mph? It doesn't matter whether someone is charged with dangerous driving, reckless driving or whatever if the cause of the accident is excessive speed. Therefore your response to my exaggerated example "how on earth could driving past a school at 100mph when children are being escorted across the road ever be considered "just" speeding?" is irrelevant (apart from the fact that no-one said it anyway).
Why do you think we have speed limits?
However, even accepting it's an appropriate use of the charge - and in fairness the police and the judiciary obviously think it is - my question on whether the resultant sentence was proportionate still remains. Is adding criminals like this to our over-crowded prison population really a sensible response when we know people who present more of a threat to people and/or property often get away with non-custodial sentences? Can't see it personally, surely community service, a hefty fine and more points on the licence would have been more appropriate?
As for my belief that nobody is killed by speeding, we'll have to agree to disagree on that I'm afraid. In terms of the example you quote, that's actually a perfect illustration of how poor judgement causes accidents and - sadly in this case - a fatality. The problem seemed to be quite simply the inability of the driver to assess what speed was appropriate for the conditions; sounds like the fact she was running late impaired her judgement but whatever the reason it was her judgement that was at fault and caused the accident. Of course excessive speed made the consequences worse but the cause was driver error, not speed per se.
Why do I think we have speed limits? Probably because a lot of drivers can't be trusted to make sensible judgements of what's appropriate but in reality they (the limits) are just a blunt instrument which address only symptoms not causes; their ever wider enforcement through technology appears to be having no effect on safety which probably illustrates what a blunt instrument they are. The real cause of problems on our roads is incompetent drivers but that's far more difficult to solve (and hence instead we appear to have a process whereby we're all being gradually dumbed-down to the level of the lowest common denominator).
jm doc said:
La Liga said:
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
Anyway, PtCoJ, isn't that what Police Officers do every time they break the speed limit (not in the course of their duty) and don't report themselves??
Where is the perverting?jm doc said:
Neither you, VH or LL have answered the question though, just simply asserted that "it's not PtCoJ". Tell that to the people they are handing out speeding tickets to and see what they say.
I was specific with it not being 'a course of justice'. PCoJ said:
The course of justice begins when:
An event has occurred, and it is reasonable to expect that an investigation will follow; or
Investigations which might bring proceedings have actually started; or
Proceedings have started or are about to start.
None of the above apply. An event has occurred, and it is reasonable to expect that an investigation will follow; or
Investigations which might bring proceedings have actually started; or
Proceedings have started or are about to start.
It could be framed as misconduct in terms of internal proceedings, but it ain't no crime.
The Selfish Gene said:
rubbish. Any old fk wit can get qualified for a few hundred quid.
I'm talking about 15/20k worth of training and an IQ level higher than a vegetable.
Mobility is fundamental to our economy. k wit can get qualified for a few hundred quid.I'm talking about 15/20k worth of training and an IQ level higher than a vegetable.
Making driving prohibitively hard / expensive would harm that.
The overall road safety strategy is successful when measuring reduced deaths / harm.
Cat said:
The Selfish Gene said:
I believe it makes it 'trivial' because it shows the law up for being incorrect, or outdated.
i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
According to the lunchtime news today a large percentage of people, particularly young people, in some areas are ignoring the rules on carrying offensive weapons. So by your logic carrying offensive weapons is trivial or prohibiting possession is out of date?i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
Cat
When one carries an offensive weapon it's sole use it to injure or maim. The law seems fine in this regard.
La Liga said:
obility is fundamental to our economy.
Making driving prohibitively hard / expensive would harm that.
The overall road safety strategy is successful when measuring reduced deaths / harm.
I don't agree - there are buses, trains, taxis and soon there will be automated cars...... nobody is banning people from being mobile.Making driving prohibitively hard / expensive would harm that.
The overall road safety strategy is successful when measuring reduced deaths / harm.
Just improving driver training and thus safety - how can that ever be a bad thing?
I mean - that's what everyone harps on about with randomly chosen speed limits
The Selfish Gene said:
La Liga said:
obility is fundamental to our economy.
Making driving prohibitively hard / expensive would harm that.
The overall road safety strategy is successful when measuring reduced deaths / harm.
I don't agree - there are buses, trains, taxis and soon there will be automated cars...... nobody is banning people from being mobile.Making driving prohibitively hard / expensive would harm that.
The overall road safety strategy is successful when measuring reduced deaths / harm.
Just improving driver training and thus safety - how can that ever be a bad thing?
I mean - that's what everyone harps on about with randomly chosen speed limits
Improving standards is good, but it needs to be balanced against the social and economic needs.
As I say, road deaths and harm have only gone in one direction for sometime, so the overall strategy is working.
The Selfish Gene said:
I believe it makes it 'trivial' because it shows the law up for being incorrect, or outdated.
i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
Everybody drives careless & inconsiderately.i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
Do you consider that bad law?
Should we have no offences for it because everybody does it (even though they shouldn't)?
La Liga said:
ur transport infrastructure is nowhere near sufficient to undertake the potential number of people taken off the road if it cost up to £20,000 to learn.
Improving standards is good, but it needs to be balanced against the social and economic needs.
As I say, road deaths and harm have only gone in one direction for sometime, so the overall strategy is working.
does it? So the social and economic needs are more important than the deaths on the road?Improving standards is good, but it needs to be balanced against the social and economic needs.
As I say, road deaths and harm have only gone in one direction for sometime, so the overall strategy is working.
interesting.
I'd argue (as we are being told) that we need to clamp down. My solution would drastically and immediately massively cut road deaths. Unless that's not really what it's all about, and really we are more interested in making money from motorists and not solving the problem.
I solve problems for a living. What is currently happening is not solving any problems. It's using a set of outdated rules with an agenda to make money from a vilified demographic.
jm doc said:
La Liga said:
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
Anyway, PtCoJ, isn't that what Police Officers do every time they break the speed limit (not in the course of their duty) and don't report themselves??
Where is the perverting?If a passenger colleague had reported a driver colleague for an offence and that driver pulled the report from the filing cabinet & destroyed it that would be.
But if the same passenger decides to do nothing no process of justice has started which can be perverted.
vonhosen said:
Everybody drives careless & inconsiderately.
Do you consider that bad law?
Should we have no offences for it because everybody does it (even though they shouldn't)?
is that a statement of fact or a scenario?Do you consider that bad law?
Should we have no offences for it because everybody does it (even though they shouldn't)?
see my other comment about driver training. I'd solve that too, just in a different way.
Cat said:
According to the lunchtime news today a large percentage of people, particularly young people, in some areas are ignoring the rules on carrying offensive weapons. So by your logic carrying offensive weapons is trivial or prohibiting possession is out of date?
Cat
How desperate and melodramatic can we get?Cat
How large is this percentage of yours? 1.25 instead of the 0.25 it was 20 years ago? Or are nearly all youngsters tooled-up, a bit like nearly all drivers speed?
The Selfish Gene said:
La Liga said:
ur transport infrastructure is nowhere near sufficient to undertake the potential number of people taken off the road if it cost up to £20,000 to learn.
Improving standards is good, but it needs to be balanced against the social and economic needs.
As I say, road deaths and harm have only gone in one direction for sometime, so the overall strategy is working.
does it? So the social and economic needs are more important than the deaths on the road?Improving standards is good, but it needs to be balanced against the social and economic needs.
As I say, road deaths and harm have only gone in one direction for sometime, so the overall strategy is working.
interesting.
I'd argue (as we are being told) that we need to clamp down. My solution would drastically and immediately massively cut road deaths. Unless that's not really what it's all about, and really we are more interested in making money from motorists and not solving the problem.
I solve problems for a living. What is currently happening is not solving any problems. It's using a set of outdated rules with an agenda to make money from a vilified demographic.
People keep speaking as if being allowed to do 80 is freedom, being allowed to only do 70 is severe oppression.
Truth is it makes
all difference to my journey times or my feelings of oppression.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff