A question for the floor

[jdening]

2. New drivers (12 months) prhibited from carring more than 1 passenger (Except familiy members).

Christ yes - my father enforced this rule on me for 6 months, and much as I hated him at the time, it now makes utter, utter sense.

3. Minimum speed limit for cars on the motorway. (How often do you see lorries having to pullout to the middle lane due to a car travelling at 50 mph. This in turn forces cars to slow and move to the outside lane. This in turns causes the traffic to slow and back up.

Tough one this - some people are nervous at 70mph, and is it really fair to penalise them for that?

4. 3 points for middle lane hoggers:

Good idea, but too harsh.

[Datsun-Des]

Some great ideas here - especially pablos one about 1 passenger limit for a year, how many times do you hear of a new driver crashing and killing 4 teenagers in the process.

vehicles between 50 and 60mph in the inner lane only, 70 to 80 mph in the middle lane and 80-100mph in the outside lane.

I like the idea about different speeds in different lanes - but you need a bit of overlap - what if you want to do 65 MPH?


I'm going to get lots of grief for this suggestion but here goes anyway - I think lots more stop and check type policing (like when they stop us all to do surveys - but a quick ID and paperwork check, and if anything looks amiss then pull the car in for a full car safety check) as frustrating as it is when you get stopped, its more likely to get the insurance/mot/tax dodgers off the road, and those with stolen cars, false plates etc... Currently you could drive a Rover 25, with bald tyres, Fcuked brakes, no mot etc.. with little fear of getting pulled - its just not the sort of car police target, and we have nothing to worry about as we all take pride in maintaining our vehicles.

[jdening]

on jdening's point about MOT i would have to disagree with him,

Lately i went through a slight issue in which when i was sold my last car i was told it had one years MOT. Turns out in fact it was only a few months. yes i am aware it is my fault for not checking)

I was then pulled in norwich as the police just wanted to check my details. I happily gave them all my details etc etc and went on my way, around 7 days later i was pulled again but this time the officer went on to mention that i had no MOT. So car came of the road until it was sorted. Went up to the police station and they did two Reports. When i got court summons through i decided not to attend as i was aware that this was majority my fault. Recieved a fine for it and payed it off.

Then two weeks ago i received another one through and once again i sent of the summons off but then recieved another fine for more than the original fine.

I find this to be unfair as the original police officers did not mention about my MOT and am currently in the process of appealing it.

WHich bit are you disagreeing with? Crushing it after two offences? You would, of course, have a summons to court and have a chance to explain what's happened there - as I see you did.

But let me get this right. You drove the car without an MOT and got pulled, and the police didn't realise at the time you had no MOT. You drove it on another day, and this time they realised, told you, and you took the car off the road. And you think this is unfair, because you are being done for no MOT twice. Your appeal is based on the fact that you feel the first policeman should've told you about the lapsed MOT.

Let me attempt to preempt your appeal. :twisted: :twisted:


You drove the car on (at least) two occasions, with a lapsed MOT. It is not the police's job to keep track of your vehicle test status - it is yours. And let's face it, it's not hard - it's a date on a piece of paper. Whilst it is unfortunate the first police officer didn't tell you, perhaps he didn't have access to that information - his computer link was down, or the information was not in the system. In any case - it's not his responsibility. And getting pulled twice in 7 days? Without wishing to be sanctimonious - if I drive in a style or in a car that makes me conspicuous enough to our friends in blue that I get tugged twice (fnaaar) in 1 week, then I make damn sure all my paperwork is in order. :!: Anyway, I wouldn't spend any money on lawyers for your appeal.... :roll:


So, Guilty! Lock 'im up...whaddya mean I can't hang him? Bloody namby pamby liberal softies....

[jdening]

I understand James's frustration, but its down to the officers to start the ball rolling as the public is largely ignored on the day to day stuff these days. Which is a whole topic full of wrongness in its own right.

ACPO always used to have a strong voice J.

<SNIP>

I just don't see how this can be changed from the ground up - central government policy is to blame here...

I also agree completely about the reliance on technology - ANPR only works if you have legal legit plates! LIke ID cards - the arguments are very, very specious.

[jdening]

More traffic cops and cops out on the streets..

This country has managed to slide into a real hole when it comes to justice. Only in the UK can you be arrested for for abusing a coloured/ non christian/immigrant/whatever person ( for whatever reason - not that I would condone such) but that person CAN abuse a white, christian english person in the same way with impunity.

This is categorically untrue. Racial Abuse is not restricted to white on black - in the bench's eyes it's the same offence. You hardly ever see it because black people don't often mouth off along those lines ("Shup you white....er....person"). But it has happened.

[duncan]

I think what he was referring to is incitement - that is a one way street.

In my mind though all religion should be banned.

[jdening]

I think what he was referring to is incitement - that is a one way street.

In my mind though all religion should be banned.

True. On the last point.

Incitement - how so? I thought his text of 'abusing people' was quite clear. But in any case, incitement is certainly not a one way street.

Abu Hamza is an obvious case, counterbalanced by some of those nasty BNP people with their self proclaimed 'brown bashing' agenda.

All guilty, all locked up. Job's a good 'un.

[ScoobieWRX]

I think Ben is right.

They still have conscription in many countries in Europe and my own (Spain) included for good reason. I have to say that like in the days of conscription in Merry Old England after the WWII, going into the army for 2yrs turned out decent human beings with an education, skills, morals, discipline and genuine love for life and others.

People married and having kids back then are more likely to still be together today, with no criminal records, and with offspring that today are decent hardworking contributers to society.

They should never have got rid of it!!!

P.S. Another option is castration...that would certainly put me off crime as i feel very attached to my bits!!

[ValoSunnyGti]

on jdening's point about MOT i would have to disagree with him,

Lately i went through a slight issue in which when i was sold my last car i was told it had one years MOT. Turns out in fact it was only a few months. yes i am aware it is my fault for not checking)

I was then pulled in norwich as the police just wanted to check my details. I happily gave them all my details etc etc and went on my way, around 7 days later i was pulled again but this time the officer went on to mention that i had no MOT. So car came of the road until it was sorted. Went up to the police station and they did two Reports. When i got court summons through i decided not to attend as i was aware that this was majority my fault. Recieved a fine for it and payed it off.

Then two weeks ago i received another one through and once again i sent of the summons off but then recieved another fine for more than the original fine.

I find this to be unfair as the original police officers did not mention about my MOT and am currently in the process of appealing it.

WHich bit are you disagreeing with? Crushing it after two offences? You would, of course, have a summons to court and have a chance to explain what's happened there - as I see you did.

But let me get this right. You drove the car without an MOT and got pulled, and the police didn't realise at the time you had no MOT. You drove it on another day, and this time they realised, told you, and you took the car off the road. And you think this is unfair, because you are being done for no MOT twice. Your appeal is based on the fact that you feel the first policeman should've told you about the lapsed MOT.

Let me attempt to preempt your appeal. :twisted: :twisted:


You drove the car on (at least) two occasions, with a lapsed MOT. It is not the police's job to keep track of your vehicle test status - it is yours. And let's face it, it's not hard - it's a date on a piece of paper. Whilst it is unfortunate the first police officer didn't tell you, perhaps he didn't have access to that information - his computer link was down, or the information was not in the system. In any case - it's not his responsibility. And getting pulled twice in 7 days? Without wishing to be sanctimonious - if I drive in a style or in a car that makes me conspicuous enough to our friends in blue that I get tugged twice (fnaaar) in 1 week, then I make damn sure all my paperwork is in order. :!: Anyway, I wouldn't spend any money on lawyers for your appeal.... :roll:


So, Guilty! Lock 'im up...whaddya mean I can't hang him? Bloody namby pamby liberal softies....

Point taken, the reason I am appealing is because I believe that at the time of the first pull over they should have done all the necessary checks. Like i said in my previous post I am 100% aware that in essence this was my fault as I should have checked when i bought the car, as for driving the car in between the two incidents, i have a very bad memory in which i forget things in the short term. The day I was pulled the second time i was over at a friends house and remembered that i had to take my forms up so was on the way home to do it.

The first time i got pulled was completely random, i was driving at around 25 in a 30, not swearving, no loud music and at fairly low revs so my exhaust was not that loud. The second pull was my fault as i was speeding and saw them so slowed down they thought i looked suspiscious so i dont blame them on that one.


Maybe Im just crazy ?

[Auto-fibre]

This is categorically untrue. Racial Abuse is not restricted to white on black - in the bench's eyes it's the same offence.

Granted from a legal perspective, this is the case, sadly the reality of "political correctness" means that in practice it's not the same at all.

You hardly ever see it because black people don't often mouth off along those lines ("Shup you white....er....person"). But it has happened.

While I agree that in this area, and presumably yours, this is the case, try walking around after dark in some area of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, or even Gravesend in Kent. Incidents of coloured against white or indeed colour A against colour B ( or any other combination of race/religeon) abuse are sadly far too common, but are rarely given the same treatment as White/anything else abuse, and certainly don't have the same level of political awareness.

As for the somewhat extreme example of Abu Hamza (public incitement to murder & commit acts of terrorism is a bit extreme) - yes he was arrested, tried and convicted ( quite rightly too), but it still took nearly 2 years. Given that he is a somewhat extreme case with no shortage of evidence, it makes you wonder what took so long.

Guilty of six charges of soliciting to murder under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861; not guilty on three further such charges
Guilty of three charges related to "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred" under the Public Order Act 1986, not guilty on one further such charge
Guilty of one further charge of owning recordings related to "stirring up racial hatred"
Guilty of one charge of possessing "terrorist encyclopaedia" under the Terrorism Act, s58

Of the charges against him, only 4 were for "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred" ie Racial abuse. The remainder were terrorism or murder related.

Sadly I don't think this was particularly well balance by the Nick Griffin BNP trial as he was aquitted of the same racial charges.

Sorry folks, I'll get of me soap box now


Regards

Dwayne