Safe Speed Forums

no problem

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I'm sorry Fisherman, but posting incorrect information is an offence under the Telling Pork Pies On T'internet act 2007. The fine is £75 and please make the cheque payable to adam.L

Wasn't there a government that gave it's people the powers of summary justice to those in the most minor positions of power?

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Soz dcb, I meant to answer earlier. It does start from the beginning of July and the officer said I will have to pay back to when it was last taxed, which is only fair and proper. I don't know how these things work but I'm expecting something else in the post soon Anyone interested in a 10 year old Polo?

My lasting impression of bouncers was when I used to go Barbarella's in Birmingham and bopped to Sylvester's 'You make me feel mighty real'. The bouncers in them days would look you up and down and say "Wrong shoes off!"

I hated night clubs but peer pressure made me go. They were expensive to get in, the drinks were expensive, the stench of pot filled the air, I couldn't hear myself think and no girl ever fancied me Maybe bopping to Sylvester didn't help though

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

We would all like to see Police being able to better apply rules and regs and it goes wrong when genuine people who make errors are treated all the same. I agree with Fisherman (re fines etc) that it is too much for those that have made genuine errors and perhaps not enough in more serious cases.

This Police Operation on tax & insurance, is about meeting targets, and making a targets the goal can alter the reason for action from intent to total purpose. The target becomes the reason not the actual (in our sector), road safety issue, that become secondary.

In this case they are trying to ensure that all cars/drivers (riders) are properly legal. They have learned that many cars wrong in one area, are wrong in others, and hence the supporting comment from the receptionist. When they run these operations they catch several.

In your case your genuine mistake was not intentional, and this is the tough bit, so many people lie, that the Police cannot tell who is and who is not, so a target and punishment is set to deal with achieving better 'targets' than about proper policing.

I am quite sure had they said produce your tax in the next day (or day suitable for you to have bought the tax allowing for weekend or a few hours to buy it online / over phone) etc, then you would have done the honorable thing and correct all mistakes immediately - as you did.
They should put the onerous on the 'bad guys' i.e. state that the fine only be paid if the corrections are not made in 48 hrs (allowing exception for weekends). That way you drive (if not straight to P.O etc) you carry on and are less inconvenienced. The Police public rift is less.
A bad chap would carry on not paying, car or no car - they will just buy another one, probably not pay anyway so all they loose is a car.

Is the only goal here to get old cars off the road, road tax (cars scrapped are never taxed - do they ever follow up on those fines - only for the paper trailed motorists), insurance.
I do think it wrong for Police to take people to cash points too, but it is possible to pay over the phone now, so a shame that it was not offered to you, as that would possibly have solved the problem there and then. Police don't have to waste resources putting your car off the road and storing it, and you are not treated as bad the 'bad guy'. Disproportionate treatment.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I think it appalling that there is this increase in non authoritative people being appointed as guardians over the public !

Those in power have to ensure that they govern and protect fairly. This does not do that and as Anton states it gives additional powers to some who are already abusing it.
This type of cheap policing is no answer, to anything, you have to pay properly for proper Police who have the right authority and training (with ever increasing amounts) to do the right job in the first place. (They need and increase in respect not less, too). Having members of the public able to hand out fines is an open door to fraudsters, and then another problem for the police, because the wrong goal was 'solved' with the wrong policy, than the real core problem tackled properly in the first place i.e. more cops on the streets ....

Big Tone - I do have sympathy for you - I totally understand the problems with moving only too well. Having spent months away from home and I had no way of receiving the paperwork for SORN paperwork, I emailed them, and although it took quite some time to sort it all out, I now have them all set at the same date which helps a lot !
Moving is stressful I know. I know you feel more upset and annoyed with yourself far more than any fine or punishment could ever do and I am pleased that you sorted it out quickly, as any of us would have, having found the error. It was a shame you done have a method, I use my pda / calendar or notice board ! After all they stipulate that their reminders are not to be relied upon !

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

That's the truth Claire and thanks

There were other things going on too, which I won't go into, but let's just say I have been plate-spinning for months. Buying the house itself was like a game of poker, long story, as well as helping others in my personal life and working myself into an early grave. I've had something of an Annus horribilis so the very last thing on my mind was looking at car tax but that was the only thing I fell down on.

I wish someone had pointed it out to me like the guy who did the MOT only a few weeks ago, which was the last time I used it, but again it's totally my fault and I accept full responsibilty. There's a terrible sense of guilt really, like the police thought I really was deliberately trying to get out of paying or something. But there's only one aspect in my life where I regularly break the law which is the same for most people, whether they admit it or not

I normally use Outlook to organise myself at work and carry a pocket diary but again, with everything going on I didn't get one. What I lack in memory I usually make up for by being very organised but the house moving thing alone is enough to derail almost anyone. Think I'll stay put for a while and try to ease back into my 'mental slippers'...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

So they stole your car because you didn't pay a tax which we shouldn't have to pay anyway?
Will they be barricading our houses for failing to pay council tax next?

_________________
Andrew.

Well if you leave your house empty they can take it over !
It is all of growing concern to many.
Things are yours not by right (it feels like) but by their permission - a terribly dangerous and sad state of society indeed.
The biggest problem that I see as the core is the loss of trust / assumption of mistrust, on all fronts.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

This is the effect of socialism poorly implemented. If you can afford to leave a house empty then, it is obvious the the State should take it over for the good of society. The only problem with this is that it goes against human nature.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I feel glad I posted now because you have made, are making, very good points on what the Governm£nt can do and where they draw the line. Exactly what right do they have to effectively steal my car, my property, and hold it to ransom!!! If my house was on wheels would they impound that too for some indiscretion?

I'll be honest, if I'd got an old banger worth £300 or less and nearing the end of it's usefulness I'd probably say "tell you what, you can keep it. Let it take up your space ad nauseam and any paperwork reminders you send me will go straight in the trash where they belong!" The release fee can rocket to thousands for all I care.

This isn't about the money, although it's money I haven't got I have admitted I was in the wrong, for reasons I've explained, and I have been truthful about it all. I deserved/expected to get fined but I agree with Ziltro - they stole my car! It's licenced theft IMO!

As an aside, just lately I have been watching Heir Hunters with interest and thought to myself now there's something the Gov could get their hands on if they impose a law which forbids anyone outside of immediate blood relations to inherit or cannot be claimed after, let's say, ten years. There's an absolute fortune in revenue to be made there and I wouldn't put it past them to do it one day.

I'm too cynical for my own good

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Presumably if you lived in a motorhome they would have.

_________________
Andrew.

were does the need to collect tax and the need to have documented vehicles cross?

If you owed HMRC £75k in unpaid income tax or whatever, do they/can they impound/confiscate possessions on the spot?

Personally I don't mind paying to use the roads in the form of road tax. It shows my cars has insurance and a valid mot, but I do however object to 70+ pence tax on a litre of petrol and road tax and insurance tax

And VAT.
And income tax and employers and employees 'national insurance' (tax) paid on all the money made to pay for the above.

_________________
Andrew.

If I were towing a caravan would they impound that too or would they leave it behind and do me for obstruction as well?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Whatever is most profitable, obviously!
What about your possessions in the car? Do they steal them too or leave them on the side of the road? What if you have too much to carry?

_________________
Andrew.

And how does a member of the general public identify these people, and learn of the powers they allegedly have?
In a very recent case, a judge conveniently laid down clearly the guidelines for self defence, to a defendant who admitted he had been drinking before he assaulted a member of staff doing his job:

Well done Judge Globe for clearing that up for us.
So it seems as though if you feel threatened by somebody CLAIMING to be a qualified bouncer, deck them first, and ask questions later - it could easily be an attempted violent robbery perpetrated by somebody with a fancy dress uniform and home made ID!

Judge Globe is your friend, and will protest your innocence of any allegation that your pre-emptive strike was actually affray or assault... all YOU have to do is believe that you were about to be assaulted - no matter how unlikely it might seem to others!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

thats a good question. If you ever find out how to tell a bouncer authorised to issue fines from a bouncer who is not authorised please let me know. You might like to raise the question with your MP. He or she is unlikely to have a clue but they might think about it the next time they pass a law giving a single individual the right to be witness, police, prosecutor and judge.


If only it were that simple. Beckford v The Queen 1987 says that force is permissible to ward off an attack honestly believed to be imminent and goes on to say that reasonableness or otherwise of the belief is relevant in ascertaining whether or not you actually held the belief. R V Whyte 1987 says that you may ONLY do what is reasonably necessary to ward off an attack but goes on to say that if you "honestly and instinctively" did what you though was necessary that provides "potent evidence" that your response was reasonable.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Like Mr Prescott did?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The DPP has released figures which show that in 2008 a total of 1,445,712 offenders were "brought to justice". Of those only 724,179 were actually taken before a court.

The DPP has looked at sentences imposed by magistrates courts and found that in 2008 some 70,000 consisted of a conditional discharge. He goes on to say that "that suggests that these are cases which could have been disposed of a lot earlier and at less cost" and suggests that a further 70,000 cases per year should be dealt with by out of court action. He seems to be blissfully unaware of why conditional discharges are imposed. In some cases it is because the defendant is maxed out as far as fines** are concerned so the court has no other option but the vast majority of conditional discharges are imposed because a bench of magistrates has assessed the seriousness of the offending and imposed that sentence in accordance with the guidance issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. To replace conditional discharges with fines would,in effect, move a whole range of offending behaviour up tariff.



** Fines have to be imposed so that the defendant can afford to repay them. They should be enough to cause some financial hardship but should not make life impossible. Fines which cannot be paid at once must be paid off by instalments and within a reasonable period of time - usually interpreted as 12 months. If an individual is assessed as being able to afford a maximum of £10 per week in fines payments the court is effectively limited to a maximum fine of £10 x 52 weeks = £520.
Take the case of a defendant required to pay £400 pounds in fines, costs and compensation for selling alcohol to a drunk person, an offence which is only punishable by a conditional discharge or a fine. He makes 5 payments before he brought back to court for another offence. he still owes £350 (£400 minus 5 payments of £10). That limits the court to a maximum fine of £170 even if the offence is more serious. If he offends again the bench can't impose any more fines so its a conditional discharge. Yes that means going down tariff when the offending doesn't justify doing so, but its the only possibility.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.