Speed Cameras/Human Rights

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
da69, thats the point, they issued a illegal ticket, against your human rights, your human rights allowed you to fight it.

my human rights had nothing to do with it......the warden made a mistake and i pointed it out!......my human rights didn't even come into it.....nor did i need to bring it up!

27 Sep 2006

Ah da69, what if you had not seen the traffic warden and returned to your car to find it, if it was wrong would you have paid it.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
Ah da69, what if you had not seen the traffic warden and returned to your car to find it, if it was wrong would you have paid it.

i didn't see the traffic warden.....i knew i was in the right and i took pics to prove it.....no need to bring my human rights into it!.......you don't always need to use your human rights to prove your in the right!

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
Ah da69, what if you had not seen the traffic warden and returned to your car to find it, if it was wrong would you have paid it.

hypothetical.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by Freckledbird
become a police officer as they can do as they please even when off duty and thats a different matter alltogether but i don't hear anyone dissing them,

That's a very sweeping and unfair statement.
I agree about paying the fine if you've committed the crime though.
fair point your entitled to your opinion but if and when they do get away with it don't you think thats unfair too, after all the law is there for us all, no speeding fine should be discarded unless it is proved wrong regardless of who's driving the vehicle thats all i'm saying, you read about it more and more nowadays and thats only the ones thats actualy been caught as they all do it just like all drivers do it at some point on another.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by Fun Scottish Couple
fair point your entitled to your opinion but if and when they do get away with it don't you think thats unfair too, after all the law is there for us all, no speeding fine should be discarded unless it is proved wrong regardless of who's driving the vehicle thats all i'm saying, you read about it more and more nowadays and thats only the ones thats actualy been caught as they all do it just like all drivers do it at some point on another.

27 Sep 2006

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Now tell me how having to say who was diring a persons OWN car when it was breaking the law effects their 'human rights'? dunno

27 Sep 2006

Quote by Freckledbird

fair point your entitled to your opinion but if and when they do get away with it don't you think thats unfair too, after all the law is there for us all, no speeding fine should be discarded unless it is proved wrong regardless of who's driving the vehicle thats all i'm saying, you read about it more and more nowadays and thats only the ones thats actualy been caught as they all do it just like all drivers do it at some point on another.

I agree, the law is there for us all. But that's not quite what you said, is it?
'become a police officer as they can do as they please even when off duty', is what you said. Like I said, a sweeping and unfair statement, regardless of my opinion on the matter.
Yes i now see what you mean and i didn't mean in general i meant with regards to traffic offences only ie speeding/parking fines .... i'll shut up now biggrin

:D :D

27 Sep 2006

Quote by da69ve
Human Rights!! ........using "human rights"......over a speed camera offence.....some people just don't know the meaning of "human rights".......they should try living somewhere where "human rights" don't mean shit!! :x .....some people just don't know their fucking born! :x ........they should just take responsibility for breaking the law instead of bending it!

Well put da69ve :thumbup:
Do the crime-then do the time-simple as.
I think it's feckin farcical(?sp) half the cases that get sent to European courts because of a possible lack of the defendants' "human rights" for fucks' sake. What about the human rights of the murder/child abuse victim that have been/are being denied ? I realise that the case in discussion is not so "severe" and frankly that's what makes it so laughable!
Human rights my arse? Tell that to thousands of innocents murdered by their countrys' own government and then come back and tell me we don't live in a "nanny state"
Minx x x

27 Sep 2006

da69, what I am saying is that because of human rights you were allowed to challange the ticket, if we were a country without human rights you would have had to pay it. I want to preserve our rights.

27 Sep 2006

Kiss, you are spoton with your post, perhaps the topic should read "legal rights"?.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
da69, what I am saying is that because of human rights you were allowed to challange the ticket, if we were a country without human rights you would have had to pay it. I want to preserve our rights.

of cause we want to preserve our human rights......but we don't want to take the piss out of those rights!.......use them when there needed properly!

27 Sep 2006

da69, I agree, but if we allow goverments to get away with the little things they will start doing what they want. The problem with the human rights act is that it always seems to be used by the criminals rather than those who are the victims of crime.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
da69, I agree, but if we allow goverments to get away with the little things they will start doing what they want. The problem with the human rights act is that it always seems to be used by the criminals rather than those who are the victims of crime.

or the speeding motorist getting away with the illegal things......

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
da69, what I am saying is that because of human rights you were allowed to challange the ticket, if we were a country without human rights you would have had to pay it. I want to preserve our rights.

Personally I think this case of "human rights" is really pushing the boundaries mad

There are cases out there a lot more worthy than this ridiculous scenario - and cases like this one, imo, make a complete mockery out of the worthy causes :x
They didn't deny the car was speeding (as far as I know), they just wouldn't say who was driving it, they didn't report the car as stolen, therefore the owner surely is somewhat responsible for his vehicle?? dunno

The owner should be made to pay the fine, the car is registered under their name - if they don't want to say who they entrusted with their vehicle, then let em take the speeding fine ............ pretty sure they wouldn't lend the car to the same person ever again if they let em take the fine/points whatever?
It's nowt to do with "human rights" - Wouldn't surprise me in the least if these people go on to sue/sell their story/make a film about it rolleyes

27 Sep 2006

Quote by Kiss

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Now tell me how having to say who was diring a persons OWN car when it was breaking the law effects their 'human rights'? dunno

Amongst others, those are the rights that are being eroded....
You are given a bigger penalty (or threatened with one) if you decide to challenge the fixed penalty...
But, that aside, you are still being asked to compromise yourself or your spouse against the basic principles of English Law.
The Law governing the issue of fixed penalty tickets for speeding is flawed. What the Law should actually do is simply impose a penalty on the registered keeper per-se, not require him to compromise himself or his spouse against the basic principles of English Law and the right to silence.
That is the argument they are taking to the Court of Human Rights I believe.

27 Sep 2006

I think that the full penalty is stated on the docket but you are entitled to a 'rebate' if you return it within two weeks or seomething. This means that you are not charged more than the maximum penalty.
If you go to court and lose, you may have to pay costs but you still only pay the penalty.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by duncanlondon
I think that the full penalty is stated on the docket but you are entitled to a 'rebate' if you return it within two weeks or seomething. This means that you are not charged more than the maximum penalty.

But, that's the point.. you are then charged more if you decide to exercise your basic human right to a hearing

27 Sep 2006

Quote by Missy
da69, what I am saying is that because of human rights you were allowed to challange the ticket, if we were a country without human rights you would have had to pay it. I want to preserve our rights.

Personally I think this case of "human rights" is really pushing the boundaries mad

Agree with that one... always seems to me that it's the criminals playing at being a victim who end up making human rights cases isn't it? Or is that just my skewed perspective of the world?

27 Sep 2006

Quote by GnV
I think that the full penalty is stated on the docket but you are entitled to a 'rebate' if you return it within two weeks or seomething. This means that you are not charged more than the maximum penalty.

But, that's the point.. you are then charged more if you decide to exercise your basic human right to a hearing
If you win your human rights case you're not going to pay the penalty or any court costs at all are you? So doesn't matter if you don't get your early payment rebate or not

27 Sep 2006

Quote by GnV

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Now tell me how having to say who was diring a persons OWN car when it was breaking the law effects their 'human rights'? dunno

Amongst others, those are the rights that are being eroded....
You are given a bigger penalty (or threatened with one) if you decide to challenge the fixed penalty...
but are you aware that has always been the case under the british criminal justice system.....
if you plead gulity, then you are normally given a 50% discount on the sentence (expenses on long winded trials, ect) ...plus you can get up to 2/3rd's off for good behaviour, than is why you see for example a "life" sentence, for example 25yrs, can be whittled down to 4-5 yrs, which is why the public were up in arms with regards the various cases that have been around in the last few months...
you can't have it both ways.... or it would possible mean that fines and punishments for driving offences would be double what they are the moment...
so which way do you want it???? like i said before..... wouldn't it make sense to fight the battles you can win in the eyes of the public,,,,,

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
Deecee, my point is that if the powers that be are prepeard to prosecute for failure to indentify the driver, then all 4 lads should have been prosecuted, the problem is the police would never be able to prove who pulled the trigger.

.
good point but we're getting off topic a bit......... i see we're in good company tho.........so ill have a bash at this one..... despite the completey hypothetical nature of your analogy.
your first bit is undeniably true. apart fro the last bit..there are offences for which htey could be convicted......theres a case against them for a "joint enterprise" or a conspiracy to commit an act of im not a policeman or a prosecutor but there is law there to proceed upon given the assumed basic facts of your hypothesis.
to convict... and put yourself on the jury for a minute......... youd have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the Prosecution could have, shown through evidence, that
a particular person was present
an act of violence was committed
the victim was injured
its a winnable case for a diligent, efficient policeman (no comment) to investigate and gather evidence
and a prosecutor with balls
if you were on the jury , would you let them get away with it.

Quote by browning
Just imagine this; police get called to a burgalary, there are two robbers in the house, one escapes and the other is arrested, the one that is caught will not tell the police who the other robber is, when the robber gets to court, should he recieve double the sentance for failing to identify the other robber?. We all know it would never happen.

course he shouldnt get double the sentence. how would that be fair? where did you get that notion from?
how is that really similar to the present situation.....ie burglary and driving are seperate offences covered by different statute.
you can have incidents involving multiple burglars.. but theres only one steering wheel in every car ive ever seen ( well apart from on kiddies merry-go-rounds)
one is also an accomplice situation
isnt it the case that the reason why legislation exists for failing to disclose the driver
is because proving who the driver is fecking difficult at the best of times. the legislation and technology and laws are insufficient.......

Quote by browning
It's revenue raising, pure and simple

way off topic...............start another thread m8 !!!!!!
far be it from me to have a comment but start another thread m8 !!!!!!
wink

27 Sep 2006

Or do you just want to give up your basic right to silence?
How many people populate our prisons or have contributed to the public purse to save money when they have not been guilty of a crime but their brief has told them it is futile to defend themselves.
That is what is at stake here... the camera issue is the deus ex machina by which this fundamental human right will be defended...
No-one is saying that speeding motorists should get away scott free. What is being offered is that bad law does not justify the means. Get the law sorted, respect the basic right to not compromise yourself or your spouse and deal with the real issues.
A simple change in law is all that is required but Government does not have the will to make that change. It has no respect for your human rights. It is well pleased with itself that it is gradually eroding all our historic and hard won rights.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by GnV
Or do you just want to give up your basic right to silence? Nope
How many people populate our prisons or have contributed to the public purse to save money when they have not been guilty of a crime but their brief has told them it is futile to defend themselves. sorry but I don't think that many people get sent to prison for speeding fines......and generally those that lawyers suggest not to defend themselves are those that have already committed offences and where they cannot prove their innocence

That is what is at stake here... the camera issue is the deus ex machina by which this fundamental human right will be defended...
No-one is saying that speeding motorists should get away scott free. What is being offered is that bad law does not justify the means. Get the law sorted, respect the basic right to not compromise yourself or your spouse and deal with the real issues.
A simple change in law is all that is required but Government does not have the will to make that change. It has no respect for your human rights. It is well pleased with itself that it is gradually eroding all our historic and hard won rights.

sorry......maybe I'm missing something here but please do explain the 'basic' change in the law that is needed....... dunno

27 Sep 2006

Quote by fabio grooverider
but are you aware that has always been the case under the british criminal justice system.....
if you plead gulity, then you are normally given a 50% discount on the sentence (expenses on long winded trials, ect) ...plus you can get up to 2/3rd's off for good behaviour, than is why you see for example a "life" sentence, for example 25yrs, can be whittled down to 4-5 yrs, which is why the public were up in arms with regards the various cases that have been around in the last few months...
you can't have it both ways.... or it would possible mean that fines and punishments for driving offences would be double what they are the moment...
so which way do you want it???? like i said before..... wouldn't it make sense to fight the battles you can win in the eyes of the public,,,,,

dude, your figures are way out......... the government, judicary and powers that be have been tinkering about with it a little.......
if you plead guilty at the first available opportunity....(cue detailed definition.... nah bollox its too late).. you get a 3rd discount.
If you plead not guilty up until the date of trial you will only get a 10th discount. (of sentences on a sliding scale...........
its actually a good deal.... the reasons are to save witnesses having to come. ...
the legnth of time u serve depends on the time in your sentence u are eligible for parole.
the minimum time to be served is 50%.... not 75%... if youve been a bad lad inside or the probation consider you havent been rehabilitated you will do more of your jail time.
now. heres the interesting but..... the law changed recently to allow judges to give life sentences , where the minimum tarrif is set ie 5yr, 10yrs for offenders who were getting second sentences for serious offences.. like a "3 strike rule" only you get it after 2 "strikes"... harsh. but necessary in my view. like that molester who kidnapped the young girl recently ...
thing is with him tho.. is that if he hasnt changed in the eyes of the experts, he'll never get out.
also recently there have been specific sentences for offenders who are jailed for "public protection" ie raving violent nutters and serial offenders......
so sentencing has got stricter overall............ and they finally seem to be trying to protect the pblic a little more.........
i dont know where our figures come from... but they have an american sounding to them.
or maybe its the fault of the media
or maybe something else.........i dont know.......
as with all legal issues...... they are complicated.... but they are pretty well thought out and tested ......
sometimes i think that the law isnt definately so wrong....... its peoples mis-conceptions, application, and interpretation that is the cloudy issue.
in fairness. although polititions get the laws introduced and sometimes they reflect on/ impinge on our lives and govern us......... they are infact drafted , applied, modified by a pretty clever, reasonably un-corrupt, experienced , capable and knowledgeable judiciary........then properly debated and overseen ( by more senior courts) if they seem to fail
then consider that the Articles of Human Rights seek to protect aswell.....i think we are getting there to protect us rather than on the whole bring us down

27 Sep 2006

Quote by poshkate
sorry......maybe I'm missing something here but please do explain the 'basic' change in the law that is needed.......

Quote by GnV
The Law governing the issue of fixed penalty tickets for speeding is flawed. What the Law should actually do is simply impose a penalty on the registered keeper per-se, not require him to compromise himself or his spouse against the basic principles of English Law and the right to silence.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by Shireen_Mids
recorded a wall doing 28mph!!.

Was it in a 20mph zone though?? dunno

:dunno: :dunno:
bolt

27 Sep 2006

Or do you just want to give up your basic right to silence?
its already gone. the issue here is respecting the right "not to self incriminate" .......which doesnt really exist here in the UK anyway.....( its nothing to do with "the right to silence").
thats why people quote human rights. because they seek to rely on this as their defence. i d like the idea if i was in trouble for drinving offences.. id seek to try it if i wanted to evade getting into trouble..but here is a situation where the defences are being tested.
How many people populate our prisons or have contributed to the public purse to save money when they have not been guilty of a crime but their brief has told them it is futile to defend themselves.
i dont know many who truly have..i dont accept theres any more than a handful of people in that predicament.... it sounds a bit of an excuse to me.. for not wanting to admit a crime...... any brief who advises that ought to be struck off. to say this is accurate and has actually happened in any situation one would have had to be present when the advise was given.....if youre not guilty you plead not guilty.....theres a hell of alot of prisoners in denial.. and who through embarrasment will not admit their crimes...... id think anyone using that claim was spinning me a line ....
if youre bang to rights u plead guilty.. if youre innocent you get a trial.....
That is what is at stake here... the camera issue is the deus ex machina by which this fundamental human right will be defended...
say what dunno

:dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
No-one is saying that speeding motorists should get away scott free. What is being offered is that bad law does not justify the means. Get the law sorted, respect the basic right to not compromise yourself or your spouse and deal with the real issues.
the first bit has lost me......well infact all of this bit has.... :dunno:
A simple change in law is all that is required but Government does not have the will to make that change. It has no respect for your human rights. It is well pleased with itself that it is gradually eroding all our historic and hard won rights.
youre change doesnt hold water.... how can u convict the keeper of an offence that he might not be guilty of. surely thats unjust..and so is getting away with it for not admitting it....... what you do is say... to the keeper" tell us who was driving? or well do ya for not telling us... oh hold on... thats what actually happens!!
but what you argue is " why should i have to tell you"... but you dont want people to get away with the instant offence..... im sorry but you aint thought it through..... . :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
just my opinion on your post by the way...........nothing personal like

27 Sep 2006

I think that in many branches of disciplined thought, be it financial, legal, spirtual etc. there is an open end in the higher levels of reasoning. Even in mathematics some equations work up to the point where they lose linearity and one has to switch to or incorporate other formulas to continue expecting linear like outcomes.
So in many cases laws can be left open to interpretation, so that they provide a framework for something to look to, but involve huge efforts to apply or fathom out when they are invoked or challenged in any way. Not all generations necessarily produce the people who can completely turn things round. So we continue with what we believe works.
And in some cases it is actually better that statutes are not too rigid as it allows those who wish to add intellect into the structure of thought, by debate.
So whilst these drivers are entitled to invoke all relevent aspects of their human rights, they may find that its up to them to prove they have sufficient intellectual clout to lead us all into a new enlightenment, in order to bring about a conclusion.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by GnV

sorry......maybe I'm missing something here but please do explain the 'basic' change in the law that is needed.......

Quote by GnV
The Law governing the issue of fixed penalty tickets for speeding is flawed. What the Law should actually do is simply impose a penalty on the registered keeper per-se, not require him to compromise himself or his spouse against the basic principles of English Law and the right to silence.

so as I understand it you are proposing a blanket law that the owner of a vechile is responsible for how it is driven.......despite the fact there may be a number of users of the car..........also then how do you police hire cars or even people on test drives........ :dunno: