|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Brutal driver walks
On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 12:54:15 AM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 06/02/2016 23:33, Tom Crispin wrote: On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 8:11:20 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote: On 06/02/2016 20:04, Tom Crispin wrote: On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:37:13 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote: On 06/02/2016 17:31, Tom Crispin wrote: On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:21:16 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617 It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban. This loophole must be closed. Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case.. Forget the offence for a moment - it could be anything from picking the council's flowers to bank robbery - would you impose a draconian (not to say vindictive) penalty on somebody against whom there is no evidence, merely on the basis that there is no evidence against him and that you "think" that he should have confessed to something you suspect him of committing even though there is no evidence to support that belief to an acceptable standard of proof? Is that really what you mean? No. What I mean is that failing to give driver details should be treated the same way as perverting the course of justice. And in a case where quite genuinely the owner does not know? Should he/she be liable to a max. sentence of life imprisonment? It would not be for me to predetermine the outcome of a trial for perverting the course of justice. Do you think it would be an appropriate sentence for someone that has no idea of who was driving their car at a particular moment? Has it been established, in this case, that the registered keeper has no idea who was driving. Or is it simply a matter that the registered keeper is not saying who was driving? Let us assume that the registered keeper is completely unaware and unable to establish the actual driver at the time of the incident. Is it still suitable to convict the reg. keeper of 'perverting the course of justice' with a max. possible sentence of life imprisonment for their failure to know the driver? It is not for you to assume anything. The point I am making is that the law should demand a registered keeper to assume some responsibility for knowing who is using their motor vehicle. If their is a genuine reason why the registered keeper is unable to provide driver details, such as theft, that would be for a court to determine. It might also be the case that in some circumstances, some of the responsibility of the registered keeper be temporarily transferred to another individual, such as when a car is hired. What is not acceptable in a moral society, that someone can drive a motor vehicle at an innocent third party, injure them, then drive away with impunity, knowing that when questioned by the police they can say, "I don't know who was driving". |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Brutal driver walks
On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 6:40:34 AM UTC, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 February 2016 23:37:40 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote: It seems that the prosecution, in this case, have successfully proved that the registered keeper is refusing to give details of the driver. That is why he has been fined and given six points. Exactly. Insufficient for the crime he, or someone he is protecting, committed. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Brutal driver walks
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 11:10:05 -0000, "TMS320" wrote:
snip Where are your cases of drivers getting worse punishment than cyclists? Many drivers are fined if they drive through a red light. Most cyclist aren't fined for riding through a red light. Being fined is a worse punishment than not being fined. HTH |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Brutal driver walks
On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 19:02:27 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:
snip But as usual, the police couldn't give a **** when it's only a pleb on a bike. I think it is excellent that the police have the same views as most of the population. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Brutal driver walks
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:04:35 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote:
snip It would not be for me to predetermine the outcome of a trial for perverting the course of justice. Indeed - you will have to wait until the court case before you print the owner's full names and address with postcode I certainly would not want a pervert to pervert the course of justice. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Brutal driver walks
On 07/02/2016 07:55, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 12:54:15 AM UTC, MrCheerful wrote: On 06/02/2016 23:33, Tom Crispin wrote: On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 8:11:20 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote: On 06/02/2016 20:04, Tom Crispin wrote: On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:37:13 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote: On 06/02/2016 17:31, Tom Crispin wrote: On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:21:16 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617 It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban. This loophole must be closed. Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case.. Forget the offence for a moment - it could be anything from picking the council's flowers to bank robbery - would you impose a draconian (not to say vindictive) penalty on somebody against whom there is no evidence, merely on the basis that there is no evidence against him and that you "think" that he should have confessed to something you suspect him of committing even though there is no evidence to support that belief to an acceptable standard of proof? Is that really what you mean? No. What I mean is that failing to give driver details should be treated the same way as perverting the course of justice. And in a case where quite genuinely the owner does not know? Should he/she be liable to a max. sentence of life imprisonment? It would not be for me to predetermine the outcome of a trial for perverting the course of justice. Do you think it would be an appropriate sentence for someone that has no idea of who was driving their car at a particular moment? Has it been established, in this case, that the registered keeper has no idea who was driving. Or is it simply a matter that the registered keeper is not saying who was driving? Let us assume that the registered keeper is completely unaware and unable to establish the actual driver at the time of the incident. Is it still suitable to convict the reg. keeper of 'perverting the course of justice' with a max. possible sentence of life imprisonment for their failure to know the driver? It is not for you to assume anything. The point I am making is that the law should demand a registered keeper to assume some responsibility for knowing who is using their motor vehicle. UK law has to be framed reasonably (not least in order to comply - as a treaty obligation - with the European Convention on Human Rights). A law which demanded that a person KNOW things that he plainly cannot know would fall foul of that obligation. HTH. If their is a genuine reason why the registered keeper is unable to provide driver details, such as theft, that would be for a court to determine. Why? It might also be the case that in some circumstances, some of the responsibility of the registered keeper be temporarily transferred to another individual, such as when a car is hired. You're so magnanimous. What is not acceptable in a moral society, that someone can drive a motor vehicle at an innocent third party, injure them, then drive away with impunity, knowing that when questioned by the police they can say, "I don't know who was driving". All you need to do is prove that they are lying. Just like you need to prove that a suspected burglar is lying when he says that he was in another country on holiday at the time of the burglary. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Brutal driver walks
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 07:57:16 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 6:40:34 AM UTC, Alycidon wrote: On Saturday, 6 February 2016 23:37:40 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote: It seems that the prosecution, in this case, have successfully proved that the registered keeper is refusing to give details of the driver. That is why he has been fined and given six points. Exactly. Insufficient for the crime he, or someone he is protecting, committed. Not over at all, yet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35516450 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Brutal driver walks
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 23:55:31 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote: What is not acceptable in a moral society, that someone can drive a motor vehicle at an innocent third party, injure them, then drive away with impunity, knowing that when questioned by the police they can say, "I don't know who was driving". A variant of that occurred in a case I have mentioned before when a pedestrian on a canal path was kicked to the ground by one of a pack of cyclists out "training". A number of witnesses saw the event but couldn't tell which of the group of riders, all in identical Lycra, kicked the lady to the ground. All of the riders out that day simply denied having seen anything happen despite many cycling around her. The result, as in this case, was that no prosecution for assault was possible. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Brutal driver walks
On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 8:58:30 AM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 23:55:31 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote: What is not acceptable in a moral society, that someone can drive a motor vehicle at an innocent third party, injure them, then drive away with impunity, knowing that when questioned by the police they can say, "I don't know who was driving". A variant of that occurred in a case I have mentioned before when a pedestrian on a canal path was kicked to the ground by one of a pack of cyclists out "training". A number of witnesses saw the event but couldn't tell which of the group of riders, all in identical Lycra, kicked the lady to the ground. All of the riders out that day simply denied having seen anything happen despite many cycling around her. The result, as in this case, was that no prosecution for assault was possible. In that case, all should be charged with perverting the course of justice, and face a punishment similar to that which their "friend" committed. By the way, the collective noun for cyclists is "peloton" not "pack". |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Brutal driver walks
On Sun, 07 Feb 2016 10:29:54 +0000, Judith wrote:
most of the population. How glad I am that I am not 'most of the population'. It is a real compliment, coming from the likes of you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free | David Hansen | UK | 32 | May 9th 10 07:46 PM |
Lorry driver who killed cyclist walks free from court with 'ludicrous' £275 fine | [email protected] | UK | 102 | July 13th 08 11:36 PM |
Lorry driver on mobile kills cyclist, walks free from court. | spindrift | UK | 0 | April 8th 08 08:42 AM |
Killer driver walks free | spindrift | UK | 0 | May 22nd 07 09:52 AM |
Brutal breach of rider's rights! | Bill C | Racing | 9 | September 16th 05 04:41 AM |