Police-detest them
What makes you think you should be called 'sir'? Do you have a knighthood? Queens commission perhaps? Thought not. Unless you have one of those (and even then, I'd struggle to refer to Rod Stewart as 'sir), nobody deserves to be called Sir.
You calling him 'son' because you're older than him and then telling him to go and read the 1988 rta makes you sound like one of those idiots you see on 'road wars'. Perhaps if you hadn't of been driving like a **** in the first place, you wouldn't have been pulled. But let me guess, you got pulled for absolutely no reason, right?
You calling him 'son' because you're older than him and then telling him to go and read the 1988 rta makes you sound like one of those idiots you see on 'road wars'. Perhaps if you hadn't of been driving like a **** in the first place, you wouldn't have been pulled. But let me guess, you got pulled for absolutely no reason, right?
You know full well.
The FACT that you are guilty of speeding until you prove yourself innocent, and that if you cannot do so, you face a possible £1000 fine for failing to say who was driving.
And your lot enforce that and issue the threats.
Yet you bang on about innocent until proven guilty.
You couldn't make it up.
The FACT that you are guilty of speeding until you prove yourself innocent, and that if you cannot do so, you face a possible £1000 fine for failing to say who was driving.
And your lot enforce that and issue the threats.
Yet you bang on about innocent until proven guilty.
You couldn't make it up.
and yet support for the police is dropping all the time. I wonder why that is?
You show yourself up.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,078
Likes: 310
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Probably needs sight of a signed affidavit before accepting an opposing point of view
Possibly a fair view considering a shift involves dealing with ******* that lie and exaggerate all the time. Unfair to take "need evidence" stance towards everyone that has a differing viewpoint on a forum, the majority of which are law abiding and honest.
Last edited by ALi-B; Sep 8, 2017 at 11:31 AM.
Seeing some police on the streets with full sleeve tats showing on their arms is mind boggling to me, also I saw one female police officer who was about 4' 6" and about 80 lbs soaking wet. Not sure what use she was patrolling the city center?
and the support doesn't seem to bad - https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...-and-wales.pdf
You know full well.
The FACT that you are guilty of speeding until you prove yourself innocent, and that if you cannot do so, you face a possible £1000 fine for failing to say who was driving.
And your lot enforce that and issue the threats.
Yet you bang on about innocent until proven guilty.
You couldn't make it up.
The FACT that you are guilty of speeding until you prove yourself innocent, and that if you cannot do so, you face a possible £1000 fine for failing to say who was driving.
And your lot enforce that and issue the threats.
Yet you bang on about innocent until proven guilty.
You couldn't make it up.We have done this several times before - you don't have to 'prove yourself innocent' and we don't 'issue threats'
That would be true you don't issue threats two or three of you get together and tell lies that does away with having to issue threats.
Felix:
1. I've never said it happens everywhere, just that it's what I, and others, have experienced. You are trying to make out I'm wrong because you haven't experienced it.
I've never seen Australia, so it doeasn't exist? LOL
As for speeding.
You KNOW that you have to incriminate yourself, or face a £1000 fine for not doing so.
And the police DO send out letters stating just that.
It's a fukcing crap system and YOU KNOW IT, so stop trying to defend the indefensible.
1. I've never said it happens everywhere, just that it's what I, and others, have experienced. You are trying to make out I'm wrong because you haven't experienced it.
I've never seen Australia, so it doeasn't exist? LOL
As for speeding.
You KNOW that you have to incriminate yourself, or face a £1000 fine for not doing so.
And the police DO send out letters stating just that.
It's a fukcing crap system and YOU KNOW IT, so stop trying to defend the indefensible.
This is another one you keep saying which I don't follow your logic. Were you driving the car or not? If you were, why not just tell the truth. If you were and you want to lie to a court by saying it was not you, do you not think this is bad and deserves some sort of punishment? If you can't remember who was driving, then this forms the basis of your defence under 'due diligence'. You can defend this on the basis that you cannot say who the driver is but there is a particular format to use and you would need to assert that you genuinely cannot say who the driver was after exercising reasonable diligence. Obviously you cannot say something that is not true (ie saying it was you driving when you genuinely can't be sure) as that's a perjury and that carries custody. Or should the fine just go the registered owner?
No, you quite obviously support the money making scam.
Would I be forced so to do for ANY other "crime"? Would I be facing a £1000 fine for remaining silent in ANY other circumstances?
Frankly, no. It's done every day of the week in almost all cases that go to court. Does it carry a £1000 fine there?
if all the above is true, then why does the letter from you lot not say so, yet it DOES contain threats for not responding quickly enough and for not saying/being able to say? They ARE threatening letters demanding money, WHATEVER your lot think.
Of course not....in most cases, no-one should get the fine AS YOU CAN'T PROVE WHO WAS DRIVING, without the legislation that forces us to incriminate ourselves.
You know...a bit like the unsolved murders, robberies, burglaries etc etc Where you can't just send a letter demanding money with menaces.
If you can't remember who was driving, then this forms the basis of your defence under 'due diligence'. You can defend this on the basis that you cannot say who the driver is but there is a particular format to use and you would need to assert that you genuinely cannot say who the driver was after exercising reasonable diligence. Obviously you cannot say something that is not true (ie saying it was you driving when you genuinely can't be sure) as that's a perjury and that carries custody.
Of course not....in most cases, no-one should get the fine AS YOU CAN'T PROVE WHO WAS DRIVING, without the legislation that forces us to incriminate ourselves.
You know...a bit like the unsolved murders, robberies, burglaries etc etc Where you can't just send a letter demanding money with menaces.
Does EVERY criminal who is convicted after pleading not guilty get done for that?
You really are a brown nose aren't you?
Last edited by alcazar; Sep 10, 2017 at 06:17 PM.
As for why it's pertinant. You asserted that speeding is the only crime where you can be punished for witholding evidence, now that simply isn't true.
Oh and by the by, having a knowledge of the law isn't brown nosing. It's basic common sense, you'd have thought someone with an anti police chip on their shoulder the size of yours would be well read on the rights and how the law works. Or are you one of those freeman on the land nutters?
Last edited by neil-h; Sep 11, 2017 at 09:18 AM.
Yeah, yeah, whatever you say.
OK perjury is on the list, but tell me another?
And tell me one where you get threatening letters before you HAVE to incriminate yourself?
BTW: "bown nose" isn't name calling, it's a statement of fact
OK perjury is on the list, but tell me another?
And tell me one where you get threatening letters before you HAVE to incriminate yourself?
BTW: "bown nose" isn't name calling, it's a statement of fact
Police
Mmm goes on everywhere. Just one example of how corrupt upstanding citizens they ALL are.
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-n...-36106609.html
Mmm goes on everywhere. Just one example of how corrupt upstanding citizens they ALL are.http://www.independent.ie/breaking-n...-36106609.html
Last edited by 1509joe; Sep 11, 2017 at 02:08 PM. Reason: Forgot link








