I think the point is that motorists who drive badly can already be fined and receive points, but it's a court who decide, not the police. Giving police the power to act as arbiter is what is wrong and that's the issue at stake.

 

I see that. Is it the case that you and others feel that they can't trust the Police to exersise these powers? How and why would members of the force want to abuse their authority to police and issue punitive measures against careless driving?

 

Yeah, heard that before. The *****.

Assuming they don't bother with the "cue ball", then I'd be fine!

 

This has all been covered above and I think you know that.

Just to be clear: current law states certain minimum tyre tread depth; police pull me over and my tyres are below that depth; obviously breaking the law, so accept fine/points and go on my way.

There's a clear difference between the above and an officer pulling you over and fining you because he reckons you might have been slightly on the wrong side of the very fuzzy line of what he considers 'careless'. Or maybe you were on what is usually the right side of that line, but on this day there wasn't much action/he'd been told to target certain motorists/he personally felt you needed taken down a peg or two/he'd seen a bad case of dangerous driving earlier and was just generally p*ssed off, so views anything that catches his attention as much worse than it actually is.

How and why would they want to abuse their authority? They're human, and at the time they are largely influenced by their emotions. Even if only 1 in 10 police officers would abuse their power and hand out fines and points which shouldn't be handed out, that's not acceptable. Again, much better to let some neutral people in court decide from the evidence given whether it constitutes careless driving or not. And if they're not up for that, why not? ...Much better to just get their way (for a variety of reasons) on the spot and collect the fine.

You should think these things through before you jump straight in with statements like "I say give the police more power " (Gear Head). It sounds good and it's easy, but in a few years you might just wake up one day and regret it. Nineteen Eighty-Four.

 

Yeah, I've heard the Orwellian hypotheses a million times and I don't think or feel that it applies in this instance. If you're convinced these plans are part of the slow-creep towards a police-state, that's cool, there'll be plenty of sixth-formers over at Prison Planet that'll agree with you. I don't. I think it's sensible and in-line with Cameron's ideas of de-centralisation, bureaucracy reduction, and unburdening the courts. I think we're just looking through different lenses, here. Ten years ago I may have agreed with you.

 

Unable to counter it with a decent argument, it's always best to try to reduce any credibility your opponent might have. I'm not some conspiracy-theory-obsessed student.

What does Cameron's plan have to do with anything? Just because it's part of something which generally sounds good, doesn't make it any better in principle.

Do you or do you not agree that the police should be able to fine or give you points based on their feelings at the time? And would you be happy receiving a fine and points on your license for something which, before, wouldn't have been considered careless driving because it wouldn't have stood up to scrutiny in court? (perhaps you accelerated up to speed too aggressively in their opinion - again, very subjective, they don't have to give any clear definition of what was dangerous about it, just that 'it was'.)

 

No, I don't agree that judgements should be based on someone's "feelings", that would be a disaster. The traffic officer will overwhelmingly employ dispassionate, objective, common-sense thinking, in-line with the issued guidelines. Inevitably the minutiae will reveal a process that allows for an appeal; there'll be checks and balances. I think you and I have different perspectives on the how the Police Service operates, GK.

 

Yes I agree, his is based in reality for starters whereas yours is from Tory Utopian Fantasy Land

 

I had the same view of the Police whilst NL were in power. I appreciate you may have had some very negative experiences with the Police, f1.

 

12 of my peers? In a magistrates' court? It's 'due care, not the Brink's MAT! . Now, what's your view of magistrates, Dave?

 

It's not a case of distrusting the police, it's a case of allowing justice to run its course - the police enforce the law, the courts impose the penalties if you break it.

 

No, they don't. Among other things, if you trespass on a railway line, have a **** in the street, drop litter, make a hoax call to the fire brigade or act like a dick when lashed-up, you get a fixed penalty. Soon, if you tailgate or undertake you'll get a fixed penalty. And?

 

Spot on.

 

All the scenarios you point out that currently incur a fixed penalty are black and white offences, Careless driving is not. One person's careless driving is another person's getting on with it. Sure undertaking fits the bill, tailgating maye although how close is too close, but then there are the myriad of other offences that could fall under careless driving all of which are less clear.

Anyway this is all largely irrelevant as this isn't about the law and right or wrong, it's about revenue colelction and subjugating the masses.

 

If it's not clear cut, no fixed penalty will be issued. If there's dispute between the alleged offender and the Police, there'll be an appeal process.

Only if you're a conspiracy theorist. The beauty of conspiracy theories, of course, is that they're unfalsifiable. You'll believe that's because it's a conspiracy - the absence of evidence will affirm your conviction that there's an all encompassing plot against you and the "masses".

 

Oh for goodness sake it's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact! During NL's term of office more and more laws were introduced aimed at controlling the population e.g. the fact we can no longer protest outside an oil refinery due to it being classed as a terrorist threat (the whole terrorist threat bollocks is another story entirely of course).

The current government are just contunuing where they left off and don't say they aren't as if that were the case they would be reversing the laws put in place by their so called arch enemy not adding to them.

 

Summary conviction of offences which can mean the loss of a man's licence and maybe his living is all wrong without the protection of real justice, and the only way to get that is in a court of law.

There is too much of this sort of action outside the law creeping in and it will eventually lead closer to a police state. You cannot always trust the man making the accusation either through mistake or even deliberately for his own reasons. it is an abrogation of British justice.

Les