turboman786

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...cle1523237.ece

turboman786

Sounds a bit like harrasment to me...after all the loopholes are there to be exploited!!

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Can't say I agree with this at all. If you are acquitted of an offence in a court of law, you are not guilty of the offence and should be treated like an innocent civilian. Rules and procedure are there for a reason (usually to ensure that evidence is fair, accurate and impartial) and if the authorities haven't followed them it is only right this should be taken into account. The police choosing to effectively ignore the findings of the court and persecute someone who has been declared innocent, which as far as I can see is what this amounts to, is setting a dangerous precedent. We may feel that some laws are unfair, but the police would hardly be sympathetic if we just decided that were not going to adhere to them.

The police are looking to blame the solicitors when they should be looking at themselves and those who set the legislation!

If someone exploited a loophole in the law, then it's up to the authorities to close it. If there is a problem with enforcement, then it is up to the authorities to rectify it. This is typical "shutting the gate after the horse has bolted" policy!



Ns04

DCI Gene Hunt

About time the feckin rozzers targeted something other than early retirement........

_RIP_

The bill have been doing this for years, "looking for" anyone who should be "justly banged up". Nothing new in their eyes anyway

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

I'm sure they have and I'm sure most of the time, they're probably right! The problem is: what if they're biased, or just plain wrong?

Ns04

_RIP_

They're NOT biased already?

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

Watching the news at lunchtime, Nick Freeman, the solicitor that is infamous for exploiting these loopholes, said that he was doing was not actually exploiting loopholes as such but highlighting technicalities which basically where a resault of incompetant coppers not doing their job properly ie, questioning people without cautioning them, not calibrating speed measuring kit etc.

I think this is as much a kick up the backside for the boys in blue as it is a tightening of the law and targeting drivers. Maybe they should get on and do what we the taxpayers pay them to do and catch criminals whether they be drivers or murderers.

ChrisB

Agreed. If the CPS and portions of the Police understood the law properly, far fewer people would escape on a "loophole". There have been a number of cases on Teeside of late (IIRC) where people were "getting off" speeding tickets as the Section 172 notice sent out by the Police didn't comply with the relevant legal requirements.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

And that's a fantastic example of what I mean. The police may cry foul play over someone getting off on such a technicality, but hang on a minute if they've not calibrated their equipment then surely that's not a "technicality"; it's a serious issue that undermines the reliability of the entire prosecution. They should be called on it, and the person should walk. The simple way to avoid this happening and securing genuine convictions on the guiilty is to do the job properly. Like I said, rules and procedures are there to try and make sure we punish the guilty and NOT those who are innocent or who's guilt cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Ns04

DCI Gene Hunt

Is 'testing' a police car at 155 a loophole?

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Nope, but it sure is fun, your honour!

Ns04

_RIP_

They are simply cutting more and more corners in order to cover up the massive increase of serious (other than speeding ) crimes we now have. The bill are mainly a reactionary force driven by politics, yes sir no sir

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

All the CPS/Police have to do is get the case right in the first place.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Absolutely!

Alcazar

Leslie

There was a senior cop on the TV saying that what it all meant was extra training for coppers and possibly in the CPS as well to ensure that they had all the facts and procedures right before they decide to prosecute. The impression given was that it would not be a matter of persecuting the motorist unfairly!

I agree that the priority given to unlawful offences is biased towards the easy money. ie the motorist.

Les

lozgti

Bring back The Sweeney methods.

Can't believe 'New Age' police go out of their way to collar anyone.We live in a criminals paradise.They burgle houses whilst the police add up all the speeding fines

SiDHEaD

This "hoping people wont contest speeding fines" cos of £4000 costs is a bit fckin unfair!

Felix.

I think the defendants should defend themselves, rather than rely on some clever solicitor to find these minute loopholes and exploit them.

If you are on about making sure police do things right from the start, take a simple shop lifter. For us to cover everything:

We will need the store to close down straight away and conduct a complete stock take.

Seize every CCTV camera in the town incase the defendant states he was elsewhere at the time.

Statements of every shopper in the store stating what they did or did not see.

Clothing to be seized of every shop staff incase the defendant claims he was assaulted by them in the store.

Statements from other stores in the area stating that they did not sell the defendant the items in question

Any property seized by police and stored will need statements of every officer who has access to the property store stating that they did not tamper with the evidence.

Is that what you want us to do - or should we try and close these loopholes and have the laws & courts make decisions based on common sense..??

Tidgy

have to say i kinda agree and disagree, yes they shouldn't get away with it, but is it realy worth bothering with?

the shear cost alone will be hurendous, and considering other issue that have no police involvment at all, but should, then tbh i think its a waste of time effort and money

and as far as liberty the human rights people, there a bunch of tossers who would soon change there mind if the crme was commited against them.

right stepping down from my soap box now pmsl

GC8

Instead of denying a defendants right to legal counsel why dont we go the whole hog and make you Judge Felix? You can shoot perps and save the tax payer the expense: judge and jury. What a truly stupid position to adopt.

Fantom

I don't believe there is EVER a loophole to get off a driving whilst drunk charge. As long as the person was actually over the limit. People who drive whilst drunk should never get off on a technicality.

GC8

There isnt a loophole; people are aquited where the Police or the CPS fail to do their job correctly. If the Police officers dealing with the ****-artist are too slack to do their job properly; then they (the driver) have a good chance of being aquited, if they have an able solicitor.

SWRTWannabe

Trouble is, how do you prove someone is drunk? By using technology which presumably has to be maintained and calibrated correctly. If there is not evidence that this has been done, then there is your technicality.

A lot of this really boils down to common sense. If someone was caught speeding using a device which was not maintained correctly, then yes, their prosecution should not stand. But if it comes down to something as trivial as an error on a form, then common sense should step in.

Felix.

My stance on this - is that you can have free advice for the first 5 occasions. After that, then you are on your own.

We deal with prolific burglars, thieves and maniacs - who rely on the fact that they can do what they want and rely on their solicitor to either get them off or get them a good deal.

Anyway - I think I would do a better job than some judges and magistrates:

3 years for a person who stole a car and ran over and killed a 7 year old.

A thief who's punishment was to sit at the back of the court for the rest of the day.

A number of hours community service for a string of burglaries - which amounted to 1 hour per home burgled.

A shoplifter who admitted the offence and was given a unconditional discharge (ie no punishment)

GC8

I understand your fustration; but you cant undermine our fundamental right to justice. The short term limited gain cant justify it. If only the Labour government realised this.....

ChrisB

It's simply Police propaganda to scare people into folding. Magistrates have guidelines which state costs must not be disproportionate to the fine which is backed up by established case law : R v Northallerton Mag's Court, ex parte Dove.

Felix.

They can still have justice - just tell the truth when asked "did you do it..."