Violent Offender Order - Abolition of presumption of innocence
14 January 2007, 11:00 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Violent Offender Order - Abolition of presumption of innocence
The latest wheeze is to prohibit you from having your car, telling you where to live, confining you to your home after dark and preventing travel. All you have to do to get one is..... NOTHING. The police or probation service can apply to court to award one to you based on hearsay evidence, and that's it. You dont even have to commit a crime anymore.
Blair wants 'super-Asbos' for violent thugs - Sunday Times - Times Online
To any NuLab cretins who want to post about how this is a great idea and protecting the public, you can just **** ***!
This Government is out of control and this sort of idea is just gonna make things worse. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, a fundamental tenet of our society?! I weep for the damage that has been done to this country - MY country - over the last 10 years.
Blair wants 'super-Asbos' for violent thugs - Sunday Times - Times Online
To any NuLab cretins who want to post about how this is a great idea and protecting the public, you can just **** ***!
This Government is out of control and this sort of idea is just gonna make things worse. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, a fundamental tenet of our society?! I weep for the damage that has been done to this country - MY country - over the last 10 years.
14 January 2007, 11:25 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What? You are not defending human rights there are you?
You'll be accused of being a PC plonker/puff/add demeaning term of your own!
I suspect that the European Court of Human Rights will have something to say about this. Mind you it didn't do much good for those in Guantanimo Bay
You'll be accused of being a PC plonker/puff/add demeaning term of your own!
I suspect that the European Court of Human Rights will have something to say about this. Mind you it didn't do much good for those in Guantanimo Bay
14 January 2007, 11:29 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woah, woah... it's ok.... this stuff will only apply to UK residents of several generations' standing. Illgal immigrants and asylum seekers will get an automatic waiver. 
15 January 2007, 10:14 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
All very well tying to bring in the 'super-ABSO' but, how the hell will it be enforced?
Can GATSO's be reprogrammed to detect people who for instance are 'out after 'curfew' ?
Can GATSO's be reprogrammed to detect people who for instance are 'out after 'curfew' ?
15 January 2007, 10:20 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with utterly reprehensible legislation like this, is that Middel England will look at it and think "Jolly Good!". The Torys will back it because they don't want to be seen as being soft on crime (unless of course they whiff a rebellion by the Labour back benches).
15 January 2007, 11:18 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COurse it does. However, it's all part of the ongoing shift to the right as a reaction to Torys gaining support in Middle England, which is where elections are won and lost.
Trending Topics
15 January 2007, 11:32 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 January 2007, 12:25 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe all that, it goes against the basic tenets of British law. Just imagine the scope that gives to an untrustworthy government to fit up anyone that they feel like.
Whatever appropriate punishment they want to give for real thuggery etc. etc is fair enough by me, but not without genuine proof in a court of law.
Just another indication of the "secret agenda" which is being set up for the future. It is more than frightening!
Les
Whatever appropriate punishment they want to give for real thuggery etc. etc is fair enough by me, but not without genuine proof in a court of law.
Just another indication of the "secret agenda" which is being set up for the future. It is more than frightening!
Les
15 January 2007, 12:30 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, damn that annoying part of British law where you have to prove someone did something. Far better to rely on heresay and conjecture - I mean, that's not open to abuse at all is it.
15 January 2007, 03:51 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be missing something here, but if a person gets a "Voo" raised against them, why on earth would the defence say "yup, we'll accept that". I mean The prosecution obviously haven't got a case, because otherwise they would go ahead with a charge. By accepting a Voo, the defence is effectively admitting guilt, surely.
Why on earth would the defence accept a "voo" when there is no case to answer?
Unless of course it is going to be used as a shortcut and bargaining tool - Ie. Accept a Voo, or we'll go to court.
15 January 2007, 04:21 PM
#16
The whole point is that it is put before a court and that both sides view the evidence as just and fair. If not then it is argued/discussed at court until a point is reached where the court can make a decission.
15 January 2007, 04:46 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evidence of what? No offence can be proven as being committed - That's the whole problem people have with this proposal.
15 January 2007, 05:15 PM
#18
OK here’s an example.
Little Johnny Snot moves onto your estate. He is well known to police community as a bit of a rogue and has been in trouble before for arson attacks. One night, someone’s car get torched on the drive at 3 in the morning. Police respond and detain Johnny riding off the estate on his bike smelling of petrol. No one else around at the time. He is arrested and interviewed, but states that he was out bike riding because he can’t sleep and he smells of petrol because he was helping his dad fix his car that day and spilt petrol on him. Nobody has seen him cause the car fire. Therefore no evidence against him and he walks away free.
He now thinks he can get away with it and returns most evenings and sets someone’s car on fire (including yours). Sometimes he is caught by police (in which he gives the same account) other times he is not. Always no witnesses that have seen him cause the fire.
Therefore at the moment, none of this can be used if we are seeking an ASBO. With the new legislation we can consider it at least. That’s not to say that it will prove any guilt, but the court can draw and inference and perhaps give consideration to these events when creating his conditions.
Little Johnny Snot moves onto your estate. He is well known to police community as a bit of a rogue and has been in trouble before for arson attacks. One night, someone’s car get torched on the drive at 3 in the morning. Police respond and detain Johnny riding off the estate on his bike smelling of petrol. No one else around at the time. He is arrested and interviewed, but states that he was out bike riding because he can’t sleep and he smells of petrol because he was helping his dad fix his car that day and spilt petrol on him. Nobody has seen him cause the car fire. Therefore no evidence against him and he walks away free.
He now thinks he can get away with it and returns most evenings and sets someone’s car on fire (including yours). Sometimes he is caught by police (in which he gives the same account) other times he is not. Always no witnesses that have seen him cause the fire.
Therefore at the moment, none of this can be used if we are seeking an ASBO. With the new legislation we can consider it at least. That’s not to say that it will prove any guilt, but the court can draw and inference and perhaps give consideration to these events when creating his conditions.
15 January 2007, 05:50 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK here’s an example.
Therefore at the moment, none of this can be used if we are seeking an ASBO. With the new legislation we can consider it at least. That’s not to say that it will prove any guilt, but the court can draw and inference and perhaps give consideration to these events when creating his conditions.
Therefore at the moment, none of this can be used if we are seeking an ASBO. With the new legislation we can consider it at least. That’s not to say that it will prove any guilt, but the court can draw and inference and perhaps give consideration to these events when creating his conditions.
15 January 2007, 07:12 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK here’s an example.
Little Johnny Snot moves onto your estate. He is well known to police community as a bit of a rogue and has been in trouble before for arson attacks. One night, someone’s car get torched on the drive at 3 in the morning. Police respond and detain Johnny riding off the estate on his bike smelling of petrol. No one else around at the time. He is arrested and interviewed, but states that he was out bike riding because he can’t sleep and he smells of petrol because he was helping his dad fix his car that day and spilt petrol on him. Nobody has seen him cause the car fire. Therefore no evidence against him and he walks away free.
He now thinks he can get away with it and returns most evenings and sets someone’s car on fire (including yours). Sometimes he is caught by police (in which he gives the same account) other times he is not. Always no witnesses that have seen him cause the fire.
Therefore at the moment, none of this can be used if we are seeking an ASBO. With the new legislation we can consider it at least. That’s not to say that it will prove any guilt, but the court can draw and inference and perhaps give consideration to these events when creating his conditions.
Little Johnny Snot moves onto your estate. He is well known to police community as a bit of a rogue and has been in trouble before for arson attacks. One night, someone’s car get torched on the drive at 3 in the morning. Police respond and detain Johnny riding off the estate on his bike smelling of petrol. No one else around at the time. He is arrested and interviewed, but states that he was out bike riding because he can’t sleep and he smells of petrol because he was helping his dad fix his car that day and spilt petrol on him. Nobody has seen him cause the car fire. Therefore no evidence against him and he walks away free.
He now thinks he can get away with it and returns most evenings and sets someone’s car on fire (including yours). Sometimes he is caught by police (in which he gives the same account) other times he is not. Always no witnesses that have seen him cause the fire.
Therefore at the moment, none of this can be used if we are seeking an ASBO. With the new legislation we can consider it at least. That’s not to say that it will prove any guilt, but the court can draw and inference and perhaps give consideration to these events when creating his conditions.
Once you go down the road of convicting on "probable" guilt, you are on a very slippery slope.
15 January 2007, 07:51 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK here’s an example.
Little Johnny Snot moves onto your estate. He is well known to police community as a bit of a rogue and has been in trouble before for arson attacks. One night, someone’s car get torched on the drive at 3 in the morning. Police respond and detain Johnny riding off the estate on his bike smelling of petrol. No one else around at the time. He is arrested and interviewed, but states that he was out bike riding because he can’t sleep and he smells of petrol because he was helping his dad fix his car that day and spilt petrol on him. Nobody has seen him cause the car fire. Therefore no evidence against him and he walks away free.
He now thinks he can get away with it and returns most evenings and sets someone’s car on fire (including yours). Sometimes he is caught by police (in which he gives the same account) other times he is not. Always no witnesses that have seen him cause the fire.
Therefore at the moment, none of this can be used if we are seeking an ASBO. With the new legislation we can consider it at least. That’s not to say that it will prove any guilt, but the court can draw and inference and perhaps give consideration to these events when creating his conditions.
Little Johnny Snot moves onto your estate. He is well known to police community as a bit of a rogue and has been in trouble before for arson attacks. One night, someone’s car get torched on the drive at 3 in the morning. Police respond and detain Johnny riding off the estate on his bike smelling of petrol. No one else around at the time. He is arrested and interviewed, but states that he was out bike riding because he can’t sleep and he smells of petrol because he was helping his dad fix his car that day and spilt petrol on him. Nobody has seen him cause the car fire. Therefore no evidence against him and he walks away free.
He now thinks he can get away with it and returns most evenings and sets someone’s car on fire (including yours). Sometimes he is caught by police (in which he gives the same account) other times he is not. Always no witnesses that have seen him cause the fire.
Therefore at the moment, none of this can be used if we are seeking an ASBO. With the new legislation we can consider it at least. That’s not to say that it will prove any guilt, but the court can draw and inference and perhaps give consideration to these events when creating his conditions.
(B) he was under curfiew
(C) he recieves either a bill for storage of his removed car...or
(D) he recieves a cheque for £0.98p the balance of the costs of selling his car to pay for the storage costs he was unable to pay due to A&B
(E) His home is repossesed due to non payment of mortgage as a result of A&B
I'll see you all later, i'm off down the bookies to get my bets in early
Mart
16 January 2007, 11:33 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care what example you give Felix, The laws were made for our protection and are clearly defined. Pure supposition that you wish to use to make your job easier is totally wrong even if some lawyer is prepared to accept it, possibly for the same kind of reason.
British law requires positive evidence for conviction and that is how it should remain. Allowing this sort of conviction is wrong and also dangerous as I explained in my previous post. We cannot trust the authorities any more and certainly not with this kind of power.
Hearsay evidence has never been admissible and to accept that in future is a betrayal of justice in this country.
Les
British law requires positive evidence for conviction and that is how it should remain. Allowing this sort of conviction is wrong and also dangerous as I explained in my previous post. We cannot trust the authorities any more and certainly not with this kind of power.
Hearsay evidence has never been admissible and to accept that in future is a betrayal of justice in this country.
Les
16 January 2007, 11:43 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care what example you give Felix, The laws were made for our protection and are clearly defined. Pure supposition that you wish to use to make your job easier is totally wrong even if some lawyer is prepared to accept it, possibly for the same kind of reason.
British law requires positive evidence for conviction and that is how it should remain. Allowing this sort of conviction is wrong and also dangerous as I explained in my previous post. We cannot trust the authorities any more and certainly not with this kind of power.
Hearsay evidence has never been admissible and to accept that in future is a betrayal of justice in this country.
Les
British law requires positive evidence for conviction and that is how it should remain. Allowing this sort of conviction is wrong and also dangerous as I explained in my previous post. We cannot trust the authorities any more and certainly not with this kind of power.
Hearsay evidence has never been admissible and to accept that in future is a betrayal of justice in this country.
Les
Sorry Les, this is just not true.
I was convicted of speeding.
Why - because i was the owner of the car.
I asked for a picture and received a shot of the back of the car without any cleare impression of who was driving.
The NIP arrived on the 13th day so 13 day had elasped between the incident and the NIP.
This is a road that both my partner and i drive down at least 3-4 times a day.
I work from home and she was off on leave and we only had the one car - so could have been either of us.
I stood up in court and stated (under oath) that i did not know which one of use was driving.
I got the concvitction!
I was presumed guilty and found guilty even though we do not know until this day who was driving.The law did not protect me it was all about the money and getting it from me!
So why not have some preventiative measures in place, why not target and inhibit known scum who get away with all sorts, it should not affect normal decent people going about their buisness and may go some way to redressing the balance!
Last edited by The Zohan; 16 January 2007 at 11:45 AM.
16 January 2007, 12:20 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul,
In that case you were dealt with incorrectly and it is a poor reflection of the way the law is being applied to motorists. we are getting the thick end of the stick because of the attitude of the government and the PC plonkers who hate us just for being so presumptuous to actually own a car and drive it on the roads. Too much personal freedom for us of course.
We do of course also see that the real criminals are given the maximum leeway in ridiculous proportion that the Human RIghts Act provides although that is never applied in the case of normally law abiding and well behaved middle Britain. It is as though the act is being used as an excuse to be as lenient as possible with criminals.
I agree that its is terrible to see this "Modern" attitude and it is of course totally wrong morally and otherwise. How much would you have risked by attempting to continue your defence I wonder? Modernity seems to be all for the convenience of the authorities and for the inconvenience of the rest of us.
Nevertheless, I still say that accepting hearsay or circumstantial evidence as proof of conviction is a false path to take and would surely be very bad for the people of this country in the long run.
Les
In that case you were dealt with incorrectly and it is a poor reflection of the way the law is being applied to motorists. we are getting the thick end of the stick because of the attitude of the government and the PC plonkers who hate us just for being so presumptuous to actually own a car and drive it on the roads. Too much personal freedom for us of course.
We do of course also see that the real criminals are given the maximum leeway in ridiculous proportion that the Human RIghts Act provides although that is never applied in the case of normally law abiding and well behaved middle Britain. It is as though the act is being used as an excuse to be as lenient as possible with criminals.
I agree that its is terrible to see this "Modern" attitude and it is of course totally wrong morally and otherwise. How much would you have risked by attempting to continue your defence I wonder? Modernity seems to be all for the convenience of the authorities and for the inconvenience of the rest of us.
Nevertheless, I still say that accepting hearsay or circumstantial evidence as proof of conviction is a false path to take and would surely be very bad for the people of this country in the long run.
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 16 January 2007 at 12:26 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM
KK3960
General Technical
3
07 October 2015 12:33 PM
