Blunkett wants to prevent hooligans blazing around housing estates by giving police the power to impound the car, to be returned after payment of a release fee.
Good idea, thought I.
Then I remembered the traffic plod who stopped me for an offence that wasn't an offence. He didn't know the law, we had a heated discussion, and he finally gave in.
That was OK, but what if he had been one of those arrogant types who occasionally turn up? Would I have had a long walk to the car pound? .........You bet I would.
Will Blunkett protect us from such abuse?.............doubt it.
|
Why should the hooligans care? They probably stole the car in the first place. Its the owner who will be taking the walk to the puond, to pick up the pieces.
Perhaps Blunket and some of his mates should be made to live on one of these estates for a few months. Yeh, fat chance!
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't it make more sense to impound the said hooligan?
|
|
|
|
Don't blame Plod for Government Spin......they expected us to take drunken yobs to cash points at one stage. They have a few good ideas which will be brought back to planet Earth for use.
|
|
|
Well the people who are having problems over the high cost of disposing of the old unwanted car have had their problems solved.
Take it for a blast round your local supermarket car park one night.
Ring Mr Plod first to complain about some hooligan and wait for them to take it off you.
There's always a silver lining.........
Alvin
|
|
|
|
Most police are thick and cowardly.e,g they stay well clear of armed drug dealers in the UK. But, they can up their crime figures by hounding the average motorist, easy prey of course. They seem to forget who pays their wages - the rate payer and the tax payer. As to the confiscation of cars, they could fall foul of the EU Convention of Human Rights over this one.
|
plod-I-dislike wrote:
>
> Most police are thick and cowardly.
And how do you know "most police" ? In fact, given that there are 120,000 of them, apparantly, then you obviously know 60,001. Either that, or thick would apply to someone who can`t count, and cowardly to someone scared of writing their own e-mail address for fear of having to stand by their mouth.
>they could fall foul of the EU Convention of Human Rights over
> this one.
Something which I suspect does not apply to you.
|
|
|
and what do YOU do about crime and unpleasantness in your neighbourhood? Have you ever considered becoming a reservist? Taken a St Johns Ambulance course? Joined Neighbourhood watch?
One day you may be a victim of crime, and the first thing you'll do is call 999 for the thick and cowardly police ...
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting how the true cowards on this list hide behind either faked or blank email addresses... and how the folk who have something of intelligence to offer use their own real E-mail addresses... perhaps what we need is a filter to knockout out anyone not using a real address
|
|
|
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
But I'm not afraid to admit I'm a coward!
|
|
the main reason that i used to use a false email address was because i was afraid that someone might send me a virus, but everyone knows my address now.
|
|
|
|
So what is a hooligan? What if I accidentally do 31mph in a 30, can they take my car off me?
Will Saxo boy get his maxed up pride and joy removed, whilst 40 in a 30 Discovery driving mums crash over the speed bumps?
This is moralistic and enforces stereotypes..
|
|
|
I fail to see how any version of this, and the confiscation of vehicles used for what Customs and Excise decide is excessive duty-free imports, meets the criteria of natural justice, since the penalties are arbitary.
Citizen A, in his beat-up Fiesta, transgresses and losesa £100 vehicle.
Citizen B does the same thing and loses a £20,000 BMW.
How can that be jusified?
|
|
|
