"And if you would cynically do that why would you tell the insurance company?"
Because they would find out anyway, they have access to the DVLA database and probably wouldn't bother looking until claim time.
|
Do what my 19 year old cousin does.
has a car, its in good nick, a type of Nissan in the North-West of the UK (dont wat to give exact details as thier are lots of do-gooders on this board who think it's their duty to grass up people to the police).
He cant afford the £1250 insurance quote - so has no insurance.
The car came with tax which has 3 months to run, so when parked he is fine.
The car has no MOT - but again, he knows how to get around an engine bay - all is ok.
He picked the car up from a gent in his university. He has not bothered to register the car, as the gentleman who he purchased the car off has returned to China and he never registered it (name on doc is some women in the UK).
He drives through speed cameras at his pleasure - no problem.
Sadly, due to the expense and big brother state of this country - it costs less (in terms of fines and punishment) to drive illegally at the age of 19 than legally.
Speed cameras are no deterent to those who dont care.
Just like speed bumps, the majority suffer for the sake of a small minority.
This government have lost the plot. And thats coming from a Labour man.
Anyone who cant see that cameras are their as a form of tax for the majoirty are blind the the size of the speed enforcement industry.
P.S. i dont approve of what my cousin is doing, but I can understand his reasoning.
|
|
Eventually he will pass a ANPR machine which will compute no insurance for that reg. Then the crunch will come, and a criminal record - does he really want that? Not that I care, and if I knew who it was I'd shop him - I'm not a do-gooder BTW, but I don't care for crooks.
|
"Then the crunch will come"
Only if the ANPR check includes enforcement officers down the road. Mostly it's a postal job, which won't catch him. Unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
Anyone who cant see that cameras are their as a form of tax for the majoirty
The 'majority' of drivers have not been caught by a speed camera, let's get it into perspective.
Similarly, the vast majority of drivers (young and old) drive legally, with tax, insurance etc etc. In some parts of some cities there's a problem with untaxed, uninsured cars, but let's keep a perspective on that too. In a Midland city near to me the police have been quite pro-active in identifying these vehicles and a good number have been taken away and crushed.
|
"The 'majority' of drivers have not been caught by a speed camera"
Is that still true?
|
|
|
|
My cousin can't afford a new laptop, but he wants one. So he shoplifted one from Tesco.
Sadly, due to the expense and big brother state of this country - it costs less (in terms of fines and punishment) to steal than to behave honestly.
This government have lost the plot.
PS I don't approve etc etc but ...
|
|
|
your cousin is a low life.......simple as that. What's the excuse for the lack of MOT? Does he ignore the tyres when they're bald? What about a brake problem, what does he do then "nah sod it, too expensive i'll just risk it"
Oh and by the way, I suspect you're posting on the wrong forum.
|
|
|
"dont wat to give exact details as thier are lots of do-gooders on this board who think it's their duty to grass up people to the police).
He cant afford the £1250 insurance quote - so has no insurance."
Do you ever consider that one of the reasons that insurance is expensive is that the honest majority who pay for their insurance are subsidising free loaders like this
Of course its cheaper to drive legally than illegally. So what. If he can't afford the costs of motoring he should stick to the bus.
|
So I'm a dealer in crack and I make millions, laundering the money through various complicated bank accounts. One day the authorities get on to me and ask me where all the money came from.
I can't remember, or if I could, why should I tell them - it's a free country?
Obviously concealing a crime ought to be an offence.
|
|
|
Do you ever consider that one of the reasons that insurance is expensive is that the honest majority who pay for their insurance are subsidising free loaders like this
A major reason of high insurance premium is because of the replacement hired vehicle cost while the car is being repaired.
Because of this, a £300 repair work turns out to be £3000 job.
The rate at which we pay tax (& council tax) in UK, insurance should be free!
|
"A major reason of high insurance premium is because of the replacement hired vehicle cost while the car is being repaired"
How ironic. A client of mine who used to hire cars locally (he owns a garage) at very reasonable rates (£90/week about ten years ago) had to give it up because of the increasing cost of insurance!
|
|
|
A major reason of high insurance premium is because of the replacement hired vehicle cost while the car is being repaired. Because of this a £300 repair work turns out to be £3000 job.
That's not the case you know...
The hire vehicle is actually provided by the repairer. Obviously it has to be paid for somewhere along the line, but when you see what the repairer gets as profit its really not that much. It may add a few £'s on to your premium, but certainly is not the main reason for high insurance costs.
Modern cars tend to be more expensive to repair (the fitment of air-con and airbags has led to more costly repairs). Other factors would include fraud and theft for stripping & export.
|
I think it is disgraceful and cynical on the part of the government.
I guess that most people who refuse to say who was driving are trying it on. Fine them, no problem. Some aren't. So now we have to keep a watch at all times where we were, when, and who was driving. If we do not know that, and get an NIP, then we must knowingly lie. That is shocking and disgraceful and shows that the gov. just want to penalise people and do not care about justice or honesty.
And cameras are not (always) for safety. a camera can be erected if there were X killed or seriously injured on a given stretch of road within a certain time space. But, if some drunk people staggered into the road, and were mown down by a lorry doing less than the speed limit, that would justify a camera. Absurd.
When they erect fixed or mobile speed cameras on our local residential roads, then I might have sympathy. But they put them in places where it is easy to nab people, and the limits are often poorly indicated. (Such is Luton.)
|
"And cameras are not (always) for safety. a camera can be erected if there were X killed or seriously injured on a given stretch of road within a certain time space. But, if some drunk people staggered into the road, and were mown down by a lorry doing less than the speed limit, that would justify a camera. Absurd."
Incorrect - injuries and deaths is only one aspect. You also have to show that drivers on the road regularly exceed the speed limit. The test is that in free flowing traffic 20% of drivers must be shown to be exceed the limit by 10% +2mph.
|
Incorrect - injuries and deaths is only one aspect. You also have to show that drivers on the road regularly exceed the speed limit. The test is that in free flowing traffic 20% of drivers must be shown to be exceed the limit by 10% +2mph.
No need to be a pedant. I think you get the point I was making, namely that a camera can be erected even when the injuries and/or deaths were NOT caused by exceeding the limit. In other words there is no demonstrable speeding related safety issue.
|
some people on here would nick their own wife or kids.
the fact remains - this is ALL to do with revenue.
we need speed limits which vary depending on conditions (day time, no traffic 80mph - day time, heavy congestion, 50mph).
The motorist is an easy target and will remian an easy target until they form a strong pressure group. Sadly its groups such as 'brake' and 'greenpeace' who both driven by people high on emotion and ignore the economic and social benefits that cars bring; which shout the loudest and influence government.
There are 4 possible options.
1. accept it,run the rsk and maon to your mates in the pub.
2. drive illegally and save yourself a fortune. Dont register your car. Use duplicated or false plates. Cover part of your plates. ETC.
3. form a strong pressure group, and get the voice of the commuter at the centre of government policy.
4. leave the country.
As someone who used to work in the motor trade im pleased im out, as the industry will continue to see smaller margins, more forecourt closures and britians roads will be policed like staligrad. not by people but by technology.
When someone is fined for something they can be totally innocent of (genuinly not remembering who was driving 2 months ago) and is forced to lie and take the blame - something has gone wrong under Labour.
|
|
daveyk_uk - please can you ask your cousin to take option 4 - thanks
|
HAHA
will do.
When I see him I warn him he is being to risky - but its his responsibility and decision at the end of the day.
Students for you!
|
How would you feel if someone invented a 99% foolproof way of setecting people breaking the law, dealt with it within a couple of months, and was entirely self-funding?
I suggest most people here would be delighted. But not, of course, if it's a law they choose to break .They only want that law enforced when it's convenient to them.It's strange how we don't seem to see the irony in this.
Variable speed limits are attractive, but expensive to enforce- linking cameras, for example, to the display devices .Probably it's how we will go but you can expect a whole new Mr Loophole industry growing up then where people claim they didnt know the limit had gone up in a particular location/time.
I drive a lot and I am getting really cheesed off with this myth of the persecuted driver. On every motorway journey I see dozens of people drive without any regard for the speed limit; I don't mean people chancing it at 80 then straying to 85- I mean people who go past me very quickly when I'm already doing 75.
|
daveyK_UK said "some people on here would nick their own wife or kids"
I think that's gratuitously offensive, and inaccurate. I hope you weren't serious.
The most dishonest person I can remember seeing referred to recently on this board (apart from the armed robbers who stole two cars) is - your cousin. You are entitled to your opinion about his behaviour, but you shouldn't presume we're all - or any of us - as dishonest as he is.
--
Stevie
Lakland 44-02 Sunburst
Yamaha YTS-23
Mexican Telecaster
Alesis Micron
|
daveyK_UK said "some people on here would nick their own wife or kids"
I wonder how many people would 'grass' on your cousin? I think I would. But only after making him know that I thought that what he was doing was wrong, and giving him a chance to get insurance. Not having the money is no excuse. I did not drive until I was 35, and relied on trains and buses till them.
|
daveyK_UK said "some people on here would nick their own wife or kids"
Is Jack Straw a forum member? ;)
|
>> daveyK_UK said "some people on here would nick their own wife or kids"
it wouldn't get to that stage......firstly if SWMBO even suggested it let alone tried it i'd fall off my chair.....secondly, if anyone else tried it, family or not, they'd no longer be welcome in my home/ social circle, as their outlook on life would be so at odds with mine, there'd be no point in carrying on the social interaction.
|
I expected it.
the do-gooders would tell the police about there family breaking car laws.
Im not on about murder, or armed robbery - but mot's and insurance.
Its wrong, but there are far bigger consequences between no MOT and murder.
You obviously dont live in the real world. You are blind to how the 'other half' live.
I consider it my duty to tell the police if my cousin killed someone - but its no big deal if I dont run around to the station and tell them he is driving with no insurance.
They wouldnt be bothered anyway.
Infact the last time I went to the station, I had to ring a bell and waited 20 minutes to be seen to - then told to call crimestoppers!
What you are in favour of is the Nazi state - tell the state when your neighbour or friend has broken the most trivial of laws.
Variable speed limits are the only fair system - so when its safe you can go fast. And when its crowded - you got slower.
Back to the point - this 6 point thing is a joke, and im sure its only a matter of time before its over turned in court.
I guess your all in favour of identity cards as well?
my cousin like so many other inner city people does not have insurance. I doesnt matter how much you increase the fines, the cameras the consequences - until their is a better alternative to the car, it will carry on.
|
> Im not on about murder, or armed robbery - but mot's and insurance.
> Its wrong, but there are far bigger consequences between no MOT and murder.
No MOT and no insurance means no idea whether the car is safe, actually a good idea that it isn?t as why not get an MOT otherwise, and means that I'm paying a good £40-50 a year for scum like your cousin to drive around risking everyone's neck.
A potentially unsafe, untraceable car with no insurance cover potentially threatens my loved ones and me. No traceability, so speed limits don't matter, and they are a good driver aren't they, so they can do 50? Dodgy brakes? No problem, they are so good they can anticipate problems and avoid them.
Friend of mine is in a wheelchair 'cos of a car crash, she?ll never walk again. It's only because the driver was insured that she's been able to afford the modifications to house and life to get on with things. Had the driver had no insurance and no cash to sue for, it would have been far worse.
Uninsured drivers are part of a broader mindset, dangerous to others, and I've have no hesitation shopping anyone doing it. It's not a Nazi state, it's common decency. If people have no house / life / possessions insurance then I couldn't care less. Their risk, their decision.
|
|
scum, nazi... strong words surely?
|
Scum is an opinion, very much just my opinion, and yes, arguably a bit strong, but people don't realise that these things can have serious, life changing consequences. Death, maiming and suffering are very real consequences of idiots in cars.
Nazi was mentioned by the original poster, as in thinking we are living in a Nazi state. I strongly disagree, and am constantly amazed at what people get angry about when there are so many things that really *are* worth getting worked up about.
For me, and I've got into arguments about this before on the board (it was one reason for me leaving for 9 months), no insurance should mean confiscation of car and crushing / selling of it - proceeds to medical research charity or some such. No ifs, no buts.
As for speeding, yes, many cameras and limits are stupid, but I've never bought the idea that they are ?unfair?. They are generally bright yellow, up on poles, and accompanied by white markings on the road and (normally) a warning sign a few hundred meters back. Yes, scamera vans may get you, but generally they seem to be set to catch the more outrageous speeders, and judging by some friends who are truly appalling drivers who *should* be banned, you have to be going some to get nicked even now.
People generally chose to speed, people chose to drive uninsured, I think that if you chose to do something you should be prepared to take the potential consequences.
|
Of course I understood Gordon M, and knew you weren't the original introducer of nazi.
I still think scum is a bit strong though. We know that quite a lot of people, students included, need a car to get about, there being no other form of transport for some commute or other. Over a thousand pounds for insurance would make a lot of people's eyes water. But this student may well be a sensible fellow, not an idiot or chav. He won't want to exceed limits etc. because when he is caught it will cost him more than it would the average motorist. He may be actively inhibited, as most sane people are, against causing death or injury to anyone. Therefore he will make sure that the car (MoT'd or not) is more or less safe to drive.
This guy was presented by his cousin, a poster here, as being fairly sensible and constrained to drive illegally by poverty (as many are of course).
Some of these illegals may well be 'scum', but there's no reason to suppose they all are.
That was what I meant.
|
"constrained to drive illegally by poverty"? Eh?
If you can't do something legally, you shouldn't do it. No ifs, no buts, or else you allow Johnny Scumbag (not his real name, obviously) to argue he was "constrained by poverty" to help himself to your valuables.
|
No MOT and no insurance means no idea whether the car is safe actually a good idea that it isn?t as why not get an MOT otherwise and means that I'm paying a good £40-50 a year for scum like your cousin to drive around risking everyone's neck. [snip]
I would not use the word scum in a public forum but I agree with the content of your posting.
|
I expected it. the do-gooders would tell the police about there family breaking car laws. Im not on about murder or armed robbery - but mot's and insurance. Its wrong but there are far bigger consequences between no MOT and murder.
Is killing someone with a car that is unsafe (for example due to brake failure) any different from mugging someone who consequently dies from a heart attack?
You obviously dont live in the real world. You are blind to how the 'other half' live.
I think we live in the real world.
What you are in favour of is the Nazi state - tell the state when your neighbour or friend has broken the most trivial of laws.
It is not a trivial law IMO. The point is that your cousin is endangering other peoples lives. If he chose to shoot up with smack, well that would be his foolishness, and I would not 'grass' on him.
I guess your all in favour of identity cards as well?
What, and trust the government to implement a massive IT system within budget and working? You must be joking. Government IT schemes are nothing more than a pork barrel opportunity for expensive IT consultants. (I speak as an IT professional.)
my cousin like so many other inner city people does not have insurance. I doesnt matter how much you increase the fines the cameras the consequences - until their is a better alternative to the car it will carry on.
As I said earlier, I did not drive until age 35. Sadly we live in a world where some self centred people think they have a right to something, and if they can't get it by legal means, they steal it. In this country anyone with an able body can earn a living. Why do you think so many Eastern Europeans are coming here? If your cousin is so young his insurance is ~£1,000, then he should not drive. When I was a student, almost no-one drove. I bet your cousin goes to the pub often, and eats lots of take aways. And he probably smokes.
|
You obviously don't live in the real world. You are blind to how the half live.
Probably true, to some extent. The important point is that most here who are now in a position to afford motoring have been in the situation where they couldn't. Certainly there was a long time when I would have liked a car but couldn't afford one. My solution was not to have one, not to get one illegally.
Nowadays if I want something I can't afford I put it on credit and pay it off (may not be an option for some I appreciate) or I don't buy it. Simple. I don't obtain it illegally.
|
I wouldn't recommend anyone to run an illegal car. However I don't see any connection between this sort of risky corner-cutting, commonplace we are led to believe, and theft, violence or burglary which seem to me to be in another category.
Time enough to call the person names after the car has had an accident as a direct result of not having an MoT certificate (LOL) and the driver has done a runner or falsely accused someone else of being to blame. Until then though there seems no reason to suppose these things will happen just because they can. All sorts of things can happen, but mostly they don't.
|
Entirely true Lud, the car may be entirely fine, but that would be more likely with an older driver I'd guess. In my (admittedly limited) experience a lack of proper documents means a lack of any sort of eye on safety.
In any case, accidents happen to everyone eventually, and it's people like us that pay insurance that have to subsidise those who don't. I'd quite like £50 off my annual insurance bill.
I would bet that everyone here is guily of some degree of moral flexibility (I know I'm happy to speed on a motorway in 'appropriate' conditions), but I think no insurance is taking things too far.
|
[snip] I don't see any connection between this sort of risky corner-cutting commonplace we are led to believe and theft violence or burglary which seem to me to be in another category. [snip]
Oh, and just to clarify, by describing people of this ilk as 'scum', I was in no way implying that they have anything to do with theft, burglary, assault or any other type of criminal behaviour. My comments were entirely restricted to lack of insurance.
|
Not you GM, someone else drew the parallel.
I agree, no insurance is going a bit far. But I bet a lot of people who post here have driven an uninsured vehicle in their time, not often or far, but on the road. I'm sure I have but I can't remember when. However doing this regularly would make most rational adults too anxious.
|
Lud suggested "I bet a lot of people who post here have driven an uninsured vehicle in their time not often or far but on the road."
I don't want to be pi, but I haven't. And I bet the overwhelming majority on this forum haven't. It's not that difficult to be law-abiding.
|
You can be quite law-abiding, and still have done it GM, if only inadvertently.
But please let's not get into a lot of hand-on-heart polemics.
|
Lud suggested "You can be quite law-abiding and still have [run an uninsured car]".
Lud, I think it has less to do with being law-abiding than with being responsible and organised.
As I said, I don't want to appear any more pious than necessary (but you should know that, in his (I like to think) foolish youth, my godson referred to me as a "pompous windbag"), but I have never been uninsured for car or house. I've never failed to display an up-to-date tax disc. I have inadvertently failed to but a parking ticket and, on my return to the car, gone and bought one.
And I can clearly remember, after I got married and my father bought us our first (black and white) portable tv, balancing it on the Post Office counter while I applied for a tv licence.
Perhaps I'm the only one.
|
Evidently you are very responsible and organised GM, and I salute you for it. I freely admit that I am far from either of these things, although more responsible than I used to be.
It can also have quite a lot to do with how many balls you are trying to keep in the air at once. Sometimes these illegalities are temporary short cuts. Usually, probably.
But it's perfectly possible to think you are insured and not be, as in the case of a crooked broker for example.
By the way, I feel you slightly give yourself away by giving equal weight on paper to car insurance, house insurance and tax disc. House insurance is the most important to you, car insurance the most important potentially to innocent third parties, and the tax disc doesn't matter a fish's nipple to man or beast provided you mean to pay for one sooner or later.
The basis of your attitude is technical rather than moral. Still, it is admirable and I'm sure has kept you out of trouble.
|
"House insurance is the most important to you car insurance the most important potentially to innocent third parties"
Not if you own a house. Remember the MIB!
"and the tax disc doesn't matter a fish's nipple to man or beast provided you mean to pay for one sooner or later"
I'll proffer that next time I get caught. Or not!
"The basis of your attitude is technical rather than moral."
The basis of my attitude is that I'm a grown-up, and ought to be able to shoulder all of my responsibilities. I really don't see why I should try to wriggle out of them if I want to run a car - well, how difficult is it, really?
Oh, and if you buy insurance from a crooked broker (face it, when did it last happen to anyone on this forum?) then you're not breaking the law, inasmuch as you ain't going to be convicted.
|
>>Oh and if you buy insurance from a crooked broker (face it when did it last happen to anyone on this forum?)
Happened to me when I was minicabbing, 35 years ago nearly, but that is expensive insurance you have to have, and the guy I later learned from the minicab firm that had recommended him to me, was issuing cover notes and pocketing the cash or something ... not quite that but some edge of the void stuff South London brokers got up to back then anyway.
However just to reassure you that I am not innocent Groovy, I may well have passed over small bits of road uninsured on other occasions... it's all gone dim, I can't remember, but...
Bit of a deafening silence here though. I can't say I blame anyone for not quite remembering doing something like that, or not. Really I hardly do myself. Perhaps it's a hallucination.
Just depends which comes first, motoring in some form or your good name. When I was young it was no contest. Must have led a charmed life. Meant no harm though, and did none.
|
Lud said: "But I bet a lot of people who post here have driven an uninsured vehicle in their time"
Not me.
There is a huge difference between inadvertently driving without insurance, and deliberately doing so. An Indian I knew once turned up at my door in a borrowed car with no insurance. He thought his friends insurance was enough. I told him in no uncertain terms that it was not and I hope he will never drive again in the UK without insurance.
A lot of my relatives are poor, but they are honest and law abiding. I guess it depends on how you are brought up.
|
the do-gooders would tell the police about there family breaking car laws. Im not on about murder or armed robbery - but mot's and insurance. Its wrong but there are far bigger consequences between no MOT and murder.
You obviously dont live in the real world. You are blind to how the 'other half' live.
I'm very much aware of how the 'other half live'......and very much look down my nose at it. I would not tolerate the low morals and standards of your cousin in any way shape or form. It would not necessarily be a case of reporting them to police, but ensuring they were very much aware they were not welcome in my circle. from what i know of my immediate family and friends they think likewise
I do not for one minute think that the 'other half lives' relates to a great portion of society either, or those that are 'poor' or 'working class' or anything similarly hinted at. It relates to the selfish and greedy who use excuses to cover their own lack of morals and seek to include others in the definition to cover their own backs... and they can be from all walks of life.
|
Back to the point
i dont approve what my cousin is doing.
secondly, I only mentioned his situation as a sure fire way to 'beat the system' of speed cameras.
the fact remains - it is NOT Speed that kills.
|
Although this new law? is now active and the "penaties" have been re-vamped and clarified, I notice in tonights "local rag" that Magistrates have just punished a "registered Keeper" for this very offence, he recieved:
a £300 fine
£200 court costs
and THREE points on his licence!
Still no consistency then in the punishments!
Billy
|
|
PU will confirm but revised penalty probably only applies to offences committed after the new law was commenced.
|
I notice in tonights "local rag" that Magistrates have just punished a "registered Keeper" for this very offence he recieved ... THREE points on his licence!
It takes some time for offences to come to conclusion at court - often 6 months - so this was presumably an offence committed before the new penalty came into force.
|
the fact remains - it is NOT Speed that kills.
On it's own it's not, but it can make all the difference when contact takes place.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Thanks adminisphere genius !
I have five people on my insurance and can be out the country for between 6 and 8 months at a time. Does that mean I can pick up a hire car at the airport and be banned before I've even stepped out of the airport and have knowledge of such ban ?
|
I have five people on my insurance and can be out the country for between 6 and 8 months at a time. Does that mean I can pick up a hire car at the airport and be banned before I've even stepped out of the airport and have knowledge of such ban ?
Possibly.
It's not a very sensible way to run a car, is it?
Maybe you would be better ensuring there is someone to open your mail while you're away.
|
It's not a very sensible way to run a car is it?Maybe you would be better ensuring there is someone to open your mail while you're away.
why should he have to? Does he not live in a democracy where the State has to prove you're wrong before there are any sanctions? Why can't he do as he wishes without unnecessary interference
oh I forgot, there's the subject of the fines/taxation and the whole system crumbling if people got around it, so therefore for underhand taxation purposes some of our freedoms have to go out of the window
why not put a penny on the income tax instead.......heavens and admit to the public what they're really up to
|
Here we go again ;-)
why should he have to [arrange for someone opens his mail while he's abroad for 6 or 8 months at a stretch]?
Just common sense, I would have thought. I'm sure he's smart enough to have arranged it anyway.
Does he not live in a democracy ...
"Democracy"? No, not at all. There is probably a correct term for our system of government, but I don't know what it is - Pugugly, have you still got your student books? - which would have to include the words "representative" and "parliamentary", but it's not a democracy.
Does[n't] the State ha[ve] to prove you're wrong before there are any sanctions?
Yep. And the State has defined how it proves it: using cameras and s. 172 Notices, for example.
the whole system crumbling if people got around it so therefore for underhand taxation purposes some of our freedoms have to go out of the window
I don't think there has ever been a "freedom" to speed. And I suspect, when the 70 mph limit was introduced, you weren't out on the street manning the barricades protesting about erosion of freedom to speed. It's only now people are getting caught that there's all the hyperbole about freedoms.
Nice to have a meaty debate.
|
"Yep. And the State has defined how it proves it: using cameras and s. 172 Notices, for example".
And not forgetting, of course, the failure to caution under provisions of PACE to help the conviction rate!
|
"failure to caution under provisions of PACE"
I think this is an old MCN chesnut. There is no provision of PACE which requires a caution in these circumstances.
|
I think the mix up with the PACE caution is the fact that under PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) normally for any offence suspected, the suspect has to be given a caution i.e.
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
however, the above caution isn't given when the authorities are enquiring of a vehicle owner which person was driving a vehicle,... so that they can then send that person an NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution).
It therefore follows that if in the vast majority of the cases the registered owner was also the driver at the time of an alleged offence, then they're not being cautioned when they're being required to provide their own details for a prosecution..... so they do not have the ability to accept the first line of the caution and keep quiet. Depending on which side of the fence you sit, you either: A, should get the caution.. because being the owner there's a reasonable chance you could also be the driver and you should be allowed to keep quiet..or B, you don't need the caution, because all you're doing is telling the authorities who was driving a vehicle at a particular time...and if they then want to NIP you, then that's a different part of the proceedings for which you will get a caution.
this has been tested at court up to the European Courts and the little man has lost, so we might as well accept it......albeit it galls me and IMO goes against the spirit of PACE and our long held legal priciples.
|
No Chestnut. SFAIK no person who has taken the PACE plea route in handling a NIP has been required to go to court or got points/fine either. See Pepipoo for a string of reported successes. Case is usually dropped by CPS because the process is not in compliance with the law of the land.
|
Chesnut too.
See below.
And remember, Pepipoo is part of the internet.
;-)
|
PACE Code H Para 10.1 says "A person whom there grounds to suspect of an offence must be cautioned before any questions about an offence, or further questions if the answers provide the grounds for suspicion, are put to them if either the suspect's answers or silence may be given to a court in a proescution."
GM. I am aware that Pepipoo is part of the internet - so is this forum - what point are you making? They are both places where information is asked for, given and exchanged. Nothing wrong with that.
|
PACE Code H Para 10.1 says "A person whom there grounds to suspect of an offence must be cautioned before any questions about an offence or further questions if the answers provide the grounds for suspicion are put to them if either the suspect's answers or silence may be given to a court in a proescution."
I think you're thinking of Code C. Code H - the new one - relates to terrorists. I suspect we will both agree that, however heinous our sainted government considers speeding, they fall short of branding you or me as a terrorist.
Code C contains a similar provision, but it relates to suspects in detention. When you get yer NIP, you're not detained. So it don't apply.
GM. I am aware that Pepipoo is part of the internet - so is this forum - what point are you making? They are both places where information is asked for given and exchanged. Nothing wrong with that.
Of course not.
It's just that, in matters related to speeding, I have found it a great source of inaccurate and downright misleading information. It's akin to your local taproom on a night when it's full of barrack-room lawyers. HJ's site is, I'm sure, subject on occasion to the same problems, but the percentage here of sane, level-headed and well-meaning contributors approaches 100.
|
No - I quoted erroneously from Code H (too much carp to sift thru!) but the wording is the dame in Code C which is for non-terrorists! Whatever the merits or otherwise of Pepipoo, there are plenty of epople ther who claim success with the "PACE" defence. What do PU and DVD say about this - they are truly our legal high flyers = eagles!
|
Codes C and H Relate to people in detention !
Cuh!
tinyurl.com/2xcm76 - see for yourself!
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 14/10/2007 at 21:34
|
And the purpose of the shouting is - - - -?
{ You're right - I heard it over in Tech
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 14/10/2007 at 21:35
|
:)
I thought you'd missed my point about ...
Oh, I get it.
Stop it! (Unless you know anything about VTEC error code P1259, beyond its indicating a problem in the ECU.)
|
Now you have really lost me! What is the connection between PACE, an ECU and a VTEC error code? Too difficult! Ask me one about 5 dimensional hypersonic fluid dynamics!
|
But, AS, ye canna change the laws of physics.
Sorry to have made this so degenerate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
