The human rights of speeders ...

[7db]

Someone pass me the lettuce before I start on the Scots.

[rlmr]

Someone pass me the lettuce before I start on the Scots.

...is that to make a salad to go with the grilled witch

RR

[MGF]

Sometimes 'technicalities' are better described as 'loopholes' - as in: they are exploited against what most would consider true justice. Occasionally it is obvious for all to see that someone is guilty and I find it abhorent that sometimes the defendent goes free due to procedural errors or simply poor law.

Rennie's example of a police officer not being in uniform when not wearing his hat is a good example of a technicality. The rule may have been in order to comply with some principle but it certainly isn't a principle in itself.

I don't like people to get off on technicalities either. However the right to silence is not a technicality. It goes much deeper than a rule that someone thought would be a good idea.

The right to silence is an interesting one and if I were on a jury I would consider it very strange behaviour and it wouldn't count in their favour!

And it is your perogative to do so even if it might not be consistent with your duty to the Court to apply the law as it is.

The right to be tried by a jury is another fundamental principle. We are convicted by our fellow wo(men), not agents of the state.

Clearly getting the balance right between protecting against false imprisionment and letting a criminal go free is tricky but sometimes I think the balance is too far towards the former.

And many agree with you, and not just the misinformed. This may reflect a trend in British culture away from 'letuce eating liberalism' to a more authoritarian approach where we trust the state and its agents more than we have in the past.

Personally I disagree because I like to eat my lettuce free form hinderence by agents of the state even if it increases the chances of my lettuce being stolen and the perpetrator escaping justice.

[rlmr]

I think this is an interesting debate, but whilst the UK Justice system is not perfect, it is one of the best and has been the model for many countries to follow.

And not intending to upset 7db... there are fundemental differences between English & Scots Law - fact. Even though my comments were made toungue in cheek.

RR

[The Thinker]

With regards about the police hat. From a legal point of view how would you recognise a police officer. I wouldn't want to give information or follow orders from any old tom dick or harry.

[rlmr]

With regards about the police hat. From a legal point of view how would you recognise a police officer. I wouldn't want to give information or follow orders from any old tom dick or harry.

A very good question. I no longer have access to the statutes in the Force Library and its a long time since I had to know the ins and outs of the Scottish Criminal Law Manual so no doubt some other better qualified participant in this forum can answer you, However...

I think the image of the traditional UK Bobby was pretty well known around the world, be it the Dixon of Dock Green or Fancy Smith from Z-Cars image. Now we have a more modern image with kit more suited to the task in hand. But black Lycra cycling tops with a Force Crest or a High Vis yellow jacket... there are so many variations from Force to Force. I suppose the common thread is the word POLICE adorning the new style uniforms whereas there were never such ID marks n the traditional uniforms. Also the word Police is known in most languages whilst Constabulary is quite unfamiliar to the non Brits.

We are now all too familiar with armed cops wearing flack jackets and baseball caps wandering about our Airports... times change and the thin blue line changes to meet the challenges it faces on our behalf.

RR

[7db]

And not intending to upset 7db... there are fundemental differences between English & Scots Law - fact

But we've been trying to civilise your nation since 1603...

[Big Err]

And not intending to upset 7db... there are fundemental differences between English & Scots Law - fact

But we've been trying to civilise your nation since 1603...

If you're idea of civilisation is speed cameras every mile, a multitude of speed limits on each rural road and wide spread decriminilisation of parking, is there any wonder we haven't let you??



Eric

[marcw06]

My reference to technicalities was not intended as a reductive for the many and various rights that we are rightfully accorded under English law - and if they are exploitable then they will be exploited - this doesn't make it morally correct.

That said, in this instance, and legalese aside, the guy WAS driving the car - he virtually admitted to it on TV - the fact that he went into a solicitor's firm and queried the fact that he was fined for doiing 70mph on what is usually a 70mph limit (50 in force at the time) more or less says as much.

He just cant accept that he got caught - tough really - to take an extreme example - if an alleged sex offender who paid to view illegal images over the internet got off the charge because he claimed that it wasn't him using his credit card - we'd all be much less sympathetic (in the same way as when the chap involved in the Soham murder case got off the indecent images charges) ... and, by the way, I'm not quite sure what to make (morally) of the statement that speeding is not a 'real crime' ??

[SammyTheSnake]

I know this post is largely tongue in cheek, but I thought it might be worth mentioning a few thoughts...

Awe... I liked the bit about English history when you drowned folk to make sure they were not witches... or burnt them.

Actually, the majority of those "arrested on suspicion of being a witch" were released without burning at the stake (or whatever) owing to not being proven guilty. I forget the precise figures, but it's something like 80%+.

I can't quite recall when England started their new fangled idea of innocent till proven guilty... was that after you stopped hanging 6 year olds for stealing bread to feed their families or just after you deported everyone to Australia..

None of which has bearing on how the decision of innocent/guilty was reached, of course (disagreeing with the sentence is an entirely different discussion)

Hence the origin of such quaint English phrases as "just as well being hung for a sheep as a lamb"

Refering to the fact that stealing a sheep and stealing a lamb both resulted in the same punishment, so you might as well get the most meat out of it you can. Bear in mind the person refered to actually *is* guilty in this case!

I am afraid I can only comment of Scot's Law, which has had the innocent till proven guilty ethos for some time, even though I believe we drowned a few innocent non-witches as well . Suffice it to say whilst it was not perfect, I policed under the "innocent till proven guilty" system and would not have had it any other way... even though it is not a perfect system.

Another thing that comes out of this discussion is how bad an idea the death penalty is. What use is an appeal leading to an acquital if you're dead (drowned / burned / whatever)?

Gosh, what a cheery thread :-S

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

[SammyTheSnake]

if an alleged sex offender who paid to view illegal images over the internet got off the charge because he claimed that it wasn't him using his credit card - we'd all be much less sympathetic

Wrongly so, IMNSHO. The seriousness of the crime doesn't have any bearing on whether a given suspect is guilty or not. If there is a "reasonable doubt" that it wasn't him (using his card) then he *must* be acquitted.

Of course, if the balance of evidence leaves the jury (or whoever) without a reasonable doubt, then we can be "reasonably" sure we've got the right guy.

If you think about it, the more serious the crime (and the more serious the potential punishment) the more important it is that we don't convict the wrong person!

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

[rlmr]

If you think about it, the more serious the crime (and the more serious the potential punishment) the more important it is that we don't convict the wrong person!

Seriousness of the crime.
This one always becomes emotive when someone dies (trying to get back onto a motoring theme again ). There used to be

• Causing Death by Dangerous Driving
• Dangerous Driving
• Careless Driving

Something which always caused outrage was when there was insufficient evidence to convict on Dangerous but sufficient to convict on Careless / Inconsiderate. Then the Sheriff (Magistrate South of the border?) could only use the punishment applicable to Careless and could not take account of the associated death.

Sentencing guidelines are constantly reviewed, but Sammy is right we do get emotive about somethings and reasoning goes out the window. Think its human nature. Attending a Fatal was never pleasant, but dealing with one when the deceased was a child was always worse (for me).

RR

[The Thinker]

A very good question. I no longer have access to the statutes in the Force Library and its a long time since I had to know the ins and outs of the Scottish Criminal Law Manual so no doubt some other better qualified participant in this forum can answer you, However...

I think the image of the traditional UK Bobby was pretty well known around the world, be it the Dixon of Dock Green or Fancy Smith from Z-Cars image. Now we have a more modern image with kit more suited to the task in hand. But black Lycra cycling tops with a Force Crest or a High Vis yellow jacket... there are so many variations from Force to Force. I suppose the common thread is the word POLICE adorning the new style uniforms whereas there were never such ID marks n the traditional uniforms. Also the word Police is known in most languages whilst Constabulary is quite unfamiliar to the non Brits.

We are now all too familiar with armed cops wearing flack jackets and baseball caps wandering about our Airports... times change and the thin blue line changes to meet the challenges it faces on our behalf.

Thanks for that reply. It does seem quite obvious when POLICE is written across everything. I was more concerned about unmarked police cars, or actors from the bill between takes. I seem to remember (Princess) Fergie getting a few headlines about impersonating a police officer.

[rlmr]

I was more concerned about unmarked police cars, or actors from the bill between takes. I seem to remember (Princess) Fergie getting a few headlines about impersonating a police officer.

It is certainly illegal to impersonate a police officer and blue lights or anything resembling a blue light canNOT be fitted to a motor vehicle.

There is some exemption about theatrical productions and from what I can recall, TV and Film "sets" in the real world are normally quite well defined and a local uniform liaison officer accompanied the film crew. Normally their vehicles are taken to / from sets via transporter, but you are right they do drive, marked up on our open roads. I think this must be covered by the Common Sense (Scotland) Act

RR

[SammyTheSnake]

It is certainly illegal to impersonate a police officer and blue lights or anything resembling a blue light canNOT be fitted to a motor vehicle.

If only that were enforced, and these HID lights that look blue from some angles (and appear to flash when the car is on a rough road) along with those inexplicably popular blue LEDs the chavs all have on their bonnets these days werecut out with a chainsaw or something...

I do remember seeing a chap in a totally over-keved car being talked to by the police because he had a blue neon type light all the way around his numberplate. I got the impression it was the bloody stupid driving on embankment at 10pm on new year's eve that got their attention initially, though...

(Princess) Fergie

Duchess, I believe...

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake " Penny