section 59 - outrageous highway robbery?

Chippy_Minton_2

Wig wrote: »

It worked before, there's no reason it can't work again.

And if you were crippled by an uninsured drive would you still hold the view it works?

Inactive

What puzzles me is why so many people are trying to somehow defend the rights of these people.

They don't give a stuff about anyone, why bother with their " rights ".

The more of these morons that they take off of the road the better, as far as I am concerned.

Chippy_Minton_2

So far the only valid arguement has been "Human Rights"

What about our human right not to be hit by an uninsured driver?

Paradigm

Inactive wrote: »

What puzzles me is why so many people are trying to somehow defend the rights of these people.

They don't give a stuff about anyone, why bother with their " rights ".

The more of these morons that they take off of the road the better, as far as I am concerned.

Which people? Which morons?

Chippy_Minton_2

Paradigm wrote: »

Which people? Which morons?

Ones who drive without insurance?

Inactive

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Ones who drive without insurance?

As well as the !!!!!! that this thread originally started about.

Paradigm

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Ones who drive without insurance?

Ah.. there are two different discussions currently on this thread.

Paradigm

Inactive wrote: »

As well as the !!!!!! that this thread originally started about.

Which "!!!!!!"? Come on I'm intrigued!

Chippy_Minton_2

Paradigm wrote: »

Ah.. there are two different discussions currently on this thread.

Yes, Wig is now of the opinion the police now have too much power to take uninsured cars now.

liam8282

Paradigm wrote: »

[/I]

I did read it & my interpretation was totally different to yours.



I don't think it does.



Absolutely!



Taken from the FAQ section on IPCC site....



Substitute Section 59 for ASBO, after all that's what it is, a motoring ASBO!

The only recourse for a S59 is a letter to your local Chief Constable asking for "mercy" & he's hardly independent is he? After that you can take civil action at considerable cost to yourself... seems fair to me

There is no burden of proof or substantial evidence required for the issue of S59, it's based on the whim of an Officer (or PCSO :eek: ) who may be in a "bad mood" after, say, finding out his wife has been shagged by John Terry!

It's a piece of legislation with no proper controls that has been corrupted from it's original purpose.

What it needs is an independent appeal panel, much like there is for parking offences, & until such a thing exists it will continue to be abused by unscrupulous BiB!

Starting to go round in circles a bit here, the appeals process seems clear to me.

If you have done nothing wrong you appeal to the officer in charge at the station, if that fails you then have the option of making a formal complaint about the police to the IPCC, as you are calling into question the professional behaviour of the police involved.

At the end of the day, I don't think anybody has gone this far, because either 1. they admit they have committed an offence, or 2. the S59 is cancelled by the officer in charge. I expect the majority will be point 1, because the list of offences that could result in an offence under the RTA or S59 seems extensive.