Public consultation on Protection of Freedoms Bill

Mrs_Arcanum

Done my bit. Allowing keeper liability opens the floodgates for keepers to be done for speeding when they weren't driving :mad:

Sirdan

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

Done my bit. Allowing keeper liability opens the floodgates for keepers to be done for speeding when they weren't driving :mad:

I'm afraid that is somewhat difefrent as speeding and the requirement of the registered keeper to name the driver are covered by statute law i.e The Road Traffic Act.

As I understand it :-

Under said Act if the keeper asserts they are not the driver when receiving a speeding ticket ..then they are obliged to name the driver and saying " I don't know" is not an accepted valid defence.

Any keeper prosecuted under S172 can expect to receive at least as much of a penalty as the original speeding offence would incur i.e. fine and points on licence. (but for S172 you get SIX points not the three you get for speeding)

This has been tested in the European Court of Human Rights re right to silence and right to not implicate oneself .. they found in favour of S172

Sirdan

Some good posts coming through ..one of which highlights the danger that making the registered keeper liable by default implies that unless evidence to the contrary is adduced then it will be assumed on balance that the R/K was the driver!!
As the post says this reverses the burden of proof i.e. you as the respondent to the claim have to be able to prove you are not liable , as opposed to the claimant having to prove the validity of their claim.
If this is allowed to go through we are a short step away from this government introducing statutes which say "guilty till proven innocent".

This can NOT be allowed to happen.. Schedule 4 is the begining of the end if it is allowed to go through unchallenged. lets hope our Lords have some spine as well as brains ..I don't trust the commons to get anything right TBH!

I wonder what Ms Chakrabarti at Liberty would make of this..although i suspect they have bigger fish to fry in this bill relating to CCTV and anti terror laws . Almost like the parking bit has been snuck in at the end hoping no one will really notice ..after all it's only parking isn't it ?

HO87

I particularly liked this comment from Ian Chandler:

Out of the blue we have “it is immaterial for the purposes of this Schedule whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked (or to remain parked) on the land.” In which case the charge cannot be a charge for parking surely? It becomes a penalty.

Well said.

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

I particularly liked this comment from Ian Chandler:
Well said.

Absolutely.
I will drawing on my own thoughts and the "best" bits of what I have read so far in order to write an appropriate letter to my MP.

I suggest everyone should do likewise. There are important principles at stake here that go far beyond parking issues.!:mad:

esmerobbo

I see Patrick Troy posted! Unfortunately not the BPA one!

peter_the_piper

What has happened to this now? Down to 7 again and mines disappeared.

Coupon-mad

peter_the_piper wrote: »

What has happened to this now? Down to 7 again and mines disappeared.

I thought that too, having returned to the bookmarked page it still showed just 7 responses a minute ago which was confusing.

But then I refreshed the page and there are suddenly 26 responses!

HO87

Wait for the deluge of Pro-PPC posts appearing tomorrow once the usual trolls pick up on the issue.

peter_the_piper

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I thought that too, having returned to the bookmarked page it still showed just 7 responses a minute ago which was confusing.

But then I refreshed the page and there are suddenly 26 responses!

Doh!!!!!!!!:o