Section 59 - Anti social driving

im-lost

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

Well having a face that doesn't fit isn't reasonable belief that a driver has committed an offence now, is it?

Nawww, you think the corrupt police think they need any kind of reasonable suspicion

Joe_Horner

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

Well having a face that doesn't fit isn't reasonable belief that a driver has committed an offence now, is it?

No it isn't. But having a face or two that do fit claiming something and a face that doesn't fit denying it can be taken as such. It's human nature and exactly the reason that we've developed a justice system where one person doesn't get to act as judge, jury and executioner.

The very nature of these orders circumvents that for no real reason other than political expediency.

rev_henry

Aretnap wrote: »

Insurance companies usually find out about such things because people tell them.

"Certainly sir I'll just put through the details of your claim. Just to check a few details, have you been on a speed awareness course in the last 5 years"

"Yes. Hang on, oh !!!!!!, I mean no."

See also (a) the people who have declared no accidents who ring ip their nsirers to make a claim and say in passing "I can't believe it's happened again so soon" and (b) the people who have their cars insured for social use only who yell down the phone "you have to fix my car faster than that! I need it for work!"

The lies we tell are easily forgotten. The truth takes no special effort to remember.

I'm quite tempted to ring my insurer up and have that exact conversation when I haven't been on a speed course or had an accident, then see what happens if they try to make up a fictional accident.

Astronaughtwannabe

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No it isn't. But having a face or two that do fit claiming something and a face that doesn't fit denying it can be taken as such. It's human nature and exactly the reason that we've developed a justice system where one person doesn't get to act as judge, jury and executioner.

The very nature of these orders circumvents that for no real reason other than political expediency.

As far as 'summary justice' is concerned. I am inclined to agree BUT it's not JUST about faces an all that.

You'd have to have an officer (or two) prepared to make up an entire offence and risk facing some jail time for doing it (not to mention loss of career etc.)

Joe_Horner

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

As far as 'summary justice' is concerned. I am inclined to agree BUT it's not JUST about faces an all that.

You'd have to have an officer (or two) prepared to make up an entire offence and risk facing some jail time for doing it (not to mention loss of career etc.)

But they don't need to "make up an offence". They get a report from Col (retd) Fotherington-Smyth that some young hooligan is tearing up and down outside his club in one of those damned hot-hatcheries, and the club' doorman confirms it.

As upstanding members of the community, the constable who takes the report only has to decide that, on balance, it probably happened and young Barry gets one of these notices, on the spot, despite the fact that Tracy is willing to swear that he was parked up outside the village with her at the time.

No-one (except Fotherington-Smyth and his doorman) are making anthing up, and they can't be found out because there's no way to challenge the order so, even if Barry can (given time) prove conclusively that he wasn't there.