shock horror,man fined for breaking the law (3 Viewers)

[Nik]

Daily Mail reader.
Say no more!

 

[Tootles]

The person whining is a bit of a muppet.

Agreed.

If you have a vehicle you should know the rules that govern its use and ownership

More agreement.

If you canna be bothered to follow them and get fines DO NOT whinge..

Bucketfuls of agreeing type stuff.

Double his fine for being a whiney whinging twonk !!

Now we differ. "Double his 'fine'", and double the amount the greedy gits at Westminster get, so they can send another MP on a fact-finding 'expedition' to the Himalayas to count the empty beer cans on Mt Everest, or to meet up with some Argey stiff head who says he caught bird flu in Port Stanley in 1982, after he invaded and raped all the British penguins.
Enough is enough! Motorists are more and more being used as cash cows by the government of the day. New 'regulations' all end in one vital point........The amount you will be fined.
Half of all local government expenditure is made up from parking fines.......HALF!

 

[mpdcymru]

No argument there........Read my first post.

Personally, I dont find it 'offensive' to forget something. However, I do find it 'offensive' to milk everyone blind because they forgot.

What? Do what time?? Crime?? Dear oh dear. Crime is someone being shot, raped, murdered, held up by a man armed with a large knife, stealing lead..............This is just a way of raising cash. Lets think of another one.
"Unless your name begins with the letter Z, you will be fined £100". Rather then "Unless you declare that your car/truck/mechanically propelled vehicle is not taxed, and you dont let us know, even though we really do know, because you didnt send us any money, we will fine you £80 for failure to declare something we are already aware of". Dick Turpin made it shorter, he said "Your money or your life".

Whether you find it "offensive" or not does not have a bearing on whether it is an "offence".

you rather facile suggestion that having a name beginning with the letter Z might make you liable to a fine of £100 does not help the debate. If we were to accept it as a reasonable argument (and I hesitate to grace it with that meaning) then yes, if Parliament had debated and passed such legislation then it would be law and a penalty would presumable follow for those that transgressed. it is highly unlikely, even given the last few Parliaments we have had, that Parliament would pass such a law unlike SORN where it was held out to full Parliamentary scrutiny under the Stautory Instrument process.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Tootles]

Whether you find it "offensive" or not does not have a bearing on whether it is an "offence".

Of coarse it does. 'Offence' against whom? If you 'offend', in a criminal stance, then you are 'offending' against those who are your peers. I'm a 'peer', and so it pertains to me. Therefore, If I'm 'offended' by the word, used in the context of crime, then I'm perfectly entitled to be.

you rather facile suggestion that having a name beginning with the letter Z might make you liable to a fine of £100 does not help the debate.

Its as farcical as fining people for not producing information already known, and of coarse it helps the debate, as it produces a parallel of farce to SORN.
You seem to forget that in a democracy, (that we used to have but are rapidly losing), laws enacted by The Queen, after due debate in both houses of parliament, are for the people, by the people. Old King John didn't like that either, back in 1215. Maybe a straw poll on the usefulness and integrity of fining for fining's sake should be considered when first these stupid act's are put forwards?

 

[Enword]

So the consensus is that if its a democratically past law everything is fine & it should not be questioned, but the democratic vote to leave the EU is wrong ????

 

[mpdcymru]

Of coarse it does. 'Offence' against whom? If you 'offend', in a criminal stance, then you are 'offending' against those who are your peers. I'm a 'peer', and so it pertains to me. Therefore, If I'm 'offended' by the word, used in the context of crime, then I'm perfectly entitled to be.

Its as farcical as fining people for not producing information already known, and of coarse it helps the debate, as it produces a parallel of farce to SORN.
You seem to forget that in a democracy, (that we used to have but are rapidly losing), laws enacted by The Queen, after due debate in both houses of parliament, are for the people, by the people. Old King John didn't like that either, back in 1215. Maybe a straw poll on the usefulness and integrity of fining for fining's sake should be considered when first these stupid act's are put forwards?

No, I did not forgot how laws are enacted, I explained (partially) how they were i.e. contrasted the path that the SORN legislation passed through as against your suggestion about names beginning with Z.

Anyway, I joined motorhome "fun" for just that reason - the clue is in the title, so will not be partaking further in this thread as it is offering more farce than fun, lets move on to something a little better.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[mpdcymru]

So the consensus is that if its a democratically past law everything is fine & it should not be questioned, but the democratic vote to leave the EU is wrong ????

Despite my comment in my last post (the two must have crossed "in the post", I would like to say something here as it does shift the issue along a bit.

I'm not sure that "everything is fine" just because it has passed through the democratic system, Many will rememeber the original Dangerous Dogs Act which was totally unsuitable (naming breeds that did not even exist in this country and omitting the fact that any dog can potentially be dangerous, especially of left in the hands of innapropriate owners) so that it had to be amended almost immediately it was passed.
If we have a consensus on this thread it is, I think, that if a law has been passed we, as citizens have an obligation to adhere to it or challenge it in a democratic way.

I agree with you that the people, via a referendum, voted to leave the EU and now there is a movement which seeks to have that ioverturned through the use of Parliament. I am not clear as to where a referundum result stands in relation to the will of Parliament and I am clearly not alone in this otherwise there would not be such a widespread debate about it. I for one did beleive though that as we went in to that referendum that the result would be binding and not as some now seem to be arguing "advisory".

 

[Jaws]

Agreed.

More agreement.

Bucketfuls of agreeing type stuff.

Now we differ. "Double his 'fine'", and double the amount the greedy gits at Westminster get, so they can send another MP on a fact-finding 'expedition' to the Himalayas to count the empty beer cans on Mt Everest, or to meet up with some Argey stiff head who says he caught bird flu in Port Stanley in 1982, after he invaded and raped all the British penguins.
Enough is enough! Motorists are more and more being used as cash cows by the government of the day. New 'regulations' all end in one vital point........The amount you will be fined.
Half of all local government expenditure is made up from parking fines.......HALF!

OK, you have a point..
Halve the fine and beat the berk over the head with a telephone book for ten minutes.. Might knock some sense in.. But I doubt it !

 

[sdc77]

The police made £1.6 million pounds in the sale of confiscated cars this year so far.
And you dont see that as a cashcow??

When a car is confiscated for no insurance the offender is issued with the paperwork which enables them to get the car back by obtaining insurance.
Your figure would indicate that quite a few didn't want the cars back .... hardly the actions of Mr & Mrs forgetful.
If that money is ploughed back into policing then that's good as far as I'm concerned.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Tootles]

When a car is confiscated for no insurance the offender is issued with the paperwork which enables them to get the car back by obtaining insurance.

It dosent quite work like that. A car left on private property uninsured whilst the owner(s) are away abroad can be taken and auctioned. Likewise a single person in hospital for a protracted period of time, who fails to renew their vehicle tax and insurance can also have it removed from their property, auctioned, and the money disappear into 'police sources'.

If that money is ploughed back into policing then that's good as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, should buy a few take away's for the 'lads' in the station.

 

[PeteH]

They no longer send out reminders because you only have to SORN once.

As far as I am aware it has to be renewed every anniversary.?

The only concession pertains to the "Motor Trade"

OK, It was changed 2013(ish).

""The changes, which come into force from 16 December 2013, also mean that motorists will only need to tell DVLA once when they declare their vehicle off the road. Currently, motorists who make a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) have to renew their SORN every year. Last year, around 4 million SORNs were made, with over 1 million of those repeat renewals.""

It remains a fact that IMV, MOST motor related "fines" are in reality, "Stealth Taxation". Parking fines being the worst, Fined for remaining in a dedicated parking bay a minute over the time limit. But they still cannot put double yellow lines on the corner of our road where there is a (primary) School, The dentist, Doctors Surgery and Bus stop all within 50 yards. To stop the ignorant twonks who create a dangerous congestion because they WILL NOT walk an extra Hundred yards to pick up the "little Darlings". We have tried, and the answer boils down to "when we have a DEAD kid, we will be able to do it"!.

Pete

 

[GJH]

And you dont see that as a cashcow??

I thought they were a subsidy to keep my tax down and my pension up

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Tootles]

I thought they were a subsidy to keep my tax down and my pension up

No mate, it's a subsidy against us all so that more money can be sent to really poor countries who have space research and atom bombs.

 

[GJH]

No mate, it's a subsidy against us all so that more money can be sent to really poor countries who have space research and atom bombs.

Ah well, so long as its a good cause unlike councillors' allowances