Recommended Posts
dorbie 0
QuoteGood for us ... zero tolerance rules. Arse-holes using their mobiles whilst driving should be shot (ummmm ifin we had any guns left). We can't send them to prison as there's a No Vacancy sign posted at all of our jails.
Rule Britannia
This is brilliant, now you don't worry about your car being stolen, instead you worry about the police capriciously taking it on a fucking whim.
Judge Dredd has finally arrived.
Does anyone in Britain have a spine left or do they wander around in a stupor thinking this shit will never happen to them?
juanesky 0
Quite a few are too busy bashing the US, and keeping the self imposed belief of superiority to take notice. IMO.
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
Th police dont come out to 'minor' offenses theses days (shop lifting, burgalry, muggings etc..)..... so if you need them to turn up, tell them that you calling from a mobile phone, whilst driving..... the SPG will be down on you before you get a chance to hang up.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Nick 0
instead you worry about the police capriciously taking it on a fucking whim.***
Posessions are note taken "on a fucking whim" as you say, they are only confiscated when a crime has been committed (following due process).
Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
Posessions are note taken "on a fucking whim" as you say, they are only confiscated when a crime has been committed (following due process).
Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
juanesky 0
Quoteinstead you worry about the police capriciously taking it on a fucking whim.***
Posessions are note taken "on a fucking whim" as you say, they are only confiscated when a crime has been committed (following due process).
Are you telling us that now, if a cop has suspicions that you are on the way of comitting a crime (nothing has happened yet), it is due process enough to warrant your car to be confiscated?
Wow.
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
Nick 0
My understanding is that if your tooled up (examples here is of an old time burglar) with item such as a crowbar, black balaclava, lag bag with SWAG written on it, etc. those items would be considered as items to facilitate a crime then yes there is a good chance that they would be confiscated (will check that with the other half as she's a solicitor working in the area of crime).
The subject of the first post (and therefore the subject of this thread) is that the individual has already committed a crime, and in such a case items that have facilitated that crime will be confiscated.
In the UK we also have the proceeds of crime act which allows items that were obtained as proceeds of crime (cars, houses etc.) to be confiscated, but that’s not on the whim of a regular PC and would have to pass through the formal judicial system.
Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
The subject of the first post (and therefore the subject of this thread) is that the individual has already committed a crime, and in such a case items that have facilitated that crime will be confiscated.
In the UK we also have the proceeds of crime act which allows items that were obtained as proceeds of crime (cars, houses etc.) to be confiscated, but that’s not on the whim of a regular PC and would have to pass through the formal judicial system.
Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
juanesky 0
So, you don't actually have to comitt a crime, and the simple possesion of legal items such as crowbar, black balaclave, lag bag, are enough to proof you are up to no good, no matter that crime has not taken place. Gotcha.
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
Nick 0
As I said, that is my understanding (I could be totally wrong obviously) but will check it out with a criminal solicitor.
Think this is just working on the premis that prevention is better than cure. If this is the case and you are able to show that you have a valid reason for such item there's no problem. Can't say that I've ever heard (in the press) of any recent complaints relating to this so maybe it's a non issue.
In the case of what was posted by JohnRich, offences had already been committed, the obvious answer is, don't break the law and you won't have a problem
Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
Think this is just working on the premis that prevention is better than cure. If this is the case and you are able to show that you have a valid reason for such item there's no problem. Can't say that I've ever heard (in the press) of any recent complaints relating to this so maybe it's a non issue.
In the case of what was posted by JohnRich, offences had already been committed, the obvious answer is, don't break the law and you won't have a problem
Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
mr2mk1g 10
QuoteSo, you don't actually have to comitt a crime, and the simple possesion of legal items such as crowbar, black balaclave, lag bag, are enough to proof you are up to no good, no matter that crime has not taken place. Gotcha.
Not quite. There is an offence dating back to the 60s of going equipped to commit an offence under the theft act. That would cover possession of things like crowbar, black balaclava etc BUT these items alone are NOT enough to prove you are up to no good, or even that you intend to be up to no good.
What is required over and above simple possession of the above items is for the prosecution to be able to prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that you also intended to steal using those items when the opportunity arose.
As you might imagine, proving a future intent is rather hard to do but that's what's required of the CPS if they want to get a conviction.
As for the article – frankly I can't reconcile what it reports as going on with the relevant law on the subject. Failure to wear a seatbelt is not covered by the new powers whatsoever. If the police have indeed been confiscating cars from drivers who were stopped for failing to wear a seatbelt then frankly it's the officers who are the ones breaking the law.
Either the article is the usual shoddy journalism we are all aware of from skydiving incidents or the police would seem, on the face of things, to be dramatically over-stepping their powers.
As for the poll for whether or not its good or bad law – I'll post the actual law up for you to read for yourselves. The question of possible police misfeasance is perhaps an issue distinct from whether or not the law itself is bad.
Quote
Police Reform Act 2002
S.59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).
(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
(3) Those powers are-
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless-
(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if-
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
Rule Britannia
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites