What King Of An Idiot Would Video Themselves While Committing A Crime, And Then Up Load The Video On Social Media?

[Hymie]

[goodgoalie]

I've been driving for over 40 years, and I have to say until I saw this, I did not know it was the law that you had to wear a seatbelt in the back seat of a car.

[Zacs-Master]

It means he has two.

[Zacs-Master]

‘I've been driving for over 40 years, and I have to say until I saw this’

Ignorance is no defence.

[goodgoalie]

I'm not trying to defend myself. I was just pointing out that maybe he and/or whoever he was in the car with didn't know either.

[Zacs-Master]

You really think that! Sheesh.

[goodgoalie]

Yes, I really think that

[andy-hughes]

goodgoalie - // I was just pointing out that maybe he and/or whoever he was in the car with didn't know either. //

Ignorance of a law not broken by us, as anonymous individuals, is a luxury we enjoy.

That luxury is not extended to the Prime Minister who either should know better, or be surrounded by people who do know better and can advise him of his shortcomings.

[bednobs]

i always thought it was the drivers responsibilty

[bednobs]

no criminal record - dealt with by fpn in this case

[THECORBYLOON]

The driver is responsible only for passengers aged under fourteen.

[anneasquith]

Fined £100 .

[Hymie]

More importantly, as Tilly2 points out – only a moronic idiot would do such a thing.

[Boto]

NHS crisis, cost of living crisis, strikes galore, Ukraine war etc etc who is really bothered about someone not wearing a seat belt?

[ZebuSanctuary]

// Not good, but criminal act? //

The word 'crime' conjures up an egregious act deserving utter reprehension.

It would make more sense if the law was more distinct when it comes to matters of acts of crime and offences.

It would be better to say;

'All crimes are offences but not all offences are crimes.'

The words 'committed a crime' in relation to say a driving offence such as 'no windscreen fluid in washer bottle, which as a consequence would lead to an over zealous policeman issuing a fixefd penalty notice, seems at best a misnomer and at worst draconian.

Sadly UK law makes no provision in differentiating between the two.

[ZebuSanctuary]

// Angela Rayner said in a tweet that Mr Sunak was a "total liability" //

Talk about being melodramatic.

Get a grip Angela.

[ToraToraTora]

Perlease!

[Peter Pedant]

Hi - - me
an idiot that doesnt know he is doing it

give the fella a little lu-lu, lovey

[Peter Pedant]

I dont use one in the back of a car

[Peter Pedant]

Fined £100 .
nope
had to pay £100

big constitutional thing about levying a fine without court action. Big no-no for us constitutionalists. - and also for the consequences - records, disablities, how to appeal, public action etc, judge and prosecutor cant be the same etc

[New Judge]

//Thanks B, so does that mean Mr Sunak, now has a criminal conviction ?//

No, because he has not been convicted in court (this is based on the assumption that the PM pays his fixed penalty and the matter does not proceed to a prosecution).

//Sadly UK law makes no provision in differentiating between the two.//

It isn’t sad. It’s simply a matter of fact. By definition, any transgression undertaken contrary to a statute or Common Law is a criminal offence. There is a distinction of sorts. Most motoring offences are “non-recordable.” This means, although the miscreant has a criminal record, it will not on any DBS checks.

//big constitutional thing about levying a fine without court action. Big no-no for us constitutionalists.//

Quite so, Peter. Only a court can levy a fine (although the financial supervisory bodies, I believe, are allowed to tern their sanctions as “fines”). All the rest are “penalties” of some kind. The crucial difference is that fines can ultimately be enforced by a period of imprisonment in the event of default but penalties cannot.