Oh Fell. It Seems To Have Triggered...
Body & Soul1 min ago
What King Of An Idiot Would Video Themselves While Committing A Crime, And Then Up Load The Video On Social Media?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// any transgression undertaken contrary to a statute or Common Law is a criminal offence //
Still sad.
// Most motoring offences //
That's better.
In relation to the wearing of seatbelts I am further buoyed by the following piece of legislature;
Road Traffic Act 1988 s 14(3)
Quote... 'A person who drives or rides in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations under this section is guilty of an offence; but, notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, no person other than the person actually committing the contravention is guilty of an offence by reason of the contravention'... Unquote
See, not one mention of contravening regulations being described as a criminal act.
Moreover, in compliance with the law, from now on I shall take off my seatbelt when performing
a reversing manoeuvre.
Road Traffic Act 1988 s 14(2)(b)(ii).
Still sad.
// Most motoring offences //
That's better.
In relation to the wearing of seatbelts I am further buoyed by the following piece of legislature;
Road Traffic Act 1988 s 14(3)
Quote... 'A person who drives or rides in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations under this section is guilty of an offence; but, notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, no person other than the person actually committing the contravention is guilty of an offence by reason of the contravention'... Unquote
See, not one mention of contravening regulations being described as a criminal act.
Moreover, in compliance with the law, from now on I shall take off my seatbelt when performing
a reversing manoeuvre.
Road Traffic Act 1988 s 14(2)(b)(ii).
// big constitutional thing about levying a fine without court action. Big no-no for us constitutionalists. //
Go to court and contest the alleged infringement. Fair enough.
To abolish FPNs for minor offences would be retrogressive.
Should that be your intention, then count me out of your constitution!
Go to court and contest the alleged infringement. Fair enough.
To abolish FPNs for minor offences would be retrogressive.
Should that be your intention, then count me out of your constitution!
//See, not one mention of contravening regulations being described as a criminal act.//
I cannot recall any statute mentioning a “crime” or a “criminal act”. Any that I’ve looked at contain “…is guilty of an offence” (or similar). Even the section of the RTA describing the most serious of motoring offences (Causing death by dangerous driving) makes no mention of a “criminal act”:
“A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.”
//Moreover, in compliance with the law, from now on I shall take off my seatbelt when performing a reversing manoeuvre.//
You don’t have to remove your seat belt when reversing in order to comply with the law. You can keep it on and still remain legal. The legislation simply provides an exception to the law for those who wish to remove their belt.
//Go to court and contest the alleged infringement. Fair enough.
To abolish FPNs for minor offences would be retrogressive.//
Who is talking of abolishing them? However, you should bear in mind that the offer of a Fixed Penalty (rather than proceeding immediately to criminal prosecution) is entirely at the discretion of the police. A recipient has no right to a FP and has no right of appeal if he is prosecuted rather than being offered one. He can, however, if he is prosecuted, try to persuade the court that a fixed penalty would have been appropriate in all the circumstances and request to be fined at a level equivalent to the fixed penalty.
I cannot recall any statute mentioning a “crime” or a “criminal act”. Any that I’ve looked at contain “…is guilty of an offence” (or similar). Even the section of the RTA describing the most serious of motoring offences (Causing death by dangerous driving) makes no mention of a “criminal act”:
“A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.”
//Moreover, in compliance with the law, from now on I shall take off my seatbelt when performing a reversing manoeuvre.//
You don’t have to remove your seat belt when reversing in order to comply with the law. You can keep it on and still remain legal. The legislation simply provides an exception to the law for those who wish to remove their belt.
//Go to court and contest the alleged infringement. Fair enough.
To abolish FPNs for minor offences would be retrogressive.//
Who is talking of abolishing them? However, you should bear in mind that the offer of a Fixed Penalty (rather than proceeding immediately to criminal prosecution) is entirely at the discretion of the police. A recipient has no right to a FP and has no right of appeal if he is prosecuted rather than being offered one. He can, however, if he is prosecuted, try to persuade the court that a fixed penalty would have been appropriate in all the circumstances and request to be fined at a level equivalent to the fixed penalty.
//Seems a lot of fuss over something relatively minor to me…//
Quite so naomi...for most people. But this is rather like "Cakegate" (though nowhere near so serious). The basic theme through both is that "lawmakers should not be lawbreakers". I recall the campaign in support of compulsory seat belts quite well. Those in support gave gruesome descriptions of people being crushed on steering wheels or hurled through windscreens. Those against said it was everybody's right to be killed or seriously injured in any way they chose and it was an erosion of their freedoms to take that right away. Of course those in favour won. But supporting politicians at the time claimed the moral high ground as part of their campaign ("protecting the emergency services" etc.).
Now we see the country's principle lawmaker behaving stupidly, despite his earlier political colleagues pontificating about the need to wear seatbelts.
Of course this is nowhere near as serious as the episodes where MPs and their lakkies were jugging it up whilst everybody else was locked down, unable to even go to the pub, let alone a wedding or a funeral, courtesy of their hastily drafted and unscrutinised Covid legislation introduced, allegedly, to keep everybody safe and protect the NHS. But the principle is the same - it isn't what was done, it's who did it.
Quite so naomi...for most people. But this is rather like "Cakegate" (though nowhere near so serious). The basic theme through both is that "lawmakers should not be lawbreakers". I recall the campaign in support of compulsory seat belts quite well. Those in support gave gruesome descriptions of people being crushed on steering wheels or hurled through windscreens. Those against said it was everybody's right to be killed or seriously injured in any way they chose and it was an erosion of their freedoms to take that right away. Of course those in favour won. But supporting politicians at the time claimed the moral high ground as part of their campaign ("protecting the emergency services" etc.).
Now we see the country's principle lawmaker behaving stupidly, despite his earlier political colleagues pontificating about the need to wear seatbelts.
Of course this is nowhere near as serious as the episodes where MPs and their lakkies were jugging it up whilst everybody else was locked down, unable to even go to the pub, let alone a wedding or a funeral, courtesy of their hastily drafted and unscrutinised Covid legislation introduced, allegedly, to keep everybody safe and protect the NHS. But the principle is the same - it isn't what was done, it's who did it.
// cannot recall any statute mentioning a “crime” or “criminal act” //
In regard to driving infringements the term 'offence' is fine by me.
// You don’t have to remove your seat belt when reversing in order to comply with the law. You can keep it on and still remain legal. //
Wow!
// The legislation simply provides an exception to the law for those who wish to remove their belt. //
Just in case you forget here it is again;
Road Traffic Act 1988 s 14(2)(b)(ii).
// Who is talking of abolishing them? //
PP
In regard to driving infringements the term 'offence' is fine by me.
// You don’t have to remove your seat belt when reversing in order to comply with the law. You can keep it on and still remain legal. //
Wow!
// The legislation simply provides an exception to the law for those who wish to remove their belt. //
Just in case you forget here it is again;
Road Traffic Act 1988 s 14(2)(b)(ii).
// Who is talking of abolishing them? //
PP
I don’t necessarily agree with it but I know all that, NJ. It’s the hysterical reaction that any petty infringement of ‘the rules’ - either genuine or perceived - is met with that I find bizarre. Getting knickers in a knot to the degree that knickers are indeed knotted - and on a regular basis- doesn’t seem entirely rational to me.
//In regard to driving infringements the term 'offence' is fine by me.//
I wouldn't call causing death by dangerous driving a "driving infringement", but perhaps you might. However, the term is not restricted to motoring infringements. All manner of legislation uses the term offence, but I can find none immediately that include "crime" or "criminal act".
I wouldn't call causing death by dangerous driving a "driving infringement", but perhaps you might. However, the term is not restricted to motoring infringements. All manner of legislation uses the term offence, but I can find none immediately that include "crime" or "criminal act".
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.