Nothing annoys Nanny more than when someone uses the law to avoid being punished by Nanny, for some alleged "crime" that Nanny most certainly knows for sure that the person is guilty of.In Nanny's world, the law is to be used to punish and control people; not to be used for defending the innocent.
Well, you can imagine how cross Nanny is that some people are using the law to defend themselves when they are charged with motoring offences. Nanny's police force just love to catch motorists breaking Nanny's laws.
Why is that then?
Could it be that other crimes such as; muggings, assaults and robberies just require too much work to solve?
Could it be that the police are rewarded for the number of successful convictions they make, irrespective of the severity of the crime?
Could it be that fines from motoring convictions are used to cover the costs of the police?
What do you think folks?
Anyhoo, Nanny's police have decreed that they are fed up with people using legal "loopholes"; ie defending themselves as they are legally entitled to do so, to avoid being convicted of driving offences.
Nanny's police have stated that they are now out to get those people who are declared innocent by the courts; you see folks the police know that these people are as guilty as hell, and don't think that the courts have any business in interfering with their convictions.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) wants police and Crown Prosecution Service lawyers to make stronger cases against drivers whose legal teams use loopholes in the law to get them off.
One chief constable is quoted as saying that officers would be "looking for" motorists who had been "unjustly acquitted".
Hah!
Who the hell makes the judgement as to what an "unjust" acquittal is?
Someone needs to remind Nanny's police that the courts and the legal system are to be respected, most certainly by the officers of the law.
Better that 100 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man go to jail!
The trouble is the police don't believe that!
Meredydd Hughes, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, has issued an open threat to the public:
"There have been a number of cases where people feel that justice has not been done,
both in the drink-driving world
and in other cases where people have evaded the law
having driven cars recklessly and at very high speeds.
I think my colleagues in the roads policing groups
will share my anger when people are unjustly acquitted
and I'm sure they'll be looking for those drivers.
And if they haven't mended their ways
we have an attitude in the police service that we'll see them again sometime."
Liberty, the civil rights group, has warned that this could see police unlawfully targeting individuals they believe have been unfairly acquitted of motoring offences.
Acpo is also introducing a team made up of a lawyer and a former police officer to help prosecute speed camera cases.
Acpo want motorists to decide against contesting their speeding charge because if they lose, their costs will include up to £4K for the team.
There you have it folks, the police are trying to put the frighteners on you.
Only the rich will be able to take the risk of fighting unjust motoring cases, in Nanny's world the police are used to keep the rest of us in order.
We are becoming a police state.
Is it not amazing that when all the figures published with regard to road traffic offences show increasing road travel and decreasing injuries and fatalities (though not such a great reduction there for some unexplained reason), we the public seem hell bent on panting a picture of 'carnage' which simply does not exist to the degree claimed.
ReplyDeleteYes it is unpleasant at times and yes there are some very unfortunate cases BUT, in the general scheme of things the roads are far safer today than they were when I learned to drive.
But the public, for some reason, when surveyed always claims speeding as one of its biggest concerns.
So the police 'service' responds to that apparent concern. I would love to be surveyed on it at some point and see what the questions really offer for answers.
Now a 60 quid fine is a nice little earner which can be automated for collection by camera and cover up the fat that traffic patrols are being cut back. This despite the fact that traffic patrols are recognised as excellent units for the detection of serious crimes and criminals.
Of course the FPN route puts money into the police camera partnership whereas if it goes to court the money goes to central govt. So any threat which improves the payment rate for FPNs and discourages recourse to a reasonable defence - which will almost always fail as the courts are directed to accept that the camera systems are infallible - means the scamera partnership revenues are enhanced.
Legalised highway robbery. Turpin as their mascot.
And yes Ken, the police state is with us - but apparently only because the public demands it should be so. Or so it is claimed.
Whats the source for this story Ken, I cant find anyhting in Google about it?
ReplyDeleteBBC, Guardian, Indpendent to name but 3
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean they'll be gunning for their colleague who drove at 159mph?
ReplyDeleteSomehow I think not.
There have been a number of cases where people feel that justice has not been done
ReplyDeleteThis is one thing that really gets me hot under the collar about Nanny's Britain: the glib statements with no trace of backup.
"Studies show that the public are four-square behind the police on speed cameras."
"Most people are more than happy at their level of taxation."
"The overwhelming public opinion is that we need closer links with Europe."
They trot out these facile statements without a shred of backup and expect us to smile seraphically and accept them!
Someone sent me this today - it seemed vaguely germaine to this current item in some ways so I thought I would share it.
ReplyDeleteApologies if I am at the end of the distribution chain and you have seen it already.
"In Memoriam
We mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from
school for using mouthwash after lunch and a teacher fired for
reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even
further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Panadol, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became
contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else Is To
Blame and I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not join the majority and do nothing."
A couple of years ago my daughter and I narrowly escaped serious injury, perhaps worse, when our car was run into by a yoof driving a Toyota pick up at high speed in a 30 mph limit. He was prosecuted for and found guilty of having no licence, no insurance, no MOT and defective tyres. Concurrently he was seen driving a similar vehicle. Our information was that he still had no licence. I informed the police who were not surprised but 'Did not have the resources' to investigate. I pointed out that no licence meant that he was still uninsured.
ReplyDeleteA total waste of time and a telephone call.
I have always respected the police service and the law, but now I'm afraid it's 'Bollocks to Bill'.
Hey great article and I saw the dreaded Chief Constable Meredydd (6 points) Hughes on breakfast T.V. spouting about the very same thing. How is it that we, the normally law abiding general public who pay our taxes, community charge etc on time with no hassles and who pay for the police with our taxes appear to be continually in their sights like it was some kinda sport.
ReplyDeleteWe are close to being a police state, if not already and their arrogance and smugness is at times breathtaking. Speed cameras or safety cameras? Preventing deaths or creating revenue? It doesn't take a genius to work out what it is does it.
I cannot believe for one minute that the safety features in modern day cars has a bearing on the decrease in deaths on our roads for instance. I would be a fool to think so wouldn't I. One thing we must all remember, though the police and their Government supporters conveniently choose to ignore it, that it is bad driving that ultimately kills and not necessarily speed. Unfortunately, that little fact is not an earner is it.
"There have been a number of cases where people feel that justice has not been done...in other cases where people have evaded the law...having driven cars recklessly and at very high speeds."
ReplyDeleteWhat can he have been thinking about?
Not this, surely?