open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Parking Ticket Advice
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:33:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Nebulous
Originally by: Tallaran Kouros
Oh god not this "Free Man" tripe.


Rather than calling it tripe why don't you be clever about it and pick it apart? Probably because you can't, you are more than welcome to run it across anyone you may know in the "legal" profession as well.


-----------------------------------------


Pick what apart?

It's complete tosh from beginning to end.

It's advocates are happy to pick and choose their laws and will ignore the ones they don't like yet will hold up and proceed under the ones they do.

Every time a case is dismissed from court or a local authority gives in it's held up as some great victory or vindication of their cause, when in fact said authority just can't be arsed spending the time and money it would cost to pursue the case - it's cheaper to give in than to continue with the legal proceedings.

Nebulous
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.03.18 05:35:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Nebulous on 18/03/2010 05:36:59
Originally by: Tallaran Kouros

Pick what apart?

It's complete tosh from beginning to end.

It's advocates are happy to pick and choose their laws and will ignore the ones they don't like yet will hold up and proceed under the ones they do.



No not at all, it is about standing up for your rights, something many people have forgotten about, this thread was never about "free man" society anyway, I was just higlighting to the OP about what rights they have in this situation regadless of who issued the ticket. The bill of rights is quite clear on the matter.

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".

"We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes". The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, The Act of Union, Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not"

As I said earlier if you believe this to not be true then show me the law that repeals these rights? The same goes for "conditional acceptance" and "refusing for cause".

Originally by: Tallaran Kouros

Every time a case is dismissed from court or a local authority gives in it's held up as some great victory or vindication of their cause.


Isn't that exactly what a lawyer does??

Tallaran i've met many people like you, you either despise or are jealous of anyone that stands up for their rights, and for that I can only feel sorry for you.


----------------------------------------------------------------

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2010.03.18 06:34:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Nebulous
No not at all, it is about standing up for your rights, something many people have forgotten about, this thread was never about "free man" society anyway, I was just higlighting to the OP about what rights they have in this situation regadless of who issued the ticket. The bill of rights is quite clear on the matter.



So you would prefer a system in which instead of a simple easily-paid ticket, you are required to appear in court for a full trial with little chance of victory (after all, proving that your car was parked illegally is rather easy if the ticket is legitimate) and then have to pay a much more expensive ticket (to cover the court costs)?


This is the thing you and your fellow nutcases don't seem to understand: many of the "illegal" things you rant on and on about are things that work in favor of the average person.

Nebulous
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.03.18 07:11:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

So you would prefer a system in which instead of a simple easily-paid ticket, you are required to appear in court for a full trial with little chance of victory (after all, proving that your car was parked illegally is rather easy if the ticket is legitimate) and then have to pay a much more expensive ticket (to cover the court costs)?


Your forgetting that they could not get you to court anyway? By parking "illegally" as you put it is not "unlawful", therefore it is not a criminal matter, the court would only be used to resolve "controversy", if you were to conditionally accept then their would be no "controversy", because you are accepting to pay following "proof of claim". Parking tickets are "illegal" and not the person parking his car.

Lastly in the UK we do not "own" our cars, we are only "registered keepers", the only true way of identifying a car is to get both the license and VIN plate number, as the ticket issuer can not get acces to the VIN they can not truly identify who the "keeper" of the vehicle is.


Originally by: Merin Ryskin
This is the thing you and your fellow nutcases.


I see you are still dependant on insults to voice your side of the debate.


------------------------------------------

Zofe Stormcaller
B4D W0LF
B4D W01F
Posted - 2010.03.18 13:51:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Nebulous
Remember, by fighting a PCN with letters you should not end up in court, but you should always be prepared to, if you ever feel you will be to nervous to stand for yourself in court then I suggest you just pay the fine, in court it is not as simple as proving you are right, they will use a lot of dirty tricks to dupe you into admitting you are wrong.

An example I can think of was a case here in the UK regarding TV licensing, a guy from the UK opened the door to the TVL, the TVL officer asked if he had a TV, he replied "no", in the background the TVL officer could here the TV, he then told the man "I can hear your TV" at which point the man said " I have not got a TV" and then closed the door.

The TVL officer reported the alleged violation but told a lie, he said he had seen the TV through the window and they were watching "tennis", when this got to court the man defending himself claimed that there was no Tennis programs on any of the channels according to the listings he took with him that he got from the internet, papers and TV guides, when this was highlighted the TVL man admitted he had lied, the judge who was furious ordered the TVL officer to leave the court, he then apolagised to the defendant, a lady who was also present at the court (representing the TVL) said the man "I am sorry, but now this case is nearly at an end, would you consider buying a TV license in the future?" at which the defendant replied "yes", the judge then said you must have a TV then and awarded the victory to the TVL and gave a hefty fine to the defendant.

So basically what I am saying is that you need to be prepared for dirty tricks like this, just knowing you are right will not be enough in some cases.




--------------------------------


TV licensing has legal framework so you can be charged with not having one. It isn't covered under civil law. Not only that but the people that enforce it are really really nasty. If you don't have a TV they harrass you constantly, send scary letters, call you up and yell at you on the phone and send monkey suited gorillas to your house all the time for "inspections". Each time you pass the inspection they say "they will take you off their database" but they just start doing it again a week later.

The OP's ticket is likely not a PCN as I have already said. A PCN is hard to fight because the party issuing it will both be fining you under criminal law, and also send you a request under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, which means the registered keeper has to identify who was driving, or be charged (criminally) with failing to identify the driver unless you can prove you don't know who the driver was (such as a pool car). This is one of the laws where you are guilty until proven innocent. It is usually used for things like parking tickets and traffic sign violations enforced by CCTV, speed cameras, red light cameras, bus lane cameras, anything cameras where they send you the fine in the post rather than plod pulling you over and handing you a fine, but this is unlikely as most of the traffic police have been replaced with cameras.

As I said, it sounds like this was on private land, so it falls under civil contract law, which cannot use Section 172 because it isn't part of the RTA.

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2010.03.18 15:00:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Zofe Stormcaller
Originally by: Nebulous
Remember, by fighting a PCN with letters you should not end up in court, but you should always be prepared to, if you ever feel you will be to nervous to stand for yourself in court then I suggest you just pay the fine, in court it is not as simple as proving you are right, they will use a lot of dirty tricks to dupe you into admitting you are wrong.

An example I can think of was a case here in the UK regarding TV licensing, a guy from the UK opened the door to the TVL, the TVL officer asked if he had a TV, he replied "no", in the background the TVL officer could here the TV, he then told the man "I can hear your TV" at which point the man said " I have not got a TV" and then closed the door.

The TVL officer reported the alleged violation but told a lie, he said he had seen the TV through the window and they were watching "tennis", when this got to court the man defending himself claimed that there was no Tennis programs on any of the channels according to the listings he took with him that he got from the internet, papers and TV guides, when this was highlighted the TVL man admitted he had lied, the judge who was furious ordered the TVL officer to leave the court, he then apolagised to the defendant, a lady who was also present at the court (representing the TVL) said the man "I am sorry, but now this case is nearly at an end, would you consider buying a TV license in the future?" at which the defendant replied "yes", the judge then said you must have a TV then and awarded the victory to the TVL and gave a hefty fine to the defendant.

So basically what I am saying is that you need to be prepared for dirty tricks like this, just knowing you are right will not be enough in some cases.




--------------------------------


TV licensing has legal framework so you can be charged with not having one. It isn't covered under civil law. Not only that but the people that enforce it are really really nasty. If you don't have a TV they harrass you constantly, send scary letters, call you up and yell at you on the phone and send monkey suited gorillas to your house all the time for "inspections". Each time you pass the inspection they say "they will take you off their database" but they just start doing it again a week later.

The OP's ticket is likely not a PCN as I have already said. A PCN is hard to fight because the party issuing it will both be fining you under criminal law, and also send you a request under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, which means the registered keeper has to identify who was driving, or be charged (criminally) with failing to identify the driver unless you can prove you don't know who the driver was (such as a pool car). This is one of the laws where you are guilty until proven innocent. It is usually used for things like parking tickets and traffic sign violations enforced by CCTV, speed cameras, red light cameras, bus lane cameras, anything cameras where they send you the fine in the post rather than plod pulling you over and handing you a fine, but this is unlikely as most of the traffic police have been replaced with cameras.

As I said, it sounds like this was on private land, so it falls under civil contract law, which cannot use Section 172 because it isn't part of the RTA.


Not me, I just wrote them a letter about how TV wasn't part of my life anymore and that I'm more into reading books. Only had one inspection since and that was more than 15 years ago. Fact of the matter is that I rarely do watch the damn thing.

Nebulous
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.03.18 15:15:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Not me, I just wrote them a letter about how TV wasn't part of my life anymore and that I'm more into reading books. Only had one inspection since and that was more than 15 years ago. Fact of the matter is that I rarely do watch the damn thing.



I have not had a TV license for quite some time as well, about 6 years now, I probably get a visit once every few months, I usually go to the door with my camera and tell them "i'm not interested", if they ask to come in I say "no" and ask them to leave, which they always do. Despite what people think you don't actually have to let them in, and the super lol is that people believe those detection vans exist (well they do exist but they don't work). Laughing


------------------------------------


Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2010.03.18 16:05:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Nebulous

The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, The Act of Union, Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not"


Incorrect.

Much of Magna Carta was either reneged upon or repealed after it was signed, both by King John AND the barons themselves. Very little of it could be said to be still in force, although it is recognised as the source of many of our fundamental rights.

The Union With Scotland Act has also had many, many of it's clauses breached and repealed by the United Kingdom over the last few centuries. We again recognise that rights derive from them, but there is nothing special about these acts which means that they cannot be changed and in fact, one Parliament CANNOT bind a future Parliament like that - each Parliament is sovereign.


Quote:
As I said earlier if you believe this to not be true then show me the law that repeals these rights? The same goes for "conditional acceptance" and "refusing for cause".


I'm not doing your research for you.

If you wish, you can look it all up on the Statutelaw website and see how these Acts have been modified over time.

Quote:
Tallaran i've met many people like you, you either despise or are jealous of anyone that stands up for their rights, and for that I can only feel sorry for you.


I don't despise you and I'm not jealous of you. In fact, I'm more willing to stand up for my rights and the rights of others than many people I know.

I just think you (and anyone else that subscribes to the Free Man ideology) are gravely mistaken.

Zofe Stormcaller
B4D W0LF
B4D W01F
Posted - 2010.03.18 18:25:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Nebulous
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Not me, I just wrote them a letter about how TV wasn't part of my life anymore and that I'm more into reading books. Only had one inspection since and that was more than 15 years ago. Fact of the matter is that I rarely do watch the damn thing.



I have not had a TV license for quite some time as well, about 6 years now, I probably get a visit once every few months, I usually go to the door with my camera and tell them "i'm not interested", if they ask to come in I say "no" and ask them to leave, which they always do. Despite what people think you don't actually have to let them in, and the super lol is that people believe those detection vans exist (well they do exist but they don't work). Laughing


------------------------------------




Dunno why they picked on us then, possibly it goes by regional divisions: we were renting an house in an area full of complete scrotes so that might explain things...

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2010.03.18 18:33:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Nebulous

Lastly in the UK we do not "own" our cars, we are only "registered keepers", the only true way of identifying a car is to get both the license and VIN plate number, as the ticket issuer can not get acces to the VIN they can not truly identify who the "keeper" of the vehicle is.


That is not true at all.

My motorcycle is my property and I enjoy title to it in law.

In addition to enjoying legal title to it, there is a statutory obligation to supply the DVLA with details of the vehicle's "registered keeper". The registered keeper and the legal owner may in many cases be one and the same, but there is no requirement that this is so and being listed as the registered keeper is not sufficient to prove ownership/title to the vehicle.

It is for this reason that whenever someone gets caught for speeding on an ANPR camera a letter is sent to the registered keeper asking them to identify under penalty of law who the driver was at the time that the alleged incident took place. Many people lie at this point so in order that their partner receives the points and the driver evades a ban, but this is clearly illegal.

Nebulous
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.03.18 18:50:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Nebulous on 18/03/2010 18:53:37

Originally by: Tallaran Kouros
Incorrect.

Much of Magna Carta was either reneged upon or repealed after it was signed, both by King John AND the barons themselves. Very little of it could be said to be still in force, although it is recognised as the source of many of our fundamental rights.


At least you are now being more inteligent and debating the issue instead of saying "tripe". I am aware of the so-called "repealing" but the truth of the matter is that it can't be, these repealments are/were an illusion to persecute the very people they were designed to protect, the only way they can be repealed is if we are no longer the "United Kingdom" anymore, which could become a grim reality with our further involvement with Europe. Also the quote you quoted from me was not my own, it was quoted by Lord Justice Laws during the Metric Martyrs judgement, the truth is that the Magna Carta is as strong today as it ever was, as is the Bill of Rights, its just that the people are not aware of it.


Originally by: Tallaran Kouros
If you wish, you can look it all up on the Statutelaw website and see how these Acts have been modified over time.


Modification is not repealment, the simple fact still remains, a constitutional statute can not be repealed, any attempt to do so is borderline treason.


Originally by: Tallaran Kouros
I don't despise you and I'm not jealous of you. In fact, I'm more willing to stand up for my rights and the rights of others than many people I know.


Then why is that when I was advising someone on their rights you called it "tripe", everything I mentioned is true and as I said earlier you are free to run it past anyone you may know in the legal proffesion.


Originally by: Tallaran Kouros
I just think you (and anyone else that subscribes to the Free Man ideology) are gravely mistaken.


Well that is your opinion, but that is because I believe you don't know enough about it, it is not about being a rebel and picking and chosing your laws, it is about freedom of information and sharing that information, it is also about highlighting the current violations of our laws and rights by the PTB and the "corporations" working on their behalf, something as simple as when a police officer asks you to "step out of your car" without first showing his I.D. and identifying himself/herself and getting annoyed at you when you ask for the I.D., people who question everything are treated as mences to society and outcasts purely because they excercise their rights.

Lets take one of our greatest rights, our right to remain silent! How many people actually do this? On TV it is often portrayed as a bad thing to do, some criminal on the Bill or some other random crime drama/program saying nothing or "no comment" and the police saying what a scumbag he is for doing so, it is a common pattern as the years go on, any rights they think they can't hide they make socially unaccpetable instead. If you think people are mistaken or bad for highlighting this then that is your choice i guess.


------------------------------------------

ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.03.18 19:13:00 - [42]
 

I'm pretty sure the "right to remain silent" is an American thing, and it doesn't apply to the UK. You can remain silent, but it will be taken as evidence of guilt; "he was uncooperative when questioned".

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Nebulous
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.03.18 19:32:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: ReaperOfSly
I'm pretty sure the "right to remain silent" is an American thing, and it doesn't apply to the UK. You can remain silent, but it will be taken as evidence of guilt; "he was uncooperative when questioned".

Correct me if I'm wrong.



Being uncooperative depends on the case, like if you knew someone had been kidnapped and by being silent it lead to the victim being murdered, when if you had said something they could have been saved. The basics of it is in the UK is that if you don't say something in the interview you may not be able to say it at the trial (i.e. You have the right to remain silent; but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something that you later rely on in Court. bare in mind it says "MAY" and not "WILL" ), but by being silent you can drastically reduce the chance of it going to trial if you are indeed innocent.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:38:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Nebulous

Modification is not repealment, the simple fact still remains, a constitutional statute can not be repealed, any attempt to do so is borderline treason.


So I commit treason by stating that Canada is a sovereign nation with it's own constitution?

The British North America Act(s) governed Imperial rule in the Dominion of Canada until the passing of the Canada Act in 1982, severing the last of the Imperial ties. Surely the earlier acts were "constitutional acts" as you put it and thus cannot be repealed?

Quote:
Lets take one of our greatest rights, our right to remain silent!


You do and you don't.

Police are required to caution you that you have the "right" to remain silent, but that "right" is not enshrined anywhere in law and in fact, in England & Wales the courts are permitted to draw inferance from the fact that a subject refused to answer any given question. This is why they caution you that it "may harm your defence" if you fail to mention something which you "later rely on in court".

Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
Posted - 2010.03.19 00:39:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Nebulous
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
I'm pretty sure the "right to remain silent" is an American thing, and it doesn't apply to the UK. You can remain silent, but it will be taken as evidence of guilt; "he was uncooperative when questioned".

Correct me if I'm wrong.



Being uncooperative depends on the case, like if you knew someone had been kidnapped and by being silent it lead to the victim being murdered, when if you had said something they could have been saved. The basics of it is in the UK is that if you don't say something in the interview you may not be able to say it at the trial (i.e. You have the right to remain silent; but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something that you later rely on in Court. bare in mind it says "MAY" and not "WILL" ), but by being silent you can drastically reduce the chance of it going to trial if you are indeed innocent.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Doesn't the miranda say that anything you say may and will be used against you in the court of law? At least they're honest about it.

Nebulous
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.03.19 06:35:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Wendat Huron

Doesn't the miranda say that anything you say may and will be used against you in the court of law? At least they're honest about it.



I believe it does in america and it is worded completely different, it says that "anything you do say may and will be given in evidence against you", where as in the UK they say "You have the right to remain silent; but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something that you later rely on in Court", so if you decide to say you were in bed with your mother-in-law at the time of the crime in court, they may not allow it to be taken into consideration for your defence if you did not mention it during the interview, although "MAY" can mean anything, the loch ness monster "MAY" go on a rampage through london tomorrow, but odds are that it wont (odds are it doesnt even exist...but still).


-------------------------------------------------

Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
Posted - 2010.03.19 07:30:00 - [47]
 

Did someone explain how a gun is going to help with his parking ticket yet? Did I miss that part? I'd love to know.

kthxbai o/

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2010.03.19 09:49:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Nebulous
the loch ness monster "MAY" go on a rampage through london tomorrow, but odds are that it wont (odds are it doesnt even exist...but still).
Quote:


Of course it exists!

It's rampage will be heralded by Lord Lucan ridingahead into town on Shergar \o/

Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
Posted - 2010.03.19 12:49:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Jin Nib
Did someone explain how a gun is going to help with his parking ticket yet? Did I miss that part? I'd love to know.

kthxbai o/


Didn't you know, guns are the answer to every problem, that and to a greater extent nukes. Now if we could only invent a parking spot localized nuke to boobytrap to the windshield...

bff Jill
Posted - 2010.03.19 14:11:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Jin Nib
Did someone explain how a gun is going to help with his parking ticket yet? Did I miss that part? I'd love to know.

kthxbai o/


Its up there on the first page. You overthrow the government with it by leading a revolution of angry parking ticket recipients.

Much like our glorious founding fathers lead a revolt over being taxed for tea.

I don't see how the first can be considered an absurd possibility being that the second happened already.

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2010.03.19 14:41:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: bff Jill


Its up there on the first page. You overthrow the government with it by leading a revolution of angry parking ticket recipients.

Much like our glorious founding fathers lead a revolt over being taxed for tea.

I don't see how the first can be considered an absurd possibility being that the second happened already.



They didn't revolt over being taxed on tea, they revolted over being taxed without representation which is quite different.

Those being issued parking fines DO have representation - generally the local authority which employs the parking attendants.

bff Jill
Posted - 2010.03.19 15:11:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Tallaran Kouros
Originally by: bff Jill


Its up there on the first page. You overthrow the government with it by leading a revolution of angry parking ticket recipients.

Much like our glorious founding fathers lead a revolt over being taxed for tea.

I don't see how the first can be considered an absurd possibility being that the second happened already.



They didn't revolt over being taxed on tea, they revolted over being taxed without representation which is quite different.

Those being issued parking fines DO have representation - generally the local authority which employs the parking attendants.


Details...

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2010.03.19 15:41:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: bff Jill

Details...[/quote



Which particular details?

The details of the American Revolution should be in any history text book, whereas the details of the OP's local authority council members should be online somewhere too :)

bff Jill
Posted - 2010.03.19 15:45:00 - [54]
 

I mean those are tiny details and happenstance which in no way detract from my overall point. Obviously you are trolling me!

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2010.03.19 16:07:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: bff Jill
I mean those are tiny details and happenstance which in no way detract from my overall point.


You mean the factually inaccurate point?

As I already said:

"They didn't revolt over being taxed on tea, they revolted over being taxed without representation which is quite different."


Quote:
Obviously you are trolling me!


Well, yes, clearly.

It's 16:06 on a Friday and I cannot leave work and consume beer until 17:30. What else do you suggest I do?

bff Jill
Posted - 2010.03.19 16:31:00 - [56]
 

How many people do you think would vote for parking tickets?

Obviously the government is running contrary to the desires of the population and therefore the say of the people on the machinations of government are feigned and no different from having none at all.

I say it is every mans god given right to park, and any institution which aims to dissuade the parking of ones ride, or seeks to sell parking in the hallowed lots of parking, are committing grievous crimes against nature and humanity!

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2010.03.19 16:53:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: bff Jill
How many people do you think would vote for parking tickets?



Me, actually.

I live in the centre of a very busy city, which is also an extremely popular tourist destination.

Much of the inner city forms what is known as the "Controlled Parking Zone" or CPZ in order to ease congestion and encourage people to commute to work rather than driving.

If you want to park in the city centre, you either pay to park in a Pay & Display site or you apply for a resident's permit if you live within the CPZ.

I don't want anyone just being able to drive in and park willy-nilly - that would be terrible :)

Mister Gimp
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:10:00 - [58]
 

Hi,

I represent the lower percentile of the UK's IQ, EQ and daily mail reading yowling mob mentality.

My advice to you is if you get stiffed by a parking ticket ... dont get mad, get even!

This is obviously just role play, I would never do this in real life, but when you get shafted for an 80 fine there is nothing you can do to get this money back. SO, you may as well deny the local authorities from using your 80 by causing 80 worth of damage to local council property.

Yes, I am talking about mindless vandalism! I find (during my role playing nights) that a tube of araldite squirted in to a pay and display machine warrants an engineer call out and replacement parts that come to in excess of the fine I received.

If this happens every time a scum slaps a ticket on you then maybe the ridiculous 'job for life cos local govt is so ****ing soft' bureaucrats that are already milking us dry with council tax for the most lacklustre of public services will realise there is no profit in ****-ism and have a rethink about town centre parking ******s and allow us to park for free in our town centres and maybe even boost dyeing town centre trade by doing so.

Doubtful, but at least you get a warm fuzzy feeling from stiffing them back.

PS OK so seriously, parking enforcement is needed to stop people from parking on double yellows thinking that a car can squeeze through that gap but neglecting to think about a lorry or a bus wont be able to squeeze through that gap and causing gridlock. But to victimise people for overstaying parking times by 2 minutes whilst they were spending MONEY at LOCAL SHOPS and SERVICES is just wrong!

I'm out of breath now. I wont go on, but seriously .... traffic wardens, local govt traffic dept and wheel clampers are scum!!! (ingame)

Nebulous
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:26:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Tallaran Kouros

Me, actually.

I live in the centre of a very busy city, which is also an extremely popular tourist destination.

Much of the inner city forms what is known as the "Controlled Parking Zone" or CPZ in order to ease congestion and encourage people to commute to work rather than driving.

If you want to park in the city centre, you either pay to park in a Pay & Display site or you apply for a resident's permit if you live within the CPZ.

I don't want anyone just being able to drive in and park willy-nilly - that would be terrible :)



Yes but surely there are other ways other than slapping fines on people? Especially when the statutes that are in place to confiscate that money are only society based laws anyway(if you can call them laws at all), it is typical of the politician "hey we have a problem....hmm I KNOW! let's make it illegal", the general rule of common law (the law of the land) is that you should only end up in court or prosecuted for causing death, harm or loss to another person, breaching the peace, and never employing mischief in your promises and agreements. if you avoid those things you are never being "unlawful".


-------------------------------------------------

Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:28:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: ReaperOfSly
I'm pretty sure the "right to remain silent" is an American thing, and it doesn't apply to the UK. You can remain silent, but it will be taken as evidence of guilt; "he was uncooperative when questioned".

Correct me if I'm wrong.


Big can of worms this one.

Technically article 6 of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) guarantees your right to a fair trial, presumption of innocence and within this it is presumed unfair to be asked to provide evidence against yourself, which is loosely similar to the USA 5th amendment.

However, it doesn't work that way all the time

For example, s172 NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) for road traffic offences require you to name the driver at the time of an alleged offence and "I'm not telling you" is a real good way of getting a conviction; they do you for failure to provide details, which often carries a bigger fine and more points then the alleged offence. Here the burden of proof is firmly on you, not the prosecution. Guilty until proven innocent.

This has been appealed all the way to the highest courts in the EU, but they ruled in the UK govts favour so they continue to surprise bum-poke your rights even as we speak.

This isn't surprising, as one precedent in the favour of an aggrieved motorist (who may or may not have committed an alleged offence) would open the floodgates to thousands upon thousands of counter suits from those already convicted of failing to provide information and would clog up our already overstressed UK justice system and cost every police force (sorry; service) in the UK millions in repayments to unhappy "customers".

As for being uncooperative when questioned, there is still no legal requirement (yet!) to say anything to the rozzers when questioned, and in any case, it is extremely inadvisable to talk to them without having consulted legal counsel, even over the most trivial matters.

I have done a lot of volunteer work as an appropriate adult in various UK police stations, and I can tell you that most of the young people whose interests I was there to protect are convicted on admissions of guilt brow-beaten out of them by coppers before they have had the benefit of legal advice (usually in the car on the way back to the station), rather than on solid police work and gethering of evidence.

Some of the YPs I acted on behalf of knew the way all this works, and would frequently walk away with a No Further Action purely becase they hadn't been daft enough to do the coppers jobs for them and give evidence against themselves.

Anything you say to a copper can be used against you in a court. However if you say nothing, contrary to popular belief, there is no inference that can legally be drawn from that.

That's two things you've been hopelessly wrong on today Reaper... going for a third? Very Happy





Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only