driving kicence suspension?

Former Member

only heard part of it on the radio whilst driving today ...
the police are to be given powers to suspend your licence on the spot or through the post!
surely this can't be right.
no court no magistrate no line of defence ...just a copper.
tell me i heard it wrong.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

tell me i heard it wrong.

I hope so.
Can't find owt on BBC news about it, though.

Former Member

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1791164,00.html

Was linked by Tequila in the other thread Rolly.

look to me that too many people have been arguing jurisdiction and procedure and getting away without paying fines etc for the polices role as tax gatherers to be effective.

let's have some gems from the nugget at the met -

His proposals included giving officers radical new powers to seize driving licences from drivers on the spot - instead of waiting for intervention from the courts - or to issue on-the-spot Asbos and curfews.

The Met chief said the core of his proposal was to give extra flexibility to police forces around the country - which meant giving extra pay to individual officers with extra powers such as the right to confiscate motorists' licences.

"Instead of saying to a driver ’We will report you for proceedings to be considered by a court’ we say ’Sorry, your driving licence is now gone and in 14 days it will come up before the court’. That is a much more effective issue.

And -

"I think these are discussions that we have to have without turning the place into a police state, which would be unfortunate," Sir Ian said.

Brilliant. A police state would be "unfortunate". What a twat.

This git just needs a white cat and pit of flames and he's the full shilling.

Former Member

Makes me feel Ill that does.

'ASBO's for driving is stupid and a power too far.

The police should have some of their powers revoked, not more given.

such as a certain 'shoot to kill' policey to start with.

Former Member

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article314257.ece

Ian Blair is sugesting that police be given lots of new powers to do things without courts etc.......

He is also suggesting draughting in soldiers to act as firearms officers for the police......

This man is a menace to society.

Former Member

Toadborg wrote:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article314257.ece

"He's supposed to be the Met Commissioner, not Judge Dredd." - Shami Chakrabarti.

Exactly who sprung to mind when I saw MR's post...

Former Member

You lot dont have to live under the rule of this bloke, he's a menace, he's making me far more afraid than any terrorist group.

But again, because these powers will probably be used on someone other than a Daily Mail reader they will get no coverage and no objection from the public.

The People need defending from themselves.

Former Member

Arrogant twat too...

According to this story he considered quiiting after his officers executed an innocent man. Sadly he changed his mind because "it would not have been right for the force, the country or the city of London"

Former Member

Disgraceful.

It simply highlights the obvious mistrust and lack of co-operation between the police and the courts.

Former Member

so it realy is a case of me not being paranoid ...they realy are out to get me!

it's all getting scarily out of control.
how the hell can some young copper be given such powers?
and more importantly why?
the police are there to protect us from each other ...not to attack us?

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

so it realy is a case of me not being paranoid ...they realy are out to get me!

it's all getting scarily out of control.
how the hell can some young copper be given such powers?
and more importantly why?
the police are there to protect us from each other ...not to attack us?

Why? Because our criminal justice system is unable to deal with crime to our satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the police.

The solution is so obviously not in giving police extra powers to pass judgment on the street, but in improving our system of justice.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Why? Because our criminal justice system is unable to deal with crime to our satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the police.

.

i'm not sure there has been an alarming rise in people misusing driving licenses in a criminal manner.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

i'm not sure there has been an alarming rise in people misusing driving licenses in a criminal manner.

You don't have women drivers in Wales?

Former Member

Article 6 - Right to a Fair Trial.

There must be an equal and reasonable opportunity for all parties to present a case.

Anyone charged with a criminal offence has certain other rights, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to be given adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence.

Former Member

Panthro wrote:

Article 6 - Right to a Fair Trial.

There must be an equal and reasonable opportunity for all parties to present a case.

Anyone charged with a criminal offence has certain other rights, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to be given adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence.

thats just so 20th century!

Former Member

Panthro wrote:

Article 6 - Right to a Fair Trial.

There must be an equal and reasonable opportunity for all parties to present a case.

Anyone charged with a criminal offence has certain other rights, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to be given adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence.

Human Rights are out dated, we now face a different threat.

Former Member

Anyone charged with a criminal offence has certain other rights, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to be given adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence.

I thought driving without a licence was a civil offence?

As almost no one owns their cars (unless they have sent the DVLA a bill of title) and are merely keepers in equity then a licence is a requirement of that arrangement. So is car tax.

Same with your house. you do not own it, the crown does, you have equitable title to it and so are therefore liable to tax etc on it.

Ownership -

http://law.web-tomorrow.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/Ownership

Ownership is not a widely-used term in English law, as it has no precise meaning. Instead, courts tend to confine themselves to decisions about who has the superior Title to some property.

Equitable title -

http://law.web-tomorrow.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/EquitableTitle

If you have `equitable title' to some property, whatever it is, this is a recognition that your rights over that property will be enforced under the principles of equity. Of course, there is no longer a separate court with equitable jurisdiction, but the distinction is important because the rights of a person who holds property under a trust or not entirely equivalent to the owner of legal title

Title -

http://law.web-tomorrow.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/Title

In general, earlier possession of something confers a stronger title, unless the earlier possessor disposes of the title

What happens is that the "dvla" corporation takes possession of the cars as they come off the production line and then grants them "user licences" also known as log books. Read it if you have one - it clearly states that you are the "registered keeper" of your vehicle. You don't own it or have superior title to it.

Check your mortgage too. unless you have taken steps too undo this then everything you have actually belongs to the "state". Same with your kids - the birth certificate is a certificate of incorporation, which is subject to statute law. Because they own you. This is the legal procedure for turning a free human being into a resource so they can borrow from the banks, based on your future earnings.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

The solution is so obviously not in giving police extra powers to pass judgment on the street, but in improving our system of justice.

Depends what you mean by 'improving'

I think the current trend is to see an 'imporvement' in the justice system not as one that makes it more just but one that makes mnore prosecutions...........

Former Member

Toadborg wrote:

Depends what you mean by 'improving'

I think the current trend is to see an 'imporvement' in the justice system not as one that makes it more just but one that makes mnore prosecutions...........

Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime - that's what I suggest most people want.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime - that's what I suggest most people want.

I'd much rather we did the latter, the former only has very very limited use.

Former Member

Of course. But that takes years before we start noticing the benefits of the investment. In the meantime, we have to deal with the petty criminals that make life a misery for their victims.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Of course. But that takes years before we start noticing the benefits of the investment. In the meantime, we have to deal with the petty criminals that make life a misery for their victims.

Yes, of course we have to deal with them, but just hard punishments dont work.