Fetch me a rope!

[mids]

Dec 5, 2023 0:29:54 GMT Repat Van said:

Dec 5, 2023 0:01:14 GMT perrykneeham said:

She was on 11 points to start with. She should be in jail really. Obstructing justice, like that Labour bird.

I don’t think...

Yes, quite.

[perrykneeham]

Dec 5, 2023 0:24:19 GMT Repat Van said:

Dec 4, 2023 23:36:59 GMT perrykneeham said:

Well, well, well .... butter wouldn't melt, eh?

"British sprinter Bianca Williams has been banned from driving despite telling a court it would jeopardise her chances of going to the 2024 Olympics.

Williams, 29, failed to tell police who was driving a Tesla Model 3 when an alleged offence took place.

The athlete claimed a ban would make it difficult for her to get to training.

But magistrates at Lavender Hill rejected her claim that she could not use public transport and suspended her from driving for six months.

Williams failed on three occasions to reply to letters from the police between April and June 2023.

In October, two Metropolitan Police officers were sacked over a stop and search of Williams and her partner, the Portuguese sprinter Ricardo Dos Santos, 28, in 2020."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67613292

The police being petty little bitches because they were held to account? Figures.

Also how can you be banned from driving for choosing not to respond to the police? What a batty rule.

Well, we're all equal before the Law. If you're summonsed, you are required by law, to answer. The rules is the rules.

[perrykneeham]

Dec 5, 2023 0:29:54 GMT Repat Van said:

Dec 5, 2023 0:01:14 GMT perrykneeham said:

She was on 11 points to start with. She should be in jail really. Obstructing justice, like that Labour bird.

How was she obstructing justice? I don’t think the law compels people to respond to the police.

Yes, it does. QED.

[mids]

Van seems to be arguing for inequality before the law, depending on ethnicity.

[perrykneeham]

Comme d'habitude.

[mids]

I hope she doesn't go to the Olympics. We don't want criminals representing us.

[voice]

Dec 5, 2023 9:21:24 GMT perrykneeham said:

Dec 5, 2023 0:24:19 GMT Repat Van said:

The police being petty little bitches because they were held to account? Figures.

Also how can you be banned from driving for choosing not to respond to the police? What a batty rule.

Well, we're all equal before the Law. If you're summonsed, you are required by law, to answer. The rules is the rules.

Actually I don't think you are, you can refuse to answer, the whole 'right to reman silent' thing. You are protected from being forced to incriminating yourself as well.

[voice]

UK caution

The UK Miranda Rights is referred to as the ‘Police Caution’. After a suspect is placed under arrest they must have the police caution recited to them, which goes as follows:

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#:~:text=The%20right%20to%20silence%20in,the%20privilege%20against%20self%2Dincrimination.

[mids]

You're required to identify the driver of a vehicle that's broken the law. It isn't incriminating yourself because you haven't been charged with anything at that stage. Most minor motoring offences are picked up by cameras which often are unable to ID the driver. If this wasn't the law, everyone would refuse to answer and it would be much harder to catch dangerous drivers. It's odd, queer even, that the left are normally so keen on road safety and punishing errant drivers but they're suddenly all freemen on the land in this very particular case. And this case only. 2TP enthusiasts?

[mids]

It's also queer, odd even, that all of a sudden experts (the magistrate) don't know the law.

[perrykneeham]

Dec 5, 2023 16:51:52 GMT voice said:

Dec 5, 2023 9:21:24 GMT perrykneeham said:

Well, we're all equal before the Law. If you're summonsed, you are required by law, to answer. The rules is the rules.

Actually I don't think you are, you can refuse to answer, the whole 'right to reman silent' thing. You are protected from being forced to incriminating yourself as well.

Ah, I think that's just criminal law. If you won't cooperate with Dibble over motoring offences, you pay the price. Same for everyone. I think that, had she lied about the driver, that would have crossed the criminal threshold. Like that Labour uppitist.

[Repat Van]

Dec 5, 2023 16:55:05 GMT voice said:

UK caution

The UK Miranda Rights is referred to as the ‘Police Caution’. After a suspect is placed under arrest they must have the police caution recited to them, which goes as follows:

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#:~:text=The%20right%20to%20silence%20in,the%20privilege%20against%20self%2Dincrimination.

Which is what I thought and why this is an odd conclusion.
There must be something missing from the news article or our laws are batshit crazy.

It cannot be a crime to ignore the police.

[Repat Van]

Dec 5, 2023 17:02:09 GMT mids said:

You're required to identify the driver of a vehicle that's broken the law. It isn't incriminating yourself because you haven't been charged with anything at that stage. Most minor motoring offences are picked up by cameras which often are unable to ID the driver. If this wasn't the law, everyone would refuse to answer and it would be much harder to catch dangerous drivers. It's odd, queer even, that the left are normally so keen on road safety and punishing errant drivers but they're suddenly all freemen on the land in this very particular case. And this case only. 2TP enthusiasts?

Why are you required to identify the driver when in no other situation are we required to hand over information?

When did the “right to remain silent”’get removed?

(I suspect a decent barrister would have ensure that she would not receive a ban. It makes no sense).

Edit: so it seems it is the law that requires you to provide details on the driver (I assume) your car. I still maintain that it’s nonsensical in light of our right to remain silent.

I do wonder what would happen if you said you have no idea.

[perrykneeham]

Dec 5, 2023 18:14:35 GMT Repat Van said:

Dec 5, 2023 17:02:09 GMT mids said:

You're required to identify the driver of a vehicle that's broken the law. It isn't incriminating yourself because you haven't been charged with anything at that stage. Most minor motoring offences are picked up by cameras which often are unable to ID the driver. If this wasn't the law, everyone would refuse to answer and it would be much harder to catch dangerous drivers. It's odd, queer even, that the left are normally so keen on road safety and punishing errant drivers but they're suddenly all freemen on the land in this very particular case. And this case only. 2TP enthusiasts?

Why are you required to identify the driver when in no other situation are we required to hand over information?

When did the “right to remain silent”’get removed?

(I suspect a decent barrister would have ensure that she would not receive a ban. It makes no sense).

Haha. When chatbots go wrong. How can you possibly not know how the law works?

[perrykneeham]

Road Traffic Act 1988, section 172
In particular, commonly referred to as a 'section 172 requirement', the police have the power to require the registered keeper of a vehicle – or to require any other person – to identify or name the driver of that vehicle at the time of any alleged motoring offence.

[mids]

But wah wah that should only apply to white people!

[voice]

Here in the civilized word, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt to do the same, saying it was unconstitutional and against the Canadian charter to take away the right to silence and force you to self incriminate.

It's why there are no speed cameras here.

[mids]

And why Canada has a much higher rate of RTA deaths.

[flatandy]

Which makes me wonder. Speed cameras are a good thing. Needing physical cops present to chase people who’re speeding is utterly wasteful. Better to send the penalty notice to the owner of the car. But that does mean that you have a degree of self-incrimination.

I think it’s fine.

What I want to know is if this bird’s other points on her license were legitimate or were made up by Constable Savage.

[mids]

She's clearly uppity and entitled. Thinks motoring laws don't apply to her. She's got away with it for so long because of 2TP but now a brave and patriotic magistrate has enforced the law as it should be.