Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

David Beckham - has the law changed?


invalid

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

Agreed, except that your hypothetical accident didn't happen, and thus his particular crime WAS a technicality. There was no victim, no injured party. 'Just' a broken rule.

But he didn't escape conviction because his alleged crime was a technicality. It was because the prosecution also has to obey technicalities. Your post above is, in fact, in support of observing technicalities.

Arguing that there could have been an injured party is a red herring - someone could have been injured even if he was driving at below the speed limited. The likelihood may be lower, but likelihood is a projection of future events, not retrospective. It didn't happen, whatever the speed.

Consider a different, but equally unpalatable scenario: The public is held inflexibly to account to the full letter of the law, but the prosecution is allowed to bend and ignore their own rules as it pleases. That is the essence of tyranny.

With that kind of attitude there would be malfeisance and injustice all over the place.

So I agree with the law, as upheld by the Court in this case.

Oh, I'd probably agree with the outcome*, just not that there isn't an injured party.  All speeders bear a collective responsibility for all injuries sustained as a consequence of speeding.

[if they're having a problem with the 14 days then petition for the law be changed to 21.  As it stands the loophole is making a mockery of the law]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dgul said:

Oh, I'd probably agree with the outcome*, just not that there isn't an injured party.  All speeders bear a collective responsibility for all injuries sustained as a consequence of speeding.

[if they're having a problem with the 14 days then petition for the law be changed to 21.  As it stands the loophole is making a mockery of the law]

 

I think the purpose of the 14 day limit is to give the accused a reasonable chance to gather evidence (perhaps photos of inadequate or obstructed signage, witnesses, etc).
Remember there can be miscarriages of justice and UK road signs are in a poor state. I complained about a non-working red traffic light a couple of months ago.

I have heard that the authorities tend to withhold evidence (speed camera photos, etc.) and can be obstructive when it is requested for defence.

I don't want to live in a country where people are allowed to drive dangerously with impunity, but nor do I want to live in a place where the law is capricious, applied inconsistently or authorities can ignore their own legal obligations.

Fortunately our independent judiciary seems to be pretty good at holding an overzealous state at bay, at least sometimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...