SPAM random annoying things

[Moriath]

Nobody in the UK has a legal right to drive.

Queen does. She dont need a license.

 

[Edmond]

FUCK OFF FIREWORKS IT'S 28TH OCTOBER FFS!!!!

 

[Gwadien]

FUCK OFF FIREWORKS IT'S 28TH OCTOBER FFS!!!!

Wanna be in Leicester mate, non stop fireworks for the past week or more.

 

[Job]

Nobody in the UK has a legal right to drive.

If you actually bothered to look at the point Im making..its an attack on the fundamental basis of law..innocent till proven guilty...there are many here..including scouse, who of all people should know better, who think that making it convenient for the police is a good enough reason to shift the responsibility to you to prove your innocence.
Guilty by database is the start of a slide into a horrific police state where an unseen hand can destroy lives or push people into restrictions of rights based on a central database.
The utterly pathetic human rights act will simply be used to assist this dystopian future while protecting those with the correct 'credentials'.

 

[Ormorof]

The one the conservatives plan to abolish you mean?

 

[Scouse]

..innocent till proven guilty..

Nothing to do with the law at all. It's a temporary suspension of your licence until you can prove you're insured.

"Innocent" and "guilty" are decisions made by courts. If you can't prove you're insured you should absolutely have your car taken off you until you can prove otherwise. If you can't prove it THEN you go to court - and are either found innocent or guilty there, but not before.

So, it's not "an attack on the fundamental basis of law" at all. It's simply correct procedure being followed. And not an actual real problem at all unless you drive around uninsured.

I suspect your ridiculous raging anger over perfectly sensible procedure is that one of your friends had their car impounded for being correctly identified as uninsured - and you're grumbly about the fact you can't get away with as much shit nowadays because it's become a lot easier and quicker for police to identify criminals.

 

[Tom]

If you actually bothered to look at the point Im making..its an attack on the fundamental basis of law..innocent till proven guilty...there are many here..including scouse, who of all people should know better, who think that making it convenient for the police is a good enough reason to shift the responsibility to you to prove your innocence.
Guilty by database is the start of a slide into a horrific police state where an unseen hand can destroy lives or push people into restrictions of rights based on a central database.
The utterly pathetic human rights act will simply be used to assist this dystopian future while protecting those with the correct 'credentials'.

Actually it's innocent unless proven guilty. But that doesn't apply to the registered keeper of a vehicle. If you want to be the keeper or driver of a vehicle, you agree that you must abide by certain rules, such as identifying the driver if an offence is committed, or proving the vehicle is insured, taxed and roadworthy.

If you don't like these rules then it's really very simple to avoid them - just don't buy or drive a car.

You're just another idiot who thinks that driving is some god-given right that cannot be taken away, when the reality is, it's a legal privilege that can be taken away. You do not have a right to drive, full stop.

 

[DaGaffer]

In Ireland and most European countries you display an Insurance stamp on your windscreen, which would render this discussion moot. Just sayin'...

 

[Job]

Nothing to do with the law at all. It's a temporary suspension of your licence until you can prove you're insured.

"Innocent" and "guilty" are decisions made by courts. If you can't prove you're insured you should absolutely have your car taken off you until you can prove otherwise. If you can't prove it THEN you go to court - and are either found innocent or guilty there, but not before.

So, it's not "an attack on the fundamental basis of law" at all. It's simply correct procedure being followed. And not an actual real problem at all unless you drive around uninsured.

I suspect your ridiculous raging anger over perfectly sensible procedure is that one of your friends had their car impounded for being correctly identified as uninsured - and you're grumbly about the fact you can't get away with as much shit nowadays because it's become a lot easier and quicker for police to identify criminals.

So heres the future that Scouse and many here think is a perfect extension of sensible steps to database criminality...there is a murder..everyones gps chip is checked...for some reason yours has a spurious reading, putting you at the crime scene.
You are arrested and have to prove your innocence.
How many steps is that from..the insurance database doesnt have you listed...we are confiscating your car till you prove you are insured.

 

[Scouse]

You're talking shit @Job. If there was a murder involved you'd go to court and there'd be a full trial. They'd have to prove your guilt.

In this case you have to prove you've got insurance to avoid going to court.

Do you also get fucked off that you have to produce other documents to prove eligability to do things? Like your passport to fly or drivers licence to drive?

 

[Moriath]

In Ireland and most European countries you display an Insurance stamp on your windscreen, which would render this discussion moot. Just sayin'...

We did away with that archaic stuff its in a database and a cop with anpr gets you.

Everyone just drove around with out of date tokens in their window for road tax.

 

[Rubber Bullets]

It is an offence not to carry your documents whilst driving, so a driver who isn't able to prove their car is insured is already guilty of something. The reality of course is that most people don't carry them (including me) and the police give a discretional period to produce them, but it still stands.

Q648: Is it an offence not to carry all relevant documents when driving so they can be produced for a police officer upon request?

Uninsured drivers cost £400m a year in damage (OK that's from the Mirror so take with a pinch of salt) and add £33 a year to every insurance policy. It is absolutely the correct thing to remove a car from a person who cannot prove they are insured. Taken to an extreme Job's logic would suggest that a person found standing covered in blood, knife in hand, over a body shouldn't be arrested because, you know, they might not be guilty.

 

[Scouse]

Didn't know it was an actual offence to not carry your documents with you!

There you go @Job - not only do they fail at proving they're insured, it's an offence to not do so. It's 100% correct that your car is taken off you until you can prove you're insured and licenced.

Not somebody else. YOU.

 

[DaGaffer]

We did away with that archaic stuff its in a database and a cop with anpr gets you.

Everyone just drove around with out of date tokens in their window for road tax.

UK never had insurance doc, just tax. Is your insurance info held on the DVLA database?

 

[Raven]

So heres the future that Scouse and many here think is a perfect extension of sensible steps to database criminality...there is a murder..everyones gps chip is checked...for some reason yours has a spurious reading, putting you at the crime scene.
You are arrested and have to prove your innocence.
How many steps is that from..the insurance database doesnt have you listed...we are confiscating your car till you prove you are insured.

What the actual fuck are you on about?

 

[Scouse]

Great well-paying UK jobs under the Tories eh?

 

[Moriath]

UK never had insurance doc, just tax. Is your insurance info held on the DVLA database?

Its held on a central database thatthe agencies have access to. Managed by the i surance companies afaik. Dvla and police have access to it to anpr etc people

 

[Job]

You're talking shit @Job. If there was a murder involved you'd go to court and there'd be a full trial. They'd have to prove your guilt.

In this case you have to prove you've got insurance to avoid going to court.

Do you also get fucked off that you have to produce other documents to prove eligability to do things? Like your passport to fly or drivers licence to drive?

How about you stop posting the fuckin obvious and put your mind to the creep towards guilt being decided by database...well duh, now you go to court, but the authorities are setting themselves down a path by at first opportunity, declaring a database can result in consequences at the very meeting point of law enforcement and individual.

 

[Job]

It is an offence not to carry your documents whilst driving, so a driver who isn't able to prove their car is insured is already guilty of something. The reality of course is that most people don't carry them (including me) and the police give a discretional period to produce them, but it still stands.

Q648: Is it an offence not to carry all relevant documents when driving so they can be produced for a police officer upon request?

Uninsured drivers cost £400m a year in damage (OK that's from the Mirror so take with a pinch of salt) and add £33 a year to every insurance policy. It is absolutely the correct thing to remove a car from a person who cannot prove they are insured. Taken to an extreme Job's logic would suggest that a person found standing covered in blood, knife in hand, over a body shouldn't be arrested because, you know, they might not be guilty.

Its not even remotely what I am saying, thats direct evidence, this is a case of ..theres been a murder..we'll arrest you because we have an alibi database and yours isnt showing anything.

 

[DaGaffer]

Its held on a central database thatthe agencies have access to. Managed by the i surance companies afaik. Dvla and police have access to it to anpr etc people

So why would you need to show documents then? What's the point of this whole thread?

 

[Scouse]

I addressed that when you first posted on it but this example, which you continue to harp on about, has nothing to do with it @Job.

 

[Tom]

It is an offence not to carry your documents whilst driving,

It isn't.

Being stopped by the police while driving: your rights - GOV.UK

 

[Rubber Bullets]

No fair enough, my misread, it's not an offence not to carry them, but you 'must be able to show a police officer' your documents when he asks. It is the drivers responsibility to prove their insurance.

 

[Tom]

you 'must be able to show a police officer' your documents when he asks.

You have a week to do it.

 

[Moriath]

So why would you need to show documents then? What's the point of this whole thread?

Cause there may be a case where the db isnt up to date. So benefit of the doubt to prove it.

 

[Raven]

People who forward on emails that contain information that will likely be relevant in a potential legal situation with a vendor to the tune of a couple of hundred grand. Not just forwarded on to just anyone but to the vendor in question. An email that states at the top, in bold ***DO NOT FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO <VENDOR>*** because the useless old fuck has a habit of sending any old shit to any old person.

Not that we are trying to fiddle it, but internal conversation about what we do and do not remember/what was minuted a year ago is not really the best thing to share when you may well be suing them soon.

Useless puddled old bastard, people should fucking well retire at 65 or piss off to meet'n'greet at B&Q.

 

[Moriath]

You really like your vendors and all at your company dont you

 

[Raven]

You really like your vendors and all at your company dont you

As much as you like punctuation.

But same vendor, same situation.

 

[Raven]

Cats that eat neighbours doves and leave the evidence all over the back garden all day. Hopefully the neighbour didn't look out the window all day, or count them in.

 

[CorNokZ]

Who cares about the flying rats of the sky? Good on your cart