Motorists accused of throwing litter out of their cars should face fast-track justice and instant fines, town hall chiefs said yesterday.Something wrong with that sentence? Let's look at it again:
Motorists accused of throwing litter out of their cars should face fast-track justice and instant fines, town hall chiefs said yesterday.Ah, yes. That's it.
At present police or local authority officials who want to fine a motorist accused of littering cannot enforce the penalty if the driver denies the offence. They have to go to court to prove the identity of the person who was littering. Councils want an amendment to laws so that fines automatically go to the registered owner of the car or truck....Yes, it's yet another attempt to stick their hands in our pockets and rummage around for any loose change that we haven't already given them in taxes and rates...
Local government leaders said that the fines would clean up roads and streets as well as raise cash to pay for services at a time when cuts are imminent.To pay for services, eh? What sort of services?
More Owl Enforcement Officers? More People Collection HR officers? More FrogBusters?
7 comments:
So they wont even have to prove an offence has taken place. That means they could just send random fines to registered owners whose names they have pulled out of a hat.
Also, no type of fine should be justified by raising cash for services. Cutting crime should be the only excuse for any kind of law enforcement.
At least with speed cameras, although the way they are used to enforce the law is objectionable in several ways, there is at least a requirement to demonstrate that an offence has taken place.
Julia I'm surprised you need to ask what services. Bonus services of course.
Evidence not required
"They have to go to court to prove the identity of the person who was littering".
Isn’t that how it should be…any tinkering about with our rule of law to stack the odds against the accused ceases to be called justice.
Without the ability for defendants to ask to see the evidence against them you no longer have innocent until proven guilty.
It's way past time for the revolution.
...should face fast-track justice and instant fines...
Doesn't sound like justice if the fine is a foregone conclusion.
"That means they could just send random fines to registered owners whose names they have pulled out of a hat."
Probably best not to give them ideas!
"I'm surprised you need to ask what services. Bonus services of course."
Quite!
"Without the ability for defendants to ask to see the evidence against them you no longer have innocent until proven guilty."
We've been moving that way for a while, haven't we? The new Proceeds of Crime laws that mean YOU have to prove large sums of money are legit, rather than the police having to prove they aren't, was the first step.
"It's way past time for the revolution."
I'm getting more and more inclined to agree...
"Doesn't sound like justice if the fine is a foregone conclusion."
Very little of the new legislation that's come out of Parliament in the last 20 years has sounded like justice...
Post a Comment