: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:26 pm  

G1 wrote:

Yes because there's an objective, impartial source............

S'funny because I heard the exact opposite. That a bag of cash was asked for to make the complaint go away.

fair point, it's not impartial.
yet you seem happy to believe "what you were told", so hearsay and tittle tattle is ok and must be the truth then

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:35 pm  

Dave Heron's Moustache wrote:

Individuals who follow guidelines put in place by a vast legal concensus. Individuals who can be challenged at appeal if their judgement is seen to be outside normal established guidlines. Ultimately a decision if contentious can be decided by a panel of judges, law Lords or the European Court.

By which time you have most likely spent unnecessary time depriced of your liberty!!

Read the YEP and the sentances given out by Hoffman and compare to similar offences and the sentances doled out by others.

Read any local paper at the judgements - driving without insurance should be a really simply judgement 1st time £100, second time £200 etc but look at the desparity - a judicial system needs to be transperent and equitable

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:39 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

Read any local paper at the judgements - driving without insurance should be a really simply judgement 1st time £100, second time £200 etc but look at the desparity - a judicial system needs to be transperent and equitable

So you wouldn't differentiate between being a day late with a renewal, and driving for weeks with no intention of insuring?

Beside the point, but the size of fine you propose would make it cheaper to go without that actually get insured.

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:41 pm  

Richie wrote:

So you wouldn't differentiate between being a day late with a renewal, and driving for weeks with no intention of insuring?

Beside the point, but the size of fine you propose would make it cheaper to go without that actually get insured.

nope. you should be insured if driving. it's the drivers responsibility to be insured

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:43 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

Read any local paper at the judgements - driving without insurance should be a really simply judgement 1st time £100, second time £200 etc but look at the desparity - a judicial system needs to be transperent and equitable

The fines for driving without insurance should be a lot higher than the premium would be for the car/driver without the insurance. A fine of £100 is hardly going to make someone who had a £2000 premium get insurance!

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:46 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

By which time you have most likely spent unnecessary time depriced of your liberty!!

You were talking about sentencing, not the verdict. If you think a custodial sentence is too long or too short there is an appeals process. Sentencing guidlines are in place and they are not decided by one person, any judgement must comply with guidlelines or it is open to challenge.

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:48 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

fair point, it's not impartial.
yet you seem happy to believe "what you were told", so hearsay and tittle tattle is ok and must be the truth then

I never said I believed it, just that I heard it.

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:48 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

fair point, it's not impartial.
yet you seem happy to believe "what you were told", so hearsay and tittle tattle is ok and must be the truth then

Dont you just love the forum Tad with all these who are " in the know " See you tonight old boy dont forget the sweeties

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:50 pm  

joshua102 wrote:

Dont you just love the forum Tad with all these who are " in the know " See you tonight old boy dont forget the sweeties

Shouldn't you have PM'd that?

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:53 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

nope. you should be insured if driving. it's the drivers responsibility to be insured

Or driving at 77mph on the motorway and 245mph?