Presumption of innocence with vehicle offences

Drivers or registered keepers of vehicles should not be presumed guilty after an alleged offence related to a vehicle. If they dispute the charges, they should not have to pay any money first and be forced to appeal in order to get their money back.

The person driving the vehicle is not necessarily the registered keeper or owner anyway, so if a vehicle is clamped or towed away, it is not right that the keeper should then have to pay a fee to be allowed their car back. This would remove any legitimate reason for clamping vehicles anyway, and vehicles should only ever be towed away if they are causing an obstruction that urgently needs unblocking.

Under this system, if a car is towed away, a fee can be requested at the time of retrieval, but payment at that time would not be compulsory. If the keeper refuses to pay, the case can then go to court and the driver of the car can be sued for the money, or the driver could pay at a later time. Compulsory payment first goes against the presumption of innocence. If the person driving is not the keeper, it should not be up to the keeper to pay up and get the money from the driver.

Vehicle offences (of any type) should relate to the driver at the time, not the keeper and there should be no presumption that it is the keeper that has committed an offence. The onus should be on the prosecutor to prove an offence had been committed and to prove who committed the offence.

Why is this idea important?

Drivers or registered keepers of vehicles should not be presumed guilty after an alleged offence related to a vehicle. If they dispute the charges, they should not have to pay any money first and be forced to appeal in order to get their money back.

The person driving the vehicle is not necessarily the registered keeper or owner anyway, so if a vehicle is clamped or towed away, it is not right that the keeper should then have to pay a fee to be allowed their car back. This would remove any legitimate reason for clamping vehicles anyway, and vehicles should only ever be towed away if they are causing an obstruction that urgently needs unblocking.

Under this system, if a car is towed away, a fee can be requested at the time of retrieval, but payment at that time would not be compulsory. If the keeper refuses to pay, the case can then go to court and the driver of the car can be sued for the money, or the driver could pay at a later time. Compulsory payment first goes against the presumption of innocence. If the person driving is not the keeper, it should not be up to the keeper to pay up and get the money from the driver.

Vehicle offences (of any type) should relate to the driver at the time, not the keeper and there should be no presumption that it is the keeper that has committed an offence. The onus should be on the prosecutor to prove an offence had been committed and to prove who committed the offence.

MP’s should have to do the same as the rest of us

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Why is this idea important?

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Compensation for the wrongly accused

A review of the compensation board should take place with the utmost urgency.

If a person has been wrongly convicted and later on has been cleared of all charges, he should be compensated for the miscarriage of justice that has taken place.

After all it is easier for the complainant to get compensation and have to do nothing.

How is that person being wrongly convicted going to feel. No job, no self respect, have to rely on their family to keep them. Let alone the physcological aspect of it, he doesn't get any help.

Why is this idea important?

A review of the compensation board should take place with the utmost urgency.

If a person has been wrongly convicted and later on has been cleared of all charges, he should be compensated for the miscarriage of justice that has taken place.

After all it is easier for the complainant to get compensation and have to do nothing.

How is that person being wrongly convicted going to feel. No job, no self respect, have to rely on their family to keep them. Let alone the physcological aspect of it, he doesn't get any help.

Pass legislation ensuring free speech

There should be a legal standard set for the use of Free Speech, which in my view should allow all speech (typed or written) except that which is an incitement to violence or a treasonable offence.

In the case of speech which is clearly an unsupported misrepresentation, whether of individuals or groups of persons, this should be a matter for civil redress, not the criminal justice system.

This piece of legislation should be constitutionally safeguarded, superseding all other legislation, past or future, and could only be repealed by a specific further Act of Parliament, thereby ensuring public debate.

Why is this idea important?

There should be a legal standard set for the use of Free Speech, which in my view should allow all speech (typed or written) except that which is an incitement to violence or a treasonable offence.

In the case of speech which is clearly an unsupported misrepresentation, whether of individuals or groups of persons, this should be a matter for civil redress, not the criminal justice system.

This piece of legislation should be constitutionally safeguarded, superseding all other legislation, past or future, and could only be repealed by a specific further Act of Parliament, thereby ensuring public debate.

Repeal s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988, s.112 Road Traffic Regulation Act

s.172 RTA (for endorsable offences) and s.112 RTRA (for non-endorsable offences) effectively require drivers to provide information to the police.  If the police want to know who was living in the house you rented out, or where you transferred money to, or where the target of your mate's bombing campaign is, you can tell them willingly, or you can politely decline to offer anything, and the police have to get a court order.

A serious criminal accused of their serious crime can happily remain silent, forcing the authorities to do all the hard work.  I'm sure many of you will have had the experience of reporting a theft to the police only to have them come back and say "Well, unless they come forward, there's little we can do."  Yet if you own a car, you're expected to know where it is and who's driving it.

Why is this idea important?

s.172 RTA (for endorsable offences) and s.112 RTRA (for non-endorsable offences) effectively require drivers to provide information to the police.  If the police want to know who was living in the house you rented out, or where you transferred money to, or where the target of your mate's bombing campaign is, you can tell them willingly, or you can politely decline to offer anything, and the police have to get a court order.

A serious criminal accused of their serious crime can happily remain silent, forcing the authorities to do all the hard work.  I'm sure many of you will have had the experience of reporting a theft to the police only to have them come back and say "Well, unless they come forward, there's little we can do."  Yet if you own a car, you're expected to know where it is and who's driving it.

“Causing offence” should not be illegal.

If somebody is offended by what I say, that's their problem! They shouldn't be allowed to veto anything I say by simply claiming to be offended by it. I'm not responsible for their peculiar sensitivities – I want my freedom of speech back!

Why is this idea important?

If somebody is offended by what I say, that's their problem! They shouldn't be allowed to veto anything I say by simply claiming to be offended by it. I'm not responsible for their peculiar sensitivities – I want my freedom of speech back!