NZ Police public image

[Lou Girardin]

So normal law surely doesn't apply here - it's a bit like a bouncer at a night club. If he doesn't like the look of you he can stop you getting in with no explanation. You have no rights of entry, it is private property.
.

'Normal' law is what saves your arse from all manner of Government harassment.
Dilute it at your peril.
Try studying some basic human rights, trial by a jury of your peers, protection against double jeopardy (which they're also trying to dilute). Even the right to a speedy trial

[scumdog]

Even the right to a speedy trial

Is that the one where you try to defend a speeding ticket???

[Lou Girardin]

C'mon Lou, that one is dead, stop chasing your tail/trolling - or are you just trying to raise your posting count as well as this old red herring?????

It is deceased, it is no more, it has ceased to exist, it has shuffled off its mortal coil, it is an ex-parrot.

Well, Spud attempted it CPR, so I gave it another kicking.

[Lou Girardin]

Is that the one where you try to defend a speeding ticket???

You're a sharp one today, been eating razor blades?

[scumdog]

You're a sharp one today, been eating razor blades?

Na, Just off night-shift, you should see me when I AM sharp!!

[Biff]

The Chinese also have a very quick and efficient system of punishment applied upon conviction for many offences. (Used to be a bullet, now it's lethal injection).

Did you know the Chinese have actually gone mobile with this concept?
There are now vans that patrol the cities and administer the lethal injections 'on the hoof'. Very organised these Chinese. You don't even get a chance to post on a web site whinging. The locals refer to these vans as (roughly translated), "Meat wagons". Nice. Except of course that nobody talks about them. Especially to foreigners. Oh no. Because they don't exist really. It's Amnesty International and their followers making it all up. Because China is a beacon to all nations. And they're hosting the Olympics next year. So they must be decent chaps then. (I am being sarcastic here. Murdering bastards).

[Lou Girardin]

Na, Just off night-shift, you should see me when I AM sharp!!

Well go to bloody bed then, stop annoying all us cop-haters. :

[Ixion]

Oh, and by the way, everything in life is a privilege. No one has any rights. To demand rights is to loudly proclaim your disregard for every other person you share this country with. Individual rights are a Post Modern construct and allow whingers to bang on about how terrible their life is, without being told to shut up.

An interesting social theory, though one too bleak and cruel for my endorsement.However the underlying context of the discussion was the law, not Libertarian (or NeoCon or Anarchist or whatever 'ism it is ) philosophy. And the Law certainly does recognise rights, and people do have rights under the law. And have had for a long time before Post Modernism. And a good few our our
forbears were willing to die to ensure that those rights were respected.

"To none shall we deny right or justice" predates Post Modernism by something near a thousand years. And was only articulating what was considered well established law at the time.

[idb]

'Normal' law is what saves your arse from all manner of Government harassment.
Dilute it at your peril.
Try studying some basic human rights, trial by a jury of your peers, protection against double jeopardy (which they're also trying to dilute). Even the right to a speedy trial

Don't snip out of context.
The point of the post was that the act of licencing might imply that the issuer of the licence can impose any rules that he might see fit, hence the apparent legality of roadside licence suspensions.
If you look back though you'll see that if that is the case, I can't see how the impounding of vehicles could be legal.
This was intended to be a point of discussion from one who has never studied law.
Your guidance would certainly be appreciated.

[James Deuce]

An interesting social theory, though one too bleak and cruel for my endorsement.However the underlying context of the discussion was the law, not Libertarian (or NeoCon or Anarchist or whatever 'ism it is ) philosophy. And the Law certainly does recognise rights, and people do have rights under the law. And have had for a long time before Post Modernism. And a good few our our
forbears were willing to die to ensure that those rights were respected.

"To none shall we deny right or justice" predates Post Modernism by something near a thousand years. And was only articulating what was considered well established law at the time.

All I ask is for this thread to die, and go away, and be replaced by something that resembles debate, not a schoolyard bullying session.

I can see that that is starting, but no doubt Mr Drummer will be back and will completely destroy any sense of moderation or sensible to and fro.

I don't accept that the intent of the Magna Carta was to give individual rights to everyone, but rather it was to provide landowners with a voice in a Constitutional Monarchy. It is only within the the last 300 years that the Westminster Parliamentary system allowed ALL Men (sorry ladies) and not just the landed Gentry to vote. Individual rights are not a given in a democracy, nor any form of government, and the concept of the "little people" being involved in Government is only something that started to become a documented reality at the start of the Enlightenment. The archaic intent of laws guaranteeing "rights" is very different to the modern interpretation. Richard the Lionheart for instance did not by any means support equality or rights for every person under his jurisdiction. He invented the pogrom unfortunately for English Jews. It could be argued that Prince John did far more to usher the framework for participatory government than any subsequent regent or monarch.

The thing that really annoys me about this thread is that because I have apparently opposed Drummer's "right" to constantly and consistently give fellow bikers a hard time based on their career, I am apparently an evil neo-conservative, with a concious bias toward National Socialist principles. But this isn't the place to discuss my desire to implement a world-wide Benevolent Dictatorship.

I just wanna ride my bike and talk shit about it. I don't think anyone on this site should be held hostage because of any trait, job, ethnic background, religious view, or outspoken belief. But the Police on here keep getting put in a position of having to actively defend their livelihood. It can't be a healthy or happy time for them to sit here reading stuff about how crap they are as human beings, policemen and women, and government employees.

We should start a drummer joke thread and see how long Mr Drummer keeps his temper.

[Kickaha]

When you inform somebody their beloved won't be coming home.

Done something along those lines very recently and I hope it's a long time before I have to do it again

[Indoo]

You have missed the point. The Police have had powers to deal with all these issues prior. If the speed is dangerous or he's a repeat drink/driver, arrest the him. If the car is unsafe, write it off the road etc.
These people are being punished without charges being proved.

Im sure you know that to charge someone with dangerous driving he has to prove an immediate risk to those around him, not a potential one. Ie someone driving at 110kmh in a 50kmh zone, 800 metres before a busy intersection cannot be charged with dangerous driving.

The way the law works is that everyone has a right to defend the charges and in the case of extreme speed/drink driving this won't be until some 8-10 months down the track. Thats why the law imposes instant penalties, to protect the public from those who breach the law in the extreme, whether through extreme speed or alcohol consumption.

I am kinda suprised however that your suggesting that every biker who has gone 150kmh plus on a deserted straight road be arrested, spend some time in a cell and his bike left there to rott/be stolen. That would probably leave at least half this site with criminal records.

[Lou Girardin]

Im sure you know that to charge someone with dangerous driving he has to prove an immediate risk to those around him, not a potential one. Ie someone driving at 110kmh in a 50kmh zone, 800 metres before a busy intersection cannot be charged with dangerous driving.

The way the law works is that everyone has a right to defend the charges and in the case of extreme speed/drink driving this won't be until some 8-10 months down the track. Thats why the law imposes instant penalties, to protect the public from those who breach the law in the extreme, whether through extreme speed or alcohol consumption.

I am kinda suprised however that your suggesting that every biker who has gone 150kmh plus on a deserted straight road be arrested, spend some time in a cell and his bike left there to rott/be stolen. That would probably leave at least half this site with criminal records.

Wrong wrong wrong. 110 km/h in a 50 zone, with busy intersections, houses, driveways is a dead cert for speed dangerous. I never lost one.
I didn't suggest any such thing. read my post, I said that if the offence is dangerous, the offender should be charged accordingly. Not being subject to a punishment without a conviction.
At the moment if you do 151 km/h on your deserted road your bike could well be left there to rott (sic) or be stolen.

[Ixion]

..The way the law works is that everyone has a right to defend the charges and in the case of extreme speed/drink driving this won't be until some 8-10 months down the track. Thats why the law imposes instant penalties, to protect the public from those who breach the law in the extreme, whether through extreme speed or alcohol consumption.
...

Here is the whole prblem in a nutshell. Until a court finds him guilty (or he pleads guilty) you can't say he has breached the law. You may *allege* he has done so , but only a court can find him guilty. And if the court does subsequently say he's not guilty, you can't reverse the instant penalty. The whole presumption of innocent until proven guilty is overturned. He is guilty because you (hypothetical you, the cop doing the stop) say he is.

In most cases the guilt is probably pretty clear - radar says 160kph, breath thingy says whatever over limit is . Hard to argue with those. But some may be less clear cut. You (hypothetical you again) say "sustained loss of traction" . He says "No, slippery road and steep hill, only for a few seconds, that's not sustained". And the judge agrees. Or you say "85 in a 30kph temporary speed zone" He says "there were no signs". And it is found that he is right.

So it possible for there to be dispute, for someone accused of one of these offences to be found not guilty. But, even though the *court* says he's not guilty, the cop has already found him guilty and enforced the penalty. Which cannot be reversed. That's unjust and wrong. It's not your fault, it's the fault of bad law. But it's still wrong. I (hypothetically) did nothing wrong. The courts agreed that I didn't. But I still got punished (for doing nothing wrong) just as if I had been guilty. So what meaning is there is the court finding me not guilty. This law has, in fact, taken away my right to defend the charges. Because even if I do defend them and win, I am still punished.

[Ixion]

This is going to get awfully long, and not really appropriate to this forum . However :

All I ask is for this thread to die, and go away, and be replaced by something that resembles debate, not a schoolyard bullying session.

I can see that that is starting, but no doubt Mr Drummer will be back and will completely destroy any sense of moderation or sensible to and fro.

I don't accept that the intent of the Magna Carta was to give individual rights to everyone, but rather it was to provide landowners with a voice in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Magna Carta didn't *give* anyone rights. It was a statement of what the barons and burgesses considered their existing rights to be. Some of those rights were to the benefit of the barons (the concept of ownership of land at this stage was meaningless; land was held by feudal tenure). But others were for the benefit of the burgesses, and some (and not the least important) affected everyone, even the villeins.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

Therein is the kernal of all our liberty. And is was granted to all free men (Lord Bracton's axiom applies - in the original Latin , what is translated as men meant "persons") . It didn't really give anyone a "voice" in anything - representation was 200 years in the future, and Constitutional Monarchy was an invention of the C19.

It is only within the the last 300 years that the Westminster Parliamentary system allowed ALL Men (sorry ladies) and not just the landed Gentry to vote.

Actually universal male suffrage was not in force until C20, 100 years or less ago.

Individual rights are not a given in a democracy, nor any form of government, and the concept of the "little people" being involved in Government is only something that started to become a documented reality at the start of the Enlightenment. The archaic intent of laws guaranteeing "rights" is very different to the modern interpretation. Richard the Lionheart for instance did not by any means support equality or rights for every person under his jurisdiction. He invented the pogrom unfortunately for English Jews. It could be argued that Prince John did far more to usher the framework for participatory government than any subsequent regent or monarch.

The notion of "little people" being involved in government would actually have been more familar to a late mediaval person than to one from the "Enlightenment". Burgess tenure , which gave a vote for Parliament (once Parliament existed), was often held by people of low wealth and social position. And in many parts of England copyhold (poor working farmers who didn't own their own land) was considered to entitle to vote. Unfortunately, by and large, once the vote became useful (around C16, C17) the "little people" promptly sold their franchise (directly, or by accepting bribes).So soon they had none (and in much of Europe of the "Enlightenment" nor did anyone else. The "Enlightment was the age of absolute rule)

Neither Coeur de Lion, nor any other English King guaranteed or even imagined "equal rights". The law has never had the slightest interest in "equal rights" That rather nonsensical notion is wholly the invention of modern times and polemicists, not of lawyers.

What the law *does* say, and has since time immemorial, is that if you have a "right" (and in law this means a right of ownership, ie you own something, or a right of franchise, ie a right to do something), then you should not be deprived of that (ie have your right or property taken off you); firstly, without due process (ie a court says that you ought not to have it); and secondly that if you are deprived of your right/property without dereliction on your part, you should be entitled to compensation.

Were this not so, there would be nothing whatsoever to stop me taking your house, your bike, whatever, and refusing to give them back.

And part of due process is that a right (or property) should only be forcibly seized by the Crown if it can be shown that it is for the public good.

There is nothing in this about equal rights. The law indeed envisages that rights will usually be very unequal. I have a right to drive a bike on the highway (because I have complied with certain requirements) He does not. What the law does say is that if I have a right (eg to ride my bike, a licence) that right should not be taken away without due process of law. And then only if it be shown that taking it away is necessary for the common good (eg I have shown by my behaviour that I am a public danger when riding my bike)

The thing that really annoys me about this thread is that because I have apparently opposed Drummer's "right" to constantly and consistently give fellow bikers a hard time based on their career, I am apparently an evil neo-conservative, with a concious bias toward National Socialist principles. But this isn't the place to discuss my desire to implement a world-wide Benevolent Dictatorship.

I don't think anyone (certainly not I) considers you (or anyone else on this site) an "evil" anything. I'm not sure if you are a Neo-conservative, mainly because I'm not certain what they are. I know that I am certainly a very conservative person myself. If you are, I don't see that that is anything to be ashamed of. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, in politics as in all else.

I just wanna ride my bike and talk shit about it. I don't think anyone on this site should be held hostage because of any trait, job, ethnic background, religious view, or outspoken belief. But the Police on here keep getting put in a position of having to actively defend their livelihood. It can't be a healthy or happy time for them to sit here reading stuff about how crap they are as human beings, policemen and women, and government employees.

We should start a drummer joke thread and see how long Mr Drummer keeps his temper.

I agree with you in deprecating the tendency to ad hominem argument. And hopefully those involved in this thread (as in all others) will take that point on board.

But I don't think that BY AND LARGE the recent posters have actually set out to attack the police members personally. They have expressed dissatisfaction with the law; and with the strategy of the police force. The police members will (usually) defend the force (they are proud of it, other coppers are their team mates) and will often take a position about the logicality or justification of the law itself that is more defensive than some posters. That is as one would expect.

And I agree that in some cases tempers have become somewhat aroused , and things have been said that ought not to have been. On both sides, because Mr Spudchuka, at least, is certainly capable of giving as good as he gets. (I suspect that Mr Spudchucka actually quite likes a good argument)

But the fundamental tenor of the argument has been disagreement with the law, or its interpretation and enforcement generally, dissatisfaction with the police force as an abstract entity. That may be upsetting to the police members (no-one likes their chosen occupation being called in question). But it is not the same as personal attacks. The only ones that I have seen of those are the ones by Mr WINJA and Mr Mikey.

Some other threads have had postings dealing harshly with mechanics and repairers. And some have taken IT and helpdesk people to task. But in general that has not been regarded as a personal attack on the wrenches or geeks of the site.

Is this the longest ever KB posting? If not, I do NOT want to see the record holder!