Dangerous Nonsense
The press is full of reports such as this, declaring that mobile phone use will in future attract a prison sentence. This is largely nonsense, and the CPS (who have issued the press releases that started this story) know that it is.
The law has not changed. All that has changed is the CPS' guidance to its own staff as to the correct offence to charge when someone causes mayhem on the roads while distracted by using a telephone. In the worst cases (and they will be few) the CPS will charge Dangerous Driving (as they are free to do already) or its most serious version, Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, which for some years has carried up to (I think) 14 years inside. But it isn't up to the CPS to decide what's dangerous, as opposed to careless, it's up to a jury. And juries are notoriously ready to convict of the lower charge, perhaps because any jury will include people who have used a phone while driving. This applies even more so to Manslaughter - in fact it was the acquittal rate that led to the introduction of the offfence of causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
This is a spin exercise, part of the CPS strategy to raise its profile.
Mobile phone use is a problem but so is enforcement - if someone is driving in the dark on a motorway, who or what is going to detect his use of the phone? Technology may provide an answer one day, but it won't be soon and it won't be cheap.
posted by Bystander | 11:27 AM Comments (5) | Trackback (0)
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Think Yourself Well Served
Charon QC blogs about a controversial payment of a few thousand pounds.
Why don't we Brits appreciate how lucky we are?
In almost any country an allegation of impropriety involving less than ten, or a hundred, grand of our Earth pounds would be greeted with a shrug.
I do not seek to excuse anyone, but we Brits almost certainly have the world's least corrupt politicians, judiciary, and public servants. And being Brits, we assume the opposite.
posted by Bystander | 8:39 PM Comments (16) | Trackback (0)
Talking of Fishing
It's difficult to disapprove of the fishing licence system, since the cash raised goes directly into maintaining fishing waters, and the licence costs less than 50p per week. When we see cases of unlicensed fishing we impose fines and costs that rub in the message that it's cheaper to get a licence.
I was surprised to learn recently that we now have the power to ban someone from holding or applying for a rod licence for up to five years. I simply had to ask the lawyers the penalty for Fishing While Disqualified, but none of them knew, and we had too much work on to take time to look it up.
I know that defiance of a court order is a terribly serious business, and that we should visit the wrath of the law on perpetrators, but I don't think that I could keep a straight face while dealing with one of these. Do we give him an endorsement? Make him take a new test? Is there a test?
While the Police and CPS continue to usurp the judicial functions of the courts in ever more serious cases, with conditional cautions and penalty notices, why is my list cluttered up with this kind of stuff that cries out to be dealt with by fixed penalty?
posted by Bystander | 5:09 PM Comments (6) | Trackback (0)
Spams and Scams
As I wearily click through my Inbox deleting the daily influx of spam that has slipped past my electronic sentinels I sometimes wonder if anyone out there can really be gullible enough to fall for the tired old Nigerian 419 scams, the magic penis pills and all the other come-ons. I blogged about a phisher who nearly got away with it here. Then last week we saw before us a man accused of operating the well-known 'you-have-won-the-lottery' scam, which is a variation on the advanced fee fraud theme. Someone had fallen for it and had been relieved of over £25,000 in upfront fees to get their huge winnings released. That's the last I shall see of it as the case is off to the Crown Court to be dealt with, but it does explain the persistence of the scammers - you can send a lot of emails for twenty five grand.
posted by Bystander | 4:56 PM Comments (10) | Trackback (0)
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Secondary ID
Is one way to put it.
This is what is available now.
In five years' time?
posted by Bystander | 3:29 PM Comments (21) | Trackback (0)
Friday, December 14, 2007
Solid Principles
Stan Still, in a comment on another thread, refers to the Victorian Nine Principles of Policing.
They bear repetition, and seem as valid today as they were in 1829.
1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasi
Author
Topic: Mobile Comms v Driving (Read 3754 times)