What would you do if you lost your license?

[Rusty]

The study of legal language means your on the right track. Legal language is not the same as the common English language, inasmuch as a word that means one thing to us has an entirely different meaning in legalese.

[smithfz]

Yea l'm starting to come across that.   

[Pat]

KTM plus loads of others including Cosworth make some very nice machines, 30mph 60 mile range with your feet up plenty more if you assist

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/eurobike-ktm-debut-electric-mountain-bike-and-more-23093/

If it'll do 30MPH with your feet up it won't be legal in the UK, well not as an electric pushbike anyway, it'll need all the same stuff as any other motor vehicle - reg plate, insurance,  LICENCE... 

[Lawrence]

Understand the implications of that. It means that all parking, speeding, littering, or any other form of 'automatic' fine levied against you without a prior trial to determine guilt are illegal. 

They're not an automatic fine.  They are essentially a confession that you sign and post back along with a cheque, if you've confessed what need is there for a trial?  If you dispute it then take it to court.

[Rusty]

Exactly. Your signature is yours alone, it is your property and cannot lawfully be extracted under duress. That is the principle.


Far better to ask for a trial by your peers as is your right. Do you really believe that if everyone opted to refuse to give away their signature the courts could arrange trial by jury for everyone? A court case for every litter fine, parking fine, dog mess or speeding fine? The administration alone would cost more than the revenue from the so called offences.  It's a con, a giant ponzi scheme perpetrated on the gullible.


The law works both ways, without principle it fails to be coherent and loses all validity.

[Lawrence]

It's not being 'extracted under duress'... there's nothing forcing you to sign it at all.  If you get a speeding ticket and object to signing it then just take it to court.  If you're innocent then there won't be any evidence surely?  If you're guilty then the £60/3 points is a quick way of dealing with it without the time/expense of taking it all through court.

[Raymy]

This is about to become a john Harris love in. I'll just get lizard people mentioned before anyone else gets a chance

[Rusty]

This is about to become a john Harris love in. I'll just get lizard people mentioned before anyone else gets a chance

Nowt to do with John Harris or anyone else TB, it's about the right to stand up for yourself. Facts are facts, law is law. If law is based on principle that principle cannot waver can it? Therefore the law can work for you, or against you, it's just a question of harnessing it in your favour. Introducing talk of lizards or other silliness doesn't detract from the principle.

It's not being 'extracted under duress'... there's nothing forcing you to sign it at all.  If you get a speeding ticket and object to signing it then just take it to court.  If you're innocent then there won't be any evidence surely?  If you're guilty then the £60/3 points is a quick way of dealing with it without the time/expense of taking it all through court.

Which is why I believe that no one should sign anything - let them bring it to court.  Let me ask you who benefits from the quick 'confession'? Certainly not the individual being processed.

In recent times there have been cases of pensioners being fined for having their dustbin lids open 1 inch too high, another pensioner who dropped a ten pound note while exiting a newsagents was fined for littering, hearses with coffins have been booked for transgressing yellow lines, and all other forms of lunacy.

Each of those fines was imposed without any compunction to be sensible on the part of the person issuing them, and often as not were upheld upon appeal by local authority. My point is that when told to 'sign here' by a Policeman or any other person how many individuals actually know they are perfectly within their rights to refuse to do so?  The law exists not to persecute but to protect, and far too many citizens are unaware of their own rights to defend themselves against such tin pot tyranny by using that same law in defence.

[Lawrence]

Which is why I believe that no one should sign anything - let them bring it to court.  Let me ask you who benefits from the quick 'confession'? Certainly not the individual being processed.

In recent times there have been cases of pensioners being fined for having their dustbin lids open 1 inch too high, another pensioner who dropped a ten pound note while exiting a newsagents was fined for littering, hearses with coffins have been booked for transgressing yellow lines, and all other forms of lunacy.

Each of those fines was imposed without any compunction to be sensible on the part of the person issuing them, and often as not were upheld upon appeal by local authority. My point is that when told to 'sign here' by a Policeman or any other person how many individuals actually know they are perfectly within their rights to refuse to do so?  The law exists not to persecute but to protect, and far too many citizens are unaware of their own rights to defend themselves against such tin pot tyranny by using that same law in defence.

In those cases I agree with you, but then speeding, littering etc can and do affect other people.  Bins being open by an inch etc is just retarded and whoever dreams up stuff like that should be given a kicking.
 
As for who benefits... if I get caught speeding and the choice is a) sign paper, £60 and 3 points, or b) don't sign, go to court, day off work, £60+, 3+ points, court costs... I know what I'd do.

[Raymy]

Rusty, don't get me wrong, I agree. Except with the notion  silliness about the lizard people.

[Raymy]

And Sean, please have the admin whizzes change that daft name over. You're anything but grumpe

[Rusty]

As for who benefits... if I get caught speeding and the choice is a) sign paper, £60 and 3 points, or b) don't sign, go to court, day off work, £60+, 3+ points, court costs... I know what I'd do.

I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that I'm some sort of political anarchist, I just like to stand up for myself. I'll give you a real life example from personal experience.


In 1984 I was shopping at Asda and came out to find the back lights of my car smashed and the car dented. A couple had seen the person responsible, gave me their details as witnesses and the offenders reg no. My wife then convinced me to report it to the Police. I went to the local station, told them the tale and gave them the witness details. I was told that as it happened on Asda car park which is private land they could do nothing. (I now know this to be incorrect) What they did do however, was to go outside and inspect my car, then give me a 'producer' to produce my documents, even though I was not at fault.


Sods law came into play and on getting out my documents I found my MOT had expired three days earlier! I was therefore booked for having no MOT.


When the summons came the charges were having no MOT, and having no insurance. Even though I had insurance and had shown them the certificate. I contacted the Police who told me that the charges still stood, I contacted the CPS who also told me the charges stood, so I elected to go to court. I pleaded guilty by letter to no MOT.


The court case happened to fall on Wednesday, my day off from work. Representing myself I went along with my documents and the prosecution put forward their case. I pleaded guilty to no MOT as I had done by letter, with mitigation that it was an oversight that was corrected immediately upon coming to my knowledge. To the charge of no insurance I simply produced my certificate. The magistrate found no case to answer for insurance, and fined me £15.00 for having no MOT.


He asked me how I wished to pay and I said I would pay immediately and in full. But before I do we must discuss the matter of my loss of earnings in attending court to provide evidence of my having insurance. The MOT I had pleaded guilty by letter, so the sole purpose of the court case was to determine if I had insurance or not - which I had. And not only had I insurance, but had produced it to the Police. Having to subsequently attend court had cost me a day off work I told them, and that constituted at that time a £35.00 loss.


I was awarded the £35 costs, which means that they paid the fine and I made a £20.00 profit for attending court on my day off.    That is the point I'm trying to get across, it's up to the individual to know the law and use it for their own protection, it doesn't exist so that incompetent fools can fleece you.

[Rusty]

Double post

[goldfazer]

Blimey Rusty - you've just admitted to defrauding the Courts as well

[Lawrence]

I agree with you completely, but the two cases are different.  You were wrongly accused of something and not only could the prosecution not prove that you'd done it (driven with no insurance) but you had proof that you were covered.  As with the MOT though, you pleaded guilty by post presumably as it was the easiest/cheapest/quickest way of doing it.  Had you turned up in court for that you would've had the same result but costs on top.
 
My point being that if you have done something then it's probably cheaper, quicker and easier to take the fixed penalty rather than fight it and get done for it anyway.
Bit of a result ending up £20 in pocket though 

[Robbie8666]

all i can say is if I lost my licence I would be stuffed!!!
 
i have 3 points for using a mobile May 2011 (guilty as charged! )
3 points for speeding (43 in 30 limit) Guilty even though I didn't know it limit had changed from 40 to 30 600 meters down the road (March 12)
then in april 12 I got done for speeding on A303 doing 81 in national speed limit (guiltyagain!) however that would've taken me to 9 points and the next 3 would've seen me automatiaclly banned!!) so to the Driver awareness course (as discussed in another thread) so points remain at 6
and am now driving very cautiously!!
bike laid up til next year but will still have to be careful til may 2014!
 
dropping my speed has added a bit of extra time ( 5 mins going to work & 15/20 mins driving home at weekends) however I have increase my MPG from 50 to 65+ in my cage so I am actually saving money and not getting half as stressed as I was before!!

[smithfz]

Can you get a license in another country like ireland ?


http://www.dvtani.gov.uk/home/index.asp

[Rusty]

Blimey Rusty - you've just admitted to defrauding the Courts as well

Yes I know, and I haven't the slightest concern about that, for who's going to testify against me...Me? 

Anyway, I take the view that in the two highest houses of our land, there are people who address each other as 'Honourable' and 'Right honourable' members that are guilty of far greater fraud on a daily basis. And often the cost of their deceit are not only expenses fiddled but millions of innocent lives lost. I don't think my twenty quid really ranks up there with that.

Lawrence that example was back in the days when I was innocent in all senses of the word. I had the attitude (and still do) that if I have done wrong then fair enough I'll pay the price. What has transpired since then has been the creeping authoritarianism we see today, where innocents (politically) are browbeaten into filling the coffers. I no longer feel I have a say in how my country is run, by whom, and to what ends, which is why I pretty much see to myself and reject the silliness and tyranny of the automatons.

[Pat]

Can you get a license in another country like ireland ?


http://www.dvtani.gov.uk/home/index.asp

No.

If you've been banned in this country you've been banned from driving on the UK roads period, it doesn't matter if you have any number of valid driving licences issued by other countries you're still banned.

[Dave48]

Rusty, I agree completely with your last post. If we meekly act(fail to act) like sheep those elected & non-elected "honourable gentlemen" will continue to shaft us at every opportunity. The last time I voted the b******s sold me and the rest like me out to the tories. "Democracy" in action!. Historically those in power maintained their position by keeping the masses in ignorance..dont see that anythings changed since. To stand by and watch is to be guilty by acquiescence/appeasement in my opinion. We "enjoy" precious few freedoms now so dont just sit back & pretend everything is rosy. 

[Rusty]

It's gone beyond that Dave. I, like millions of others voted for Blair's Labour in '97 because we saw he had the real opportunity to create a new and fairer society. He had the country behind him, and a spirit of optimism prevailed. - So look what happened.


What was done to us wasn't done through incompetence, it's part of the agenda. We should forget all this Tory vs Labour divisionist type thinking - that belongs to the 20th century. Today people need to recognise that although Political parties might say different things, whoever is in office then furthers the same agenda by what they do. That is by moving toward the centralisation of power, corporate involvement in policy making, and (engineered) unrest at home and abroad in order to increase the power of the state by ever tighter control.


There comes a point when people become apathetic regarding politics, saying 'it's boring' or some other excuse for their lack of involvement, but I really believe that anyone who has children or grandchildren should be very interested in politics, because it's no longer your own future you are fighting for, but theirs.

[Dave48]

In 1997 my eldest son was ecstatic @ New Labours victory ( he was just 16 & becoming politically aware)  I told him then not to be too disappointed when the mood of optimism passed. I grew up in the 60s & there was a genuine feeling that we could make the world a better place but of course we ended up disillusioned. When I cast my vote for the Libs I knew deep down it wouldnt make the slightest difference since the power behind the politics is the global marketplace and in the pursuit of power the ends always justifies the means.

[Rusty]

Precisely, how pleased I am to hear from someone who 'gets it'. 


I find it incredible that many consider politics to be something that is pretty much undertaken by others on their behalf.  They openly admit that they mistrust politicians, yet put their own and their children's future in the hands of those very people - It's madness!  Slowly though people are waking up to the fact that as a nation we're all being diddled.  I've given up trying to convince people of it, all I ask now is that they look around for themselves and ask for explanations as to why things are like they are today, in the fourth richest nation on the planet!


To quote Schopenhauer:
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

George Carlin ~ The American Dream

[breadlord]

Schopenhauer was a fucking mental case who believed women were innately servile and whose mentalist views were a major influence on Nietzsche, and was in vogue in Germany in the earlier part of the 20th Century.

Refutation of statutory law is one of those arguments mentalists who scream they can't be arrested because of the Magna Carta use.

[Rusty]

Oops! Perhaps Schopenhauers truth theory has already reached the second stage.

Well thank you for the potted history lesson breadlord but we could have googled that for ourselves. I'm not sure what those comments are meant to add to the discussion though? You don't say if you believe the refutation of statute law has any basis in Common law?  Is it valid? Or even how you know this? Forget Schopenhauer, what is your evaluation of the question? Surely you would know if you are qualified to make such bold statements, or are you prepared to condemn people as 'mentalists' without even looking into the facts? Please tell us what you know so we can all go check what you say against cold empirical evidence.