Re: Disabled woman fined for permit slip-up: DISGUSTING

Ian Smith

On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:13:27 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:30:31 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >> Ian Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >>>> Ian Smith wrote:

> >>>>>>>> JNugent supposed :
> >>>>>>>>> "No charge will be brought against *the driver* as no driving
> >>>>>>>>> offence was committed."
> >>>>>>>>> What's to defend?

> >>>>> 2: JNugent implied that there was nothing that needed defending.

> >>>> I think I said that, rather than implying it.

> >>> You think wrong.
> >>> The entirety of your comment is quoted - you quoted part of the
> >>> article and said "What's to defend?".

> >> That's the entirety of that comment.
> >> There have been others.

> > I see. I was supposed to take into consideration things you were
> > going to say at some time in the future, when composing my response.

> No. You could have read them. They were posted prior to your response.

I think, actually, your statement above is factually incorrect, but
I'll look at any evidence you have to the contrary.

In this newsgroup, you posted your comment at 01:25 on 5/5.

At 18:20 you made another posting which noted that the passenger would
have to be identified to be prosecuted, and implied (note, not stated)
that you would not assist the police in identifying the passenger had
you been driving.

Your next posting to this newsgroup, at 18:25, went on about whether
the driver committed any offences and again implied you would not
assist the police.

My posting was at 18:47. So, where is this posting you made before
mine? It apparently wasn't in this newsgroup. It seems increasingly
likely that you are arguing with yourself after all...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Dave

"JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:fNudneiZg8Ke3oLVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@pipex.net...
SNIP
> Therefore, unless the registered keeper - the only one who can be forcibly
> identified, AFAICS - splits on his mate (or on the driver's mate if the
> keeper is not the driver), no action is possible. And why should it be?

So if you are walking down the street and the passengers jump out of a car
and kick your head in and only the driver is identifiable but committed no
crime it is OK for him not to split on his mates?

Dave

JNugent

Dave wrote:

> "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> SNIP

>> Therefore, unless the registered keeper - the only one who can be forcibly
>> identified, AFAICS - splits on his mate (or on the driver's mate if the
>> keeper is not the driver), no action is possible. And why should it be?

> So if you are walking down the street and the passengers jump out of a car
> and kick your head in and only the driver is identifiable but committed no
> crime it is OK for him not to split on his mates?

It depends what you mean by "OK".

First of all, it's a completely and utterly different type of
circumstance. In such a case, an offence has *definitely* been committed
- there's no need for the police to find a repressed prude to profess
themself "outraged" in order for the offence to subsist (in case you
forget, you are seeking to make a moral equivalence between assault and
battery and someone momentarily baring their backside to a traffic camera).

I would think that while there is no direct legal requirement for the
driver (as a driver) to identify the assailant (at least, not as part of
any traffic law of which I'm aware), on being identified, there's a
chance that the driver would be arrested for the assault (or as an
accessory to it) and would feel under pressure to identify the actual
assailant and to thereby distance himself from the offence. But that
would apply equally if both of them were on foot and on (the
non-assailant) was simply identified from CCTV footage or was personally
known to a witness, without any motor vehicle being involved.

The car is a red herring. The fact that the non-assailant was driving a
motor vehicle would have no legal bearing on the issue. Everything would
hinge on identification and on whether a charge could be made to stick
on the (in your scenario, innocent) driver. I'm pretty sure that you
would not argue that innocent people should be prosecuted for, or
convicted of, things they hadn't done.

As to the moral side of things... well, that's a more difficult one.

If I were the driver in such a circumstance, I would be horrified by the
incident (I dare say you would be, in the same circumstances). If you,
as my passenger - say, as a casual acquaintance or work colleague - were
the unprovoked assailant of an innocent passer-by, I'd have no
compunction about grassing you up at the first practical opportunity. It
would be my immediate intention (and, I'm sure, vice-versa).

But if it was a lifelong schoolfriend to whom I was giving a lift during
a trip back to my home town, or if it was a relative, the moral ground
would start to shift. I would at least want to know the reasons why it
had happened (my friends and relations don't do that sort of thing, you
see, and I'd want to assume some sort of prior provocation, if not
justification). In the end, identifying them might be something I'd do
only if the consequences of not doing so were sufficiently serious (like
my being held to blame for the assault).

In other words, the concept of expediency might make me act differently
in different circumstances, just as it would for everyone else
(including, I have no doubt, your good self).

I'm assuming liberal democracy and the presumption of innocence, of course.

Ian Smith

On Wed, 07 May 2008 10:20:08 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
> The car is a red herring. The fact that the non-assailant was driving a
> motor vehicle would have no legal bearing on the issue.

Absolutely. A red herring brought up solely by you - no-one suggested
the driver should be prosecuted for the actions of the passenger. (In
this case - I note that there are offences for which drivers can be
prosecuted for passenger behaviour).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|