Jump to content

  •  

Photo

Why don`t you catch REAL criminals?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
245 replies to this topic

#226 OFFLINE   Sectioned Detection

Sectioned Detection

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,629 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 06:53 PM

This is a natural progression from the OP. Some people see traffic offences as 'victimless' and shouldn't be crimes (like OTS) I'm asking for them to follow that thought to its natural conclusion and quantify what is a 'victimless' crime.

#227 OFFLINE   onthesquare28

onthesquare28

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 383 posts
  • Interests:Law, current affairs, politics.

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:04 PM

Its very relevant. Or have you realised you ideas are poorly thought out and have no substance?

If not then quantify your comments.

I am not allowing you the monopoly, over me, on what is and isn’t relevant to this debate (the moderators have that) so you are protected from my criticism whilst I lay myself open to a character assassination by you.

A poor idea is one that is not tested by debate. Formulating an idea is not, in itself, poor. Implementing it as a home-spun theory, untested, makes it a poor idea. Also, I believe accepting any existing orthodoxy to prevail, unchallenged is a poor idea too.

One plays devil's advocate to test theory and ideas (both that are in place and those that might be), to see how they are received, which is, sometimes, what I do here - a healthy thing, I feel.

As you have rightly alluded to in this thread, already – people introduce daft laws without doing this (we might agree PfHA is one?)

#228 OFFLINE   onthesquare28

onthesquare28

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 383 posts
  • Interests:Law, current affairs, politics.

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:22 PM

This is a natural progression from the OP. Some people see traffic offences as 'victimless' and shouldn't be crimes (like OTS) I'm asking for them to follow that thought to its natural conclusion and quantify what is a 'victimless' crime.

..but traffic offences (at least those that are dealt with by FPNs) aren't crimes, are they? I thought you knew "the basics"..


Edited by onthesquare28, 09 February 2013 - 07:27 PM.


#229 OFFLINE   Sectioned Detection

Sectioned Detection

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,629 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:26 PM

Ah so now it wasn't your idea you were just playing devils advocate? I stand corrected then because for a minute there I thought you had spouted a popularist opinion that when quizzed on was quickly shown as being flawed and poorly thought out.

I'm pretty sure I've made no character assassinations I've simply asked you to support you opinions from the comments you've made. You've faild to do this, become defensive and attempted to divert the thread (not or the first time on this forum I might add)

#230 OFFLINE   Sectioned Detection

Sectioned Detection

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,629 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:29 PM

..but traffic offences (at least those that are dealt with by FPNs) aren't crimes, are they? I thought you knew "the basics"..


Speeding, no seat belt etc ARE all criminal offences. Unless you think a FPN makes it not an offence in which case neither is criminal damage or shoplifting.

#231 OFFLINE   onthesquare28

onthesquare28

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 383 posts
  • Interests:Law, current affairs, politics.

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:36 PM

I'm pretty sure I've made no character assassinations I've simply asked you to support you opinions from the comments you've made. You've faild to do this, become defensive and attempted to divert the thread (not or the first time on this forum I might add)

Alluding to me being a fool, comes pretty close.

#232 OFFLINE   Sectioned Detection

Sectioned Detection

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,629 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:39 PM

Just playing devis advocate!

#233 OFFLINE   onthesquare28

onthesquare28

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 383 posts
  • Interests:Law, current affairs, politics.

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:40 PM

Speeding, no seat belt etc ARE all criminal offences. Unless you think a FPN makes it not an offence in which case neither is criminal damage or shoplifting.

My understanding is that, technically any conviction in a court of a criminal offence is a criminal record. In practice, however, many motoring offences are not deemed to be crimes for criminal record purposes and that motoring offences dealt with by way of a fixed penalty notice are not criminal convictions.

Hence my understanding is that any motoring conviction dealt with by a FPN is an offence, but not a criminal one.

Edited by onthesquare28, 09 February 2013 - 07:41 PM.


#234 OFFLINE   onthesquare28

onthesquare28

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 383 posts
  • Interests:Law, current affairs, politics.

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:56 PM

Ah so now it wasn't your idea you were just playing devils advocate? I stand corrected then because for a minute there I thought you had spouted a popularist opinion that when quizzed on was quickly shown as being flawed and poorly thought out.

I'm pretty sure I've made no character assassinations I've simply asked you to support you opinions from the comments you've made. You've faild to do this, become defensive and attempted to divert the thread (not or the first time on this forum I might add)

Well, my opinion is obviously very important, so I guess I should be flattered.

Let me have a think about it and maybe I'll respond to your questions after all.

..if you're good . .

Edited by onthesquare28, 09 February 2013 - 07:59 PM.


#235 OFFLINE   Sectioned Detection

Sectioned Detection

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,629 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:57 PM

It's still a criminal offence. By accepting the FPN you negate the need to go to court where, if convicted, you would be found guilty of a criminal offence. Most motoring offences don't have a crime report submitted which is we're the confusion tends to arise.

Does that mean I DO know the basics then?

#236 OFFLINE   sykes

sykes

    UKPOLICEONLINE Trooper

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,864 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 08:03 PM

There has already been a gentle warning issues today about keeping on topic and allowing healthy debate yet it appears the petty little comments keep coming if you disagree with each other fine have a reasoned debate if you cant do that then don't post petty bickering and jibes wont be tolerated anymore



#237 OFFLINE   onthesquare28

onthesquare28

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 383 posts
  • Interests:Law, current affairs, politics.

Posted 10 February 2013 - 10:55 AM

This might help:

 

http://en.wikipedia....ictimless_crime

 

it even mentions seatbelts (or absence of them)



#238 OFFLINE   Sub-seven

Sub-seven

    UKPOLICEONLINE Icon

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,962 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:05 AM

Wikipedia?



#239 OFFLINE   onthesquare28

onthesquare28

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 383 posts
  • Interests:Law, current affairs, politics.

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:09 AM

Wikipedia?

 Yes - it explains "victimless crime" and mentions seatbelts :backontopic:



#240 OFFLINE   Sub-seven

Sub-seven

    UKPOLICEONLINE Icon

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,962 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:11 AM

But Wikipedia?



#241 OFFLINE   onthesquare28

onthesquare28

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 383 posts
  • Interests:Law, current affairs, politics.

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:12 AM

But Wikipedia?

 What about it?



#242 OFFLINE   Sub-seven

Sub-seven

    UKPOLICEONLINE Icon

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,962 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:29 AM

Why introduce it to the thread?

 

Don't you think we are well aware what a "Victimless crime" is?

 

Why use a site like Wikipedia where people can just stick alleged facts on?



#243 OFFLINE   onthesquare28

onthesquare28

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 383 posts
  • Interests:Law, current affairs, politics.

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:36 AM

Why introduce it to the thread?

 

Don't you think we are well aware what a "Victimless crime" is?

 

Why use a site like Wikipedia where people can just stick alleged facts on?

 

I've introduced it because I consider it both useful and relevant.

 

After the debate that has previously ensued, no, I am not sure I do think everyone is aware.

 

It's not perfect, but the article (and articles on it generally) cite references to support "alleged facts", and in the absence of anything else...



#244 OFFLINE   Gjabaggio

Gjabaggio

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 162 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 12:50 PM

 
I've introduced it because I consider it both useful and relevant.
 
After the debate that has previously ensued, no, I am not sure I do think everyone is aware.
 
It's not perfect, but the article (and articles on it generally) cite references to support "alleged facts", and in the absence of anything else...


But the Wikipedia mods have even quoted this at the beginning of the article


This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2010)
This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. (January 2010)
This article may contain original research. (May 2008)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (May 2010)

That kinds of erodes the validity of any kinds of "facts" your trying use from the article.

#245 OFFLINE   onthesquare28

onthesquare28

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 383 posts
  • Interests:Law, current affairs, politics.

Posted 10 February 2013 - 02:09 PM

But the Wikipedia mods have even quoted this at the beginning of the article


This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2010)
This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. (January 2010)
This article may contain original research. (May 2008)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (May 2010)

That kinds of erodes the validity of any kinds of "facts" your trying use from the article.

 

I'm not necessarily trying to use any facts. This matter (as with many others) is based on opinions as much as any facts. No-one's forcing anyone to read it and take it as gospel. It's there for those who are interested.



#246 OFFLINE   Fedster

Fedster

    -

  • Banned
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 02:15 PM

:stop:  :backontopic:






0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users