TJC1 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I already said I had broken the law elsewhere on the thread. I stated that my attitude to having been caught out is to accept it and not wriggle out of it. Nowhere have I stated I am a puritan above the law. That's the hyperbole from those astonished that someone doesn't agree with their "yeah but..." point of view. Ridiculous argument. If you are taking the moral highground then surely you wouldn't need to be caught out. Being caught by someone doesn't make you any more or less guilty. You would pay the fine of your own volition, knowing that you had broken the law. Anyway well done to the op for sticking to the rule of law and avoiding the fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Not sure thay did..just a very noisy minority... Maybe but Major obviously thought it had to go. I believe the Tories were losing votes over it regardless of the shouters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 So do you not think the OP probably learned a lesson too? He parked on zig-zags late at night and got caught. But luckily for him got off with it, on a technicality. Do you think he will do the same thing again? Just because he escaped previously? Obviously I can't speak for him, but I suspect the answer would be that no, he won't be doing it again! So whether he paid the fine or not the effect is the same! I agree, I'd rather laws were followed without people having to resentfully pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Ridiculous argument. If you are taking the moral highground then surely you wouldn't need to be caught out. Being caught by someone doesn't make you any more or less guilty. You would pay the fine of your own volition, knowing that you had broken the law. Anyway well done to the op for sticking to the rule of law and avoiding the fine. Not really as it's not an argument but a statement of fact. The OP didn't stick to the rule of law so wrong again. It would be puritanical and extreme to go around sending cheques to the police for something you know you've done without having been charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Not really as it's not an argument but a statement of fact. The OP didn't stick to the rule of law so wrong again. It would be puritanical and extreme to go around sending cheques to the police for something you know you've done without having been charged. err wrong again. The case was proven in his favour, he went to court and the law which we are governed and he consented to decided the outcome, so he did stick exactly to the law. Or is your interpretation of what the law should be, also what he should follow morally. Your just making stuff up now to suit your own argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Jay Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 You should already know the answer to this. Yes it is force of numbers. The majority of the nation rejected the poll tax so Major realised HMG had overstepped the mark and scrapped it. All other laws are obeyed by the majority so they stay. You see not paying the poll tax didn't kill anyone. Simple really. It was replaced with the "council tax". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Also, we can only speak hypothetically because a parking violation is an act not a law. The op did however follow the law and used it to his own advantage. good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 err wrong again. The case was proven in his favour, he went to court and the law which we are governed and he consented to decided the outcome, so he did stick exactly to the law. Or is your interpretation of what the law should be, also what he should follow morally. Your just making stuff up now to suit your own argument. Well, i didnt get as far as the court hearing ( which was due for today) ,as the CPS called me yesterday morning telling me they had reviewed the case papers ,and they would not be contesting the case,as after seeing all the evidence presented to them by the police , they couldnt offer any evidence due to "errors made in the paperwork". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 err wrong again. The case was proven in his favour, he went to court and the law which we are governed and he consented to decided the outcome, so he did stick exactly to the law. Or is your interpretation of what the law should be, also what he should follow morally. Your just making stuff up now to suit your own argument. Wrong again? What exactly have I been wrong on? Your first 'wrong' identified was merely me stating my position so how could I be wrong? Secondly the OP never went to court, the CPS pulled the plug the day before the hearing. Nothing was proven, it was dropped on a technicality. The OP admitted at the beginning that he broke the law but decided to challenge it because of errors on the ticket. As regards making stuff up you need to read the full thread from the start instead of coming in halfway through as a tap room lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 It was replaced with the "council tax". True, a semi return to the rates system as I understand it and one that didn't cause riots or town hall takeovers even if it is not brilliant. When the Poll Tax did it had to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.