Why is not having motor insurence a police matter?

[SnailyBoy]

You were arguing throughout this thread that the police do not choose not to prosecute certain types of crime. So I found a counterexample.

 

No, I was highlighting that not hearing of crimes/offences in the court or on the news isn't a good justification for saying the police choose not to pursue those crimes/offenses.

[*_ash_*]

if you cant afford insurance do not drive .

 

I think perhaps this type of logic is quite widespread.

 

-

 

Lucky for these companies.

[tinfoilhat]

The topic of this thread asks why not having insurance is a police matter...I've just shown the reason for that...I'm not sure what your point is...

 

I was extrapolating a bit.

 

But in answer to the thread title, why is not having motor insurance a police matter?

 

Answer: becasue its against the law.

 

Closing.................

[Cyclone]

That's why having insurance is a legal requirement....

 

To be fair, I think I stated it perfectly clearly within the first few posts.

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2017 at 10:05 ----------

 

So you think I just haven't seen prosecutions for this offence on the news, and the police did actually do it before it was repealed in 1960?

 

http://archery.mysaga.net/archlaws.html

 

Or perhaps they have made a decision to no longer prosecute this offence? It then follows there may be other offences they choose not to prosecute. And there is certainly anecdotal indications they choose not to investigate properly certain types of crime due to resource issues.

 

What makes you think that the POLICE decided for themselves? Rather than it being an instruction from the civilian authorities?

If you think the police prosecute anyone then you fundamentally don't understand the system at all. The crown prosecution service do the prosecuting, and they are not the same body as the police.

[parkydave]

Is it not the police who arrest and charge you with an offence and the crown prosecutor who carries it on from there

[El Cid]

The topic of this thread asks why not having insurance is a police matter...I've just shown the reason for that...I'm not sure what your point is...

 

The only crime which is not usually a police matter are animal cruallty crimes, for which the RSPCA bring private prosecutions for.

 

How crimes are pursued should be the question. Drink and driving is treated differently, depending whether you are on private or public land, is that fair?

 

Are there other examples of the same offence being treated differently?

[Cyclone]

Are you trying to entirely change the subject now?

 

Some things aren't an offence at all when on private property, not difficult to understand why is it. If you want to drive a car on your own property at the age of 10, there is no law that prohibits it. If you want to have a sword in the house, that's absolutely fine.

Do either of those things in public and it's a crime.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Cyclone

[monkey104]

The only crime which is not usually a police matter are animal cruallty crimes, for which the RSPCA bring private prosecutions for.

 

How crimes are pursued should be the question. Drink and driving is treated differently, depending whether you are on private or public land, is that fair?

 

Are there other examples of the same offence being treated differently?

 

Still drinking?

[El Cid]

Some things aren't an offence at all when on private property, not difficult to understand why is it.

 

There has been a case in Leeds where a boy was killed by a drunken driver, on a farm. It has been put before MPs that there should be no difference, when killing someone under the influence is concerned.

[Cyclone]

As it stands though there is a difference, most of the road traffic act only applies to the public highway or spaces routinely accessible to the public (like car parks).

 

And that still isn't difficult to understand is it?