Re: FFS M62 WANKERS

Oops, William, not Mark! I need more coffee.

Maybe that might work, although if road protests became effective I'd wager they'd start prioritising it in the courts, or change the law as they did when serving NIPs properly became too expensive, it used to be the case that NIPs had to be delivered by a verifiable means, by hand or by registered post, to ensure that the person being accused knew it was happening. That was too much of a faff so it was then changed to allow NIPs to be bunged into the post unregistered with the assumption that it would get there.

Would that be the case if what was at stake was something valuable, e.g. fuel duty? They get so much loot from fuel duty that they'd put up more of a fight than they did with the example given elsewhere of leg protectors.

Back in 2002 IIRC the right of trial by jury was almost scrapped for a range of offences in order to save costs, the government lost the vote by a narrow margin. I'd be completely unsurprised if they'd use a rise in road blockades and attempts to plug the courts as an excuse to have another go, and would of course make the change in the law capture a whole lot more than just motoring offences, as they did to a quite absurd degree with their anti-terror legislation.

It doesn't matter.

The judges would play hell about being used for political purposes.

Our rather liberal judicial system would be saying loud and long to the government that they're not in the business of collective punishment, they've got better things to do with their time and they'd better pass some laws to stop this bloody nonsense.

It's all too fast.

The judicial system says you go on the list, or get bumped up if you're important, or get bumped down if it people on both sides ae still collecting evidence, but the judiciary get upset of people mess them about and keep delaying things for no good reason.

Getting bumped up because you're important and then bringing the Crown Court to a grinding halt for two days of legal testing for the admisibility of witnesses (You've called the Prime Minister and two ministers from the Ministry of Transport and the permanant secretary from the Treasury) is going to make the judge pissed at someone, and you make it very clear indeed that you see the whole thing as an evil political prosecution for evil political purposes.

It would take too long, and if they do that then you then get to drag them into the ECHR for denying you a fair trial...

And you get on the inside page of all the serious newspapers...

Would it be seen as political purposes or would it be seen as mass lawlessness, it's not as if blocking the roads is a party political thing after all. If people were using the legal system's slowness to try and break traffic laws to make a point about a non-political matter (fuel duty is hardly an issue that divides parties) then would the judges be interested in letting a load of offenders off the hook who they know are counting on them being slow?

I daresay a fair old proportion of cases bought before the courts hear blame being heaped on all and sundy apart from the defendant!

I doubt that the HR convention would be particularly interested, I don't recall them getting involved last time the government tried to withdraw the right to a jury trial. Bear in mind the Human Rights Act doesn't even ban capital punishment or even torture, it just states that you're not allowed to have this or that done to you, unless of course this or that is a state-condoned punishment.

.. which hardly anyone reads..

You'll find that during the Poll Tax riots the authorities knew exactly who the leaders of the violence were. They didn't drag them through the courts.

Dragging highly educated, highly motivated people through the English courts on charges that can be seen as political is idiocy and the politicians know that.

You're giving them a platform that is both privileged and secure. Nobody, except under exceptional circumstances relating to national security, can shut a witness for the defence up, nobody can deny the press the right to report their testimony.

With the current government >> Getting bumped up because you're important and then bringing the Crown >> Court

But in this case you can blame the prime Minister and his mates, and they don't like that, especially when you ask to see the cabinet papers that discuss the matter, and if you're being prosecuted you have the right to see the relevant documents...

It doesn't mater what the ECHR says. What matters is that it makes the government look bad by dragging innocent members of the public with a grievance through the courts.

That the members of the public with the grievance are doing the dragging isn't something anyone will notice...

The government does.

Indeed they attach massive significance to what the serious press says.

You're not trying to get elected, you're trying to get the government to do something.

The Gun Control Network managed to get .22 target pistols banned when the gun laws changed.

There are only seven of them...

Single issue politics is, to my mind, odious because it's so easy to manipulate the government if you're ruthless enough and have a few friends.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Actually, party politics is not a good thing. Without folk prepared to stand up & be counted this country (and possibly many others) would be worse than they are now.

/wandering back outside now to go play with an oily Land Rover - ttfn

It is.

Ruthless people with a single issue can manipulate the government into being nasty to a large group of people for no better reason than their own vanity.

The example I gave, the Gun Control Network, is typical. They got a harmless sport banned for no better reason than to prove they could and show people their power.

The key is to paint the targets as evil-doers, e.g. 4x4 users, gun users, fox hunters, people who have violent sex fantasies, and next of all it might be bikers and landy owners blockading London ;-)

They came first for the Motor Cyclists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't riding a Motor Cycle.

Then they came for the Single Occupancy Vehicles, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't driving a Single Occupancy Vehicle.

Then they came for the Diesel Engines, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't using a Diesel Engine.

Then they came for the 4x4s, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't driving a 4x4.

Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

with apologies to: Martin Niemoeller.

I can still remember the "Field" magazine's attack on 4x4 drivers during the hysteria, I thought it was pretty shameful for them to have written such a dreadful article as they did, considering the fox hunting ban was still fresh on the taste buds.

It's one thing to not speak up for someone who is going through what you've just been through, it's another thing to put the boot in yourself as they were doing.

And the motorcyclists thrashed the arse off them.

Nobody has seriously had a go at that lot since Bottomley got sent to the Northern Ireland Office...

Yeah, it must be nice not to have to wear a crash helmet these days, they didn't dare force that one on them!

They always knew they couldn't win that one.

Too much money involved.

In addition to other replies ....