Mother fined for taking 10 children to safety in car

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by lancslad, Sep 27, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Link below...

    I appreciate the fact that the lady in reality shouldn't have had 10 kids in the car however why o why did the copper 600 yards away not resolve the actual reason for her action i.e. the chavs further down the road?

    Doesn't seem to me to be in accord with the phrase "to serve & protect..." (I know it's a US term - but for once it is a useful one :D )

  2. Just goes to show how stupid the law has become under Bliar and his motley crew.
  3. Did that article really tell us that Police Officer ignored the people kicking her car and wandering around the street with a baseball bat?
    All so they could prosecute the lady driver?

    How would everybody feel if this woman had simply driven off with her own children and left the others where they were? Fecking madness, hope Ayrshire Police feel particularly proud of their actions.
  4. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    They'd probably have nicked her for failing the other minors in her duty of care as an adult.

    Assuing the genleman concerned could actually see the thugs, he wouldn't have had/been able to intervene as that may have been contrary to H&S.

    NOT a cop, but similar lunacy here.
  5. A conviction is a conviction to our brave boys in blue. Targets met; promotions secured. Serving the public? Hmm.
  6. As usual I find myself defending the apparently indefensible! :roll:

    Let's just take a slightly more critical look at this shall we. The Bobby stops this woman who has overloaded her car, perfectly reasonable and within his powers. I imagine that the offence was self-evident at the time, he could see she was breaking the law and may even have been concerned at a lack of control of the vehicle. She offers an explanation at the roadside which he declines to accept or pay heed to...why? Perhaps to the bobby her explanation was not plausible or believable, what exactly did she say, how was she behaving, was there any evidence to support her account? At any rate, he decided to report her and off she goes to Court where she has her chance to state her case to the magistrates and guess what, they didn't believe her or accept her behaviour as reasonable in the circumstances, she's fined and has her licence endorsed. THIS IS NOT THE BOBBY'S DECISION!!!!! :x

    He has done his job in reporting the offence, if the Court want to dismiss the charges that's their prerogative but they didn't,did they?.

    Finally, can I just point out that we know nothing about this woman or her background, there may be numerous reasons why the cop didn't accept her account at the time. I suggest that in future a degree of caution is exercised before rushing into print complain about the actions of the Police, the whole truth is very rarely present in newspaper reports as those of us who are serving or ex-Forces well know! :wink:
  7. Jaeger - a valid observation well made. However, at a time when we are getting many reports that suggest unreasonable police action, the Police as an authority should take steps to release the full facts so that we can judge whether we - the general public - understand what took place. It should not be left to an individual posting something on a special interest forum.
  8. The I.Q. of the officer involved would be helpful.
  9. Point well made.
    The Police do not tend to help themselves out of bad publicity.
    The MOD almost always announce that they will launch an enquiry when an act that is deemed wrong in the eyes of the public is published.
    (Think 'those photos' or video footage or even the young squaddie running round with an SA80 in Birmingham)
    Yes they maybe covering there own arrses but at least it shows the public that they are keen to keep things in check.
    However this latest media fashion of publishing these incidents, make the Police Force as a whole look like a bunch of incompetents, who cannot differentiate between criminal and victim.
    Yet the Police do not publicly announce that they will be looked into, that they are not just 'target meeting'.
    Personally I dont think this media attention will dwindle until something like that is done.
  10. The woman would have been entitled in law to drive off with her own children and leave the others to be beaten to a pulp with a baseball bat!

    She has a legal duty of care to her own children not to others she has voluntarily assumed no such duty to.

    The law will allow you to watch a stranger's child drown in 2 feet of water and walk away. There is no positive duty of care to strangers to come to their aid.

    France and some other countries have a positive duty of care to strangers but not in the UK.

    I am not saying it is right or I agree with it, I simply state the law as it exists in England and Wales.
  11. I'd also comment that the magistrate/sherriff is tied as to the sentence that they can issue by our wonderful governments all controlling guidelines and rules that have removed all common sense from our courts.

    Its clear that the driving was deemed to be careless, however there were extraordinary mitigating circumstances!

    The sentencing guidelines in the bench book (ok, this applies to england and wales law, but I beleive the scottish rules are similar) are absolutley clear - you must endorse with 3-9 penalty points, and the starting point is a fine.

    the mitigation cannot remove the guilt, the governments rules have made three points mandatory and a fine the recommended punishment.

    a total discharge was not an available option to the bench, the rules say she had to be punished whether the bench liked it or not - we spend a lot of time blaming the police and judges, but the rules are laid down by their bosses, the politicians.
  12. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    Agreed Iolis. I had intended my original post to be tongue in cheek, but don't think I managed it.
  13. I believe that the law is correct in not making private individuals have a proactive duty of care for other private individuals. However that said, the law should be the servant of the common good and it is irelevant whether one would have a specific legal responsability to assist an individual/individuals in mortal danger or not [ and even if there was a specific law requireing assistance be provided to strangers, if one considers in context of how the rest of the law is being applied, the Lady could have refused to take the extra passengers on the basis to provide such assistance would breach the condtions of the highways acts ie excess persons in the vehicle and even if she had a duty to take the extra persons if the French practice was adopted she would still be prosecuted for taking the extra passengers and her only defence would be that if she had refused to take the extra passengers she also would have persecuted ] the issue is that brushing aside all the complex technical legal issues involved, is that the common good has become the servant of the Law with the result that the only people whose interests the law serves are criminals and anti-social elements and those in the legal professions and police services whose only goal is either one of personal careerism or society wrecking or both.

    Saludos Amigos
  14. Police Officers are ''supposed'' to use their discretion.Clearly this plod thought that a charge was more important,than the use of his mental powers.This sort of thing gives the police a bad name-not surprisingly!
  15. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    Quotas anyone ?