September 30, 2006

Speed cameras appeal

Writing about web page

Ok, so I’m three days late on this. But nevertheless I have a little I want to say about this.

Basically, a couple of motorists have taken their case, of the law surrounding speed cameras (principally, that you are required to incriminate yourself) breaches the “you have the right to remain silent” bit of human rights, to the EU courts. I think a lot of the discussion related to this case is misdirected as drivers trying to get off tickets. Whilst I can’t speak for others, that’s not how I feel. If I get caught fairly and squarely breaking the law, I deserve to face the consequences. If I choose to speed, then it’s my responsibility entirely to avoid getting nicked. What annoys me about this case is the government’s contempt for obeying the laws that it writes. In much the same way that human rights campaigners get annoyed with anti-terrorism legislation because of the questionable ways it bypasses legislation on human rights, so it annoys me that the government cannot be bothered to legislate correctly in accordance with other laws it has already passed, and instead chooses a half-arsed method of enforcing speeding laws with questionable legality. Is that really such a ridiculous objection? To ask that the government does it’s job properly for once? I know it’s asking a lot, but it is perhaps what we should hold them to nonetheless.

- 2 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. We should indeed, but on the basis that every single pressure group that ignores half the evidence appears to have influence we have a limited chance.

    30 Sep 2006, 10:04

  2. To expand on that a little since it actually makes rather less sense than it did in my head, what I mean is people like Greenpeace etc bring things up and down the agenda as they wish, rather like the story on Russia’s nuclear waste last night. The problem with governments obeying their own legistlation is that it is written in such a complex format that it is more or less impossible to say they are breaking their legislation because of numerous clauses in both the original and the subsequent proposals that obsolve certain circumstances and in much the same way as Greenpeace ignore parts of the case to get their view across so reporting of such trials against laws is done in much the same to create a story on a slow news day in my opinion.

    30 Sep 2006, 10:15

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

September 2006

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Aug |  Today  | Oct
            1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30   

Search this blog



Most recent comments

  • I've stopped watching it too. I'm really into stock car racing cos I like getting into the thick of … by Dave on this entry
  • I always knew you were being truthful. by Sue on this entry
  • well! Its very similar to the tory lies where they pretend that if they were in power their banking … by HERO on this entry
  • Aside, although along the lines of "lies" – I think it was Harriet Harman (although I'm probably wro… by on this entry
  • funny – but more importantly helpful as my lodger has been urging me to replace e everything with SK… by Peter Botting on this entry

Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder