• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "So that's all right then ??"

Collapse

  • expat
    replied
    Originally posted by tim123 View Post
    But that is exactly how it works.

    Some offences are "absolute" offences, you are guilty simply by committing the offence.

    But others, the ones that imply a degree of dishonesty, are not. They require proof of 'intent to commit' before you can be found guilty.

    Speeding is an absolute offence. This is for various reasons. I think that you can see it would be virtually impossible for someone to prove that you intended to speed, but it is also because speeding isn't a 'dishonest' act.

    I am sure that people would be well peeved if dishonest acts became absolute offences and you ended up risking six months in pokey because you absently-mindedly walked home from work with a pen still in your pocket.

    tim
    Good points! Isn't that exactly some people's opposition to speeding offences, though? Precisely the fact that they are absolute offences, independent of risk or consequences? I.e. if I'm driving dangerously, do me for driving dangerously. If I'm not, don't do me.

    Leave a comment:


  • tim123
    replied
    Originally posted by Chantho View Post
    I can't get my head round this "it was illegal, but it wasn't intentional wrongdoing so don't do it again (wrist-slap smilie)" concept, it's either illegal or not FFS.
    But that is exactly how it works.

    Some offences are "absolute" offences, you are guilty simply by committing the offence.

    But others, the ones that imply a degree of dishonesty, are not. They require proof of 'intent to commit' before you can be found guilty.

    Speeding is an absolute offence. This is for various reasons. I think that you can see it would be virtually impossible for someone to prove that you intended to speed, but it is also because speeding isn't a 'dishonest' act.

    I am sure that people would be well peeved if dishonest acts became absolute offences and you ended up risking six months in pokey because you absently-mindedly walked home from work with a pen still in your pocket.

    tim

    Leave a comment:


  • BoredBloke
    replied
    In Leeds, on the bins it says £75 for dropping litter. I would say that is not small given that it is only £60 when you are caught speeding. If you have no cash, £75 is pretty big

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Belong to the Liebour party and you can do what you want.
    If she'd been in trouble and had to resign, it might just have put some pressure on Hariett Harman who did the same thing over a much bigger sum of money.

    A knighthood for the head of the Electoral Commission, I hear you say?

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Belong to the Liebour party and you can do what you want.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Chantho View Post
    Here you get a fine for throwing rubbish, I don't think arguing about the semantics of whether it was intentional or not will do you much good if you're caught.
    Yes, but you will get a small fine rather than 3-5 years in prison. Same here - small issue, but she won't lose job over it: at the end of the day it is the voters who should decide if particular politicians are crooks or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chantho
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Donation is small, you don't get shot for throwing rubbish on street - just a slap on a wrist.
    Here you get a fine for throwing rubbish, I don't think arguing about the semantics of whether it was intentional or not will do you much good if you're caught.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Donation is small, you don't get shot for throwing rubbish on street - just a slap on a wrist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chantho
    started a topic So that's all right then ??

    So that's all right then ??

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7232516.stm

    I can't get my head round this "it was illegal, but it wasn't intentional wrongdoing so don't do it again (wrist-slap smilie)" concept, it's either illegal or not FFS.

    If only speed cameras and the like were administered by the Electoral Commission....

Working...
X