Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Feb 03, 2026 11:23

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Discussion Forums » General Chat

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 4 posts ] 
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Ernest Marsh
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 16:10 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
On another forum I frequent, somebody made a good suggestion which I thought I should share here....
Quote:
Just a thought.
Why not lock up MPs suspected of corruption for 42 days so that the evidence can be gathered against them. You never know it might make them think twice about foisting the same thing on everyone else!


Are you happy 42 days is enough... some of the technical investigations into people's hard drives can take some time.... especially since the cutbacks reduced staffing levels!! :lol:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
R1Nut
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 16:16 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816
Ernest Marsh wrote:
On another forum I frequent, somebody made a good suggestion which I thought I should share here....
Quote:
Just a thought.
Why not lock up MPs suspected of corruption for 42 days so that the evidence can be gathered against them. You never know it might make them think twice about foisting the same thing on everyone else!


Are you happy 42 days is enough... some of the technical investigations into people's hard drives can take some time.... especially since the cutbacks reduced staffing levels!! :lol:


What cutbacks? With the growing spend on public services I'm sure there are enough staff walking around with their fingers up their noses to do the job.

BTW, the total would be 72 days as there is already a 30 day limit with the additional 42 being added on later :wink:

_________________
Prepare to be Judged
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
anton
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 16:23 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
I think that is totally justifiable as misconduct in public office is such a serous crime that it has the maximum sentence of life in prison

Quote:
There must be a serious departure from proper standards before the offence is committed. Mere negligence is not enough. The conduct required must be so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder. A mistake, even a serious one will not suffice, nor will mere inadvertence. There must be reckless indifference in a subjective sense or proof that the defendant knew that he was acting unlawfully or to have wilfully disregarded the risk that his act was unlawful. There must be more than mere non-feasance, namely deliberate failure and wilful neglect.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
botach
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 17:48 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
anton wrote:
I think that is totally justifiable as misconduct in public office is such a serous crime that it has the maximum sentence of life in prison

Quote:
There must be a serious departure from proper standards before the offence is committed. Mere negligence is not enough. The conduct required must be so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder. A mistake, even a serious one will not suffice, nor will mere inadvertence. There must be reckless indifference in a subjective sense or proof that the defendant knew that he was acting unlawfully or to have wilfully disregarded the risk that his act was unlawful. There must be more than mere non-feasance, namely deliberate failure and wilful neglect.


Take it that the incident in Birmingham with postal votes didn't rank on that scale ??( comment by the judge was that it was similar to that occuring in a third world country) :o

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 4 posts ] 

Board index » Discussion Forums » General Chat

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.082s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]