I think sadly it's just what happens during heavier scripted bits of conversations and especially ones that are monitored. I see it everyday at work. You then get people that stick to the script and find it more and more convincing that it is right over time. I think it's also true of the side asking/ringing up where because they know it is scripted they expect some procedure in place that'll sort it out and when it goes wrong that's even more annoying.
One benefit of the recession - better staff!
- Thread starter XmisterIS
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I think sadly it's just what happens during heavier scripted bits of conversations and especially ones that are monitored. I see it everyday at work. You then get people that stick to the script and find it more and more convincing that it is right over time. I think it's also true of the side asking/ringing up where because they know it is scripted they expect some procedure in place that'll sort it out and when it goes wrong that's even more annoying.
swee'pea99
Legendary Member
Well maybe, but she (it was a she) would have had to have been a complete peanut to have done anything so ridiculous. Laws and their associated penalties are there to empower the powers that be to do what's necessary to maintain the public good. They're not there to offer open-ended opportunities to inflict punishment out of all proportion to the offense and with no regard to the spirit of the underlying law.
We were guilty of no more than an oversight. We'd failed to realise that if you get your MOT 28 days early, your next MOT lasts for 12 months and 28 days, whereas if you get it 32 days early, it lasts for 12 months. That's the law. There are sound reasons for it, I have no problem with it, we fell foul of it thru' ignorance of the law (which is, I acknowledge, no defence) and I paid my fine without quibbling. But I do think a verbal warning would have achieved the same substantive end - ie, getting me to get MOT'd asap - and certainly would have been more in keeping with the spirit of the law than seizing my vehicle.
Did she 'let me off lightly'? I don't think so. I think if anything she was harsh. Feel free to differ - I'm sure you will.
Archie_tect
De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
- Location
- Northumberland
Still seems harsh to me as SP is law-abiding but I appreciate the police can't know that at the roadside [apart from the read-out of his past history] ...though people deliberately driving without an MOT or any documents wouldn't be bothered by a fine and probably wouldn't pay anyway, so they'd get their vehicle seized.
Would be more effective to give people 7 days to present a valid MOT at their nearest police station and, if they then default issue a fixed penalty by post to the registered address? Mind you, that racks up the administration costs. I suppose dealing with the problem at the roadside is effective ... after a long walk round the houses, back to square one!
[Edit 5pm: Hadn't appreciated that, without a valid MOT certificate, the insurance is void, but the policewoman would have known that, so why did she allow SP to continue to drive the car on the road?
]
Would be more effective to give people 7 days to present a valid MOT at their nearest police station and, if they then default issue a fixed penalty by post to the registered address? Mind you, that racks up the administration costs. I suppose dealing with the problem at the roadside is effective ... after a long walk round the houses, back to square one!
[Edit 5pm: Hadn't appreciated that, without a valid MOT certificate, the insurance is void, but the policewoman would have known that, so why did she allow SP to continue to drive the car on the road?
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
[quote name='swee'pea99' timestamp='1309876443' post='1735703']
Well maybe, but she (it was a she) would have had to have been a complete peanut to have done anything so ridiculous. Laws and their associated penalties are there to empower the powers that be to do what's necessary to maintain the public good. They're not there to offer open-ended opportunities to inflict punishment out of all proportion to the offense and with no regard to the spirit of the underlying law.
We were guilty of no more than an oversight. We'd failed to realise that if you get your MOT 28 days early, your next MOT lasts for 12 months and 28 days, whereas if you get it 32 days early, it lasts for 12 months. That's the law. There are sound reasons for it, I have no problem with it, we fell foul of it thru' ignorance of the law (which is, I acknowledge, no defence) and I paid my fine without quibbling. But I do think a verbal warning would have achieved the same substantive end - ie, getting me to get MOT'd asap - and certainly would have been more in keeping with the spirit of the law than seizing my vehicle.
Did she 'let me off lightly'? I don't think so. I think if anything she was harsh. Feel free to differ - I'm sure you will.
[/quote]
Whilst I think a ticking off might have been the best route, and one open to her, she chose, for reasons only known to her, and maybe you, not to go down that route. She ticketed you. Thus you got off at the lighter end of the spectrum of formal punishment/penalty.
An urban traffic officer would have had the vehicle on the low loader sharpish and you'd have to shell out another c£150 for the recovery fee. Or his Inspector would be asking why (s)he was content to let you drive around in a potentially defective vehicle. Harsh or not that is how it tends to be done around here.
When you're 'guilty' of not reading what it says on the MoT certificate....
Well maybe, but she (it was a she) would have had to have been a complete peanut to have done anything so ridiculous. Laws and their associated penalties are there to empower the powers that be to do what's necessary to maintain the public good. They're not there to offer open-ended opportunities to inflict punishment out of all proportion to the offense and with no regard to the spirit of the underlying law.
We were guilty of no more than an oversight. We'd failed to realise that if you get your MOT 28 days early, your next MOT lasts for 12 months and 28 days, whereas if you get it 32 days early, it lasts for 12 months. That's the law. There are sound reasons for it, I have no problem with it, we fell foul of it thru' ignorance of the law (which is, I acknowledge, no defence) and I paid my fine without quibbling. But I do think a verbal warning would have achieved the same substantive end - ie, getting me to get MOT'd asap - and certainly would have been more in keeping with the spirit of the law than seizing my vehicle.
Did she 'let me off lightly'? I don't think so. I think if anything she was harsh. Feel free to differ - I'm sure you will.
[/quote]
Whilst I think a ticking off might have been the best route, and one open to her, she chose, for reasons only known to her, and maybe you, not to go down that route. She ticketed you. Thus you got off at the lighter end of the spectrum of formal punishment/penalty.
An urban traffic officer would have had the vehicle on the low loader sharpish and you'd have to shell out another c£150 for the recovery fee. Or his Inspector would be asking why (s)he was content to let you drive around in a potentially defective vehicle. Harsh or not that is how it tends to be done around here.
When you're 'guilty' of not reading what it says on the MoT certificate....
