Re: How on earth did that work?
- From: Maria <oldwoman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:10:06 +0100
Mike Ross wrote:
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8014872.stm
"Plans to allow civil servants and private firms to seize passports without a
court order violate the constitution, peers have warned.
The government wants to take passports and driving licences away from parents
who refuse to pay child support.
It says it would only use the measures - contained in the Welfare Reform Bill -
as a "last resort".
But the Lords Constitution Committee fears bureaucrats and firms hired by them
are gaining too much power.
The soon-to-be-defunct Child Support Agency could confiscate the driving
licences of parents who refused to pay for their children, but it had to apply
for a court order to do so."
A court order to confiscate a driving license? So what?
1. What's to prevent the person whose licence was so confiscated from applying
to Swansea for a replacement?
2. Even absent a replacement license, it seems a singlularly ineffective
sanction; as far as I can see the only time it would cause a problem would be if
the indiviual wanted to hire a car, since:
3. A driving license is merely evidence of being permitted to drive. It's
perfectly legal in the UK (as distinct from some other countries) to drive
without carrying a driving license on your person. In the event that a person
whose license had been so confiscated was stopped and issued a producer, would
'license not available due to confiscation' be an absolute defence to a charge
of failing to produce?
(note 'license confiscated' does NOT equal or imply 'banned from driving' -
there's been no motoring offence, no points - so a ban would be impossible in
any case)
Further in the BBC piece:
"But the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which scrutinises all proposed
laws, said it was not convinced by Ms Ussher's assurances.
In a statement, it said: "The freedom to travel to and from one's country is a
constitutional right of such significance that restricting this right as a
punishment demands rigorous examination by an independent judge."
Quite. Yet another example of an authoritarian government seeking to impose
punishment, not only without the trifling matter of a criminal conviction, but
in this case without any court involvement whatever!
If you're not disturbed by this, I fear for the future.
People are not disturbed by it because they think it only applies to deadbeat, alcohol-soaked, bookie-frequenting blokes who deserve to have their goolies chopped with a blunt vegetable knife.
.
- References:
- How on earth did that work?
- From: Mike Ross
- How on earth did that work?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Why do I never see 9GB DVD blanks in the shops?
- Next by Date: Re: Sorry please ignore the first post and read this instead
- Previous by thread: How on earth did that work?
- Next by thread: Re: How on earth did that work?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
