So that's all right then ??

[Chantho]

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....

[AtW]

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

[Chantho]

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.

[AtW]

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.

[BrilloPad]

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

[TheFaQQer]

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?

[BoredBloke]

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

[tim123]

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

[expat]

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.