Supreme Court of Canada, IRP decision.

[simnut]

The words "lawyers beat" the MVA or OSMV identifies that someone is viewing our system as some kind of a competitive game like football, that you win or lose. The truth and true justice is thus (again) only a bystander in the process.

Okay, let's put it this way then. You can PROVE that the MVA charge was invalid (beat) , but it makes no difference to the OSMV, as they have already penalized you for it.

[Liquidnails]

The OSMV is now known as Road Safety BC.

[simnut]

The OSMV is now known as Road Safety BC.

And so the trend continues.....hope no one gets a violation and has a valid dispute!!

[Donald G]

To my5cents ...

WADR suggesting that we continue to do certain things a certain way because that is how we did them in the past is a recipe for disaster. ie burn witches at the stake, hang cattle thieves, incarcerate people for debt, charge people for vagrancy, etc. I think you are being rather selective regarding the remuneration afforded lawyers with our continuing "10 guilty go free" theoretical law school addiction.

[my5cents]

The OSMV is now known as Road Safety BC.

Thanks Liquid

I thought you were nuts, did some checking. You're on the money.

I think it creates a bit of confusion (yes I know the idea was to eliminate confusion), in that the title of "Superintendent of Motor Vehicles" is given to the "reviewer and final authority" for motor vehicle related duties. The Superintendent doesn't review everything himself, hence the "Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles". Now the OSMV is re-named to "RoadSafetyBC"

Also, the only portion of the entire driving license administrations that wasn't controlled by ICBC was the OSMV.

ICBC has always had a department called "Road Safety"

I didn't think it was broke, but it's fixed, I guess.

[simnut]

To simnut ...

WADR suggesting that we continue to do certain things a certain way because that is how we did them in the past is a recipe for disaster. ie burn witches at the stake, hang cattle thieves, incarcerate people for debt, charge people for vagrancy, etc. I think you are being rather selective regarding the remuneration afforded lawyers with our continuing "10 guilty go free" theoretical law school addiction.

Who me? You must have me confused with someone else... :D

[my5cents]

Simnut : The comment regarding the Blackstone Formulation was mine. It was in response to Donald saying that the occurrence of an innocent person being convicted was not as morally reprehensible as defense lawyers would lead us to believe (my interpretation of Donald’s words, not a quote).

I commented that not only was it undesirable to have an innocent person punished, it has been written (in the 18th Century) that better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be punished.

I don't think that concept, even though spoken of hundreds of years ago, is one we can discount like outdated ideas such as burning witches, debtor's prison, vagrancy laws, etc.

I can only imagine what it would feel like to be wrongly punished if innocent.

I agree, and I think where Donald is coming from is, that the number of persons that are found not guilty, who are actually morally, legally or in any way not guilty is pretty small, but does, on occasion happen, even in "real" court.

We have that concept to try to guarantee that when a person is found guilty they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now remove all those safeguards. What are the chances now ?

I don't agree with roadside justice even for minor offences. When the potential penalty is as severe as the IRP provides for, which is higher than many criminal penalties it is worse.

Then you say, "well drinking and driving is serious". and I say,, yes it is, so charge the driver with a criminal offense, convict him or her and nail them to the wall.

Just because Christy and the gang won't properly fund the police and the courts doesn't make the IRP the right thing to do. The Liberal have sold the public a bill of goods. Like the Music Man did.

[Donald G]

To Simnut ...

My humble apologies to you, your family and your 20,000 direct DNA line ancestors. You are right. The comment should have been directed to the man with the lawyer view that is continually drummed into everyone in law school; my5cents.

[simnut]

To Simnut ...

My humble apologies to you, your family and your 20,000 direct DNA line ancestors. You are right. The comment should have been directed to the man with the lawyer view that is continually drummed into everyone in law school; my5cents.

Me, my family and all those grand kids kindly accept your apology hehehehe

[my5cents]

To Simnut ...

My humble apologies to you, your family and your 20,000 direct DNA line ancestors. You are right. The comment should have been directed to the man with the lawyer view that is continually drummed into everyone in law school; my5cents.

"Lawyer view" !!! ?? I've been call a lot of rotten things in my life, but "lawyer view" ! :)

[Donald G]

The new Canadian Criminal Court guilt vs innocence mantra is, "Better that ten child killers, rapists, gun runners and drug pushers go free than one innocent person have their vehicle seized unfairly for drinking and driving". Only in Canada where highly theoretical lawyers run the court system could this happen.

[zzontar]

The new Canadian Criminal Court guilt vs innocence mantra is, "Better that ten child killers, rapists, gun runners and drug pushers go free than one innocent person have their vehicle seized unfairly for drinking and driving". Only in Canada where highly theoretical lawyers run the court system could this happen.

Imagine that you have a new pack of gum in your pocket... you walk into a store that sells the same gum and when you're walking out, the clerk accuses you of stealing it. Let's say you weren't allowed to prove your innocence, you would still be labeled a thief, some people would treat you as such, try getting a job with that on your record... it could theoretically mess up your life. Would you think it's a great thing because it's just a pack of gum and diligent clerks stop much greater thefts?

The Canadian way is if you blow a "warn" you're guilty without being able to prove your innocence. On the same page if you work with the vulnerable (teachers, coaches, etc.) and your birthday falls on the same day as an ex-sex offender, even though Vital Statistics Canada knows it's not you, you must prove that you are not that sex offender or lose your job. Being found guilty until proven innocent and being found guilty without being able to prove you're innocent are both wrong, and they happen in Canada.

[Donald G]

To zzontar ...

Theoretical hogwash.

[zzontar]

Just saying hogwash doesn't make it so and makes for a boring discussion... maybe try elaborating.

[Donald G]

To zzontar ...

Criminal records are backed up by fingerprints. Every "name run" criminal record check also contains a printout of the pattern on all ten of that criminals fingers. Even identical twins have differences. It protects people when a criminal uses the I.D. of a non criminal in stolen I.D. situations, which are not all that uncommon.

Thousands of people enter stores every day wearing clothing they have purchased in that store.

It has nothing to do with vital statistics.

Thus theoretical hogwash.