Fireworks Stay Safe, Stay Legal

So the whizzes and the bangs have started and are driving me crazy. Don't get me wrong I love fireworks but has the recently implemented Fireworks Act 2003 helped at all? Personally I don't see much difference - rather than fireworks going off the weekend of Bonfire Night it happens weeks beforehand, plus you still have to be wary of kids throwing them at cars in some areas.

The Fireworks Act 2003 set limited periods for fireworks to be sold and let off. It is an offence to let off fireworks during the hours of 11pm-7am except on certain days:
- Bonfire Night - period extended to midnight
- Diwali, New Years Eve, Chinese New Year - period extended to 1am

The Fireworks Act 2003 also made it a requirement that shops wanting to sell fireworks throughout the year obtain a license to do so. Otherwise fireworks can only be sold:
- 1st day of Chinese New Year and 3 days prior
- Diwali and 3 days prior
- 15th October to 10th November
- 26th December to 31st December

And finally a few other things you may not know about Fireworks Legislation:
1. It is against the law for persons under the age of 18 to carry fireworks in public (this excludes sparklers)- Fireworks Act 2003
2. It is against the law to throw or set off fireworks in the street or public place - this offence carries a fine of up to £5000 or an on the spot fine of £80 - s80 Explosives Act 1875
3. Fireworks must not be sold to anyone under the age of 18
4. Many pets become scared when fireworks are let off, it is an offence under s1 Protection of Animals Act 1911 to cause any unnecessary suffering to any domestic/captive animal - anyone found guilty is liable for a fine of up to £5000 and/or 6 months imprisonment

I wouldn't like to go to the extremes of people not having their own private displays but every year we hear stories about firework related accidents/stupidity.
Here are just a few BBC News links from today:
Baby escapes home firework blast
Pupils injured in firework attack

The Oxfordshire fire chief suggests that the law should be changed to make it illegal for individuals to buy fireworks. I think this is going to far but what is a happy medium and how can we stop the illegal sale of fireworks?

Spanish Property Taxes

Whilst on holiday in Gran Canaria last week I was told that many of the buildings there remain unfinished (i.e. one of the walls not being plastered/painted) because under Spanish Tax Law if a building is not "finished" - all 4 walls plastered and painted - the owner can avoid paying tax on it.

Does anyone know anything about this? I'm currently looking into it.

List of Driving Offences

Please find below a table of motoring offences, their definitions under the Road Traffic Act (RTA) 1988 and the penalties they carry.

Please note:
1. All of the below offences could carry a fine.
2. Where two imprisonment sentences are stated these are either-way offences and relate to the outcome of either indictment/summary trial e.g. Dangerous Driving carries maximum 2 years imprisonment on indictment but 6 months maximum if tried summarily.
3. The below table highlights the possible implications of the driving offences listed - each penalty is subject to variation dependent on the individual circumstances of each case - seek legal advice.

Any questions please post.
Coming soon.... Alcohol Related Offences.

Offence	Definition	Penalty
Dangerous Driving	s2 RTA- Drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road/public place	2 years/6 months imprisonment Obligatory disqualification exceeding 1 year 3-11 points
Causing Death by Dangerous Driving	s1 RTA- Drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road/public place - must be proven that caused the death of another person	Maximum 14 years imprisonment Obligatory disqualification exceeding 2 years 3-11 points
Careless Driving	s3 RTA- Driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road/public place without (a)due care and attention or (b)without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road/public place	3-9 points discretionary disqualification
Failure to Stop	s170 RTA - Driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road/public place must stop and give details if they have had an accident	6 months imprisonment 5-10 points discretionary disqualification
Failure to Report an Accident	s170(4) - Driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road/public place must if they have an accident report the matter to police as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours	6 months imprisonment 5-10 points discretionary disqualification
No Insurance	s142 RTA - Using (or causing/permitting to be used) a motor vehicle on a road/public place when there is no policy in force against Third Party risks	Fixed penalty fine 6-8 points discretionary disqualification
Driving While Disqualified	s103 RTA - Driving a vehicle on a road whilst disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence	6 months imprisonment 6 points fine discretionary disqualification

Free Accident Form - What to do if you have an RTA

Please click here for a printable copy of an "accident form" which I have created for my personal use

Using a form such as the one above ensures that you get down all of the relevant details. This is especially useful if you are in a state of shock and where you are likely to forget something. The extent of the information you get could also assist your insurance company process your claim more swiftly and would be invaluable to the police should they become involved.

In this post I hope to provide some handy tips and advice to be taken into consideration if you are involved in a road traffic accident (RTA). I will also suggest some precautions you can take so that you are prepared if an accident occurs. Hopefully if you are unfortunate enough to be involved in an RTA the advice below will help ensure that the process is as smooth as possible in what may be a very distressing situation.

Having been involved in a RTA you may be shocked and unable to think clearly. This is why I suggest that you carry certain items in your glove compartment in the form of an "accident pack" to be used should you be involved in an accident.

In your accident pack I recommend that you carry:

1. Disposable camera (preferably with a flash) - to take photographs of the accident scene and any damage to the vehicles involved

2. Your insurance/contact details - so these can be passed on to any third party involved

3. Accident forms and 2 pens/pencils - to take down the other driver's details plus any other relevant details - alternatively have a piece of paper ready for the same purpose

Other points to keep in mind

1. Keep an accident pack like the one suggested above in your car's glove compartment

2. Try to get as many details as possible including the car registration number, make , model and colour. It may also be helpful to take down a description of the third party in case identity becomes an issue

3. As mentioned above take photographs of the scene and any damage to the vehicles/property involved no matter how slight the damage – this may avoid any dispute later - A handy tip is to get the vehicle's registration number and the third party in the photographs but be careful as they may not want to be photographed

4. If you are hit by someone who then drives off without exchanging details try and get as much information about the vehicle as possible – in particular the registration number – report the matter to the police and your insurance company who can then try and trace the vehicle involved

5. If there are witnesses to any accident, no matter how minor, get their details these may prove invaluable if liability for the accident is disputed

6. Even if the third party vehicle is foreign your insurance party/solicitors should be able to trace the vehicle through the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) – just be sure to get the registration number

7. There are many CCTV cameras around towns, shops etc. If liability is disputed it may be worth asking around to see if you could get conclusive footage of the incident – do this quickly though as many places record over past tapes

8. Remember it is a criminal offence to either not exchange details following an accident or to report it to the police

CCTV - Big Brother or Big Bother?

Today "talking cameras" are operating in Salford alongside those recently installed elsewhere in the country, with the number of CCTV cameras the highest in Europe are we turning into a "Big Brother" society? Obviously the idea behind CCTV is to protect the public, preventing anti-social behaviour and keeping our streets clean, but does it invade of our right to privacy?

It was only last month that Traffic Wardens in the area became the first in the UK to be equipped with head-mounted video cameras - with statistics suggesting that people are caught on camera 300 times a day is the extent of CCTV going further than necessary in protecting the public at the expense of their privacy?

It is true that CCTV has been very positive in preventing crime and identifying perpetrators and as many of the cameras are not noticeable without careful inspection, you would hardly notice they are there. Personally I feel safer in areas where CCTV is filming and that new "talking cameras" can only assist in making society a safer place to live.

For our protection or breach of privacy?

Has reality TV gone too far?

Further to my previous post re: organ donation the subject has been subject to much controversy in the news today - Outcry over TV kidney competition. The concept of choosing the recipient for a kidney of a dying woman in Holland through "reality television". Viewers via text message alongside the donor will choose the contestant who deserves to receive the woman's kidney. Has the quest to get ratings gone too far? Or is this a move towards a wider recognition of the shortage of organ donation as suggested by the broadcasters.

Personally despite understanding the concept that organs should go to deserving people I think that this is a step too far. Highlighting the need for donors is important but making the sensitive matter the subject of a television show where people are competing for a lifesaving/changing opportunity is one which is not ethically acceptable to many. How can TV broadcasters be allowed to "play God"?

With reality television these days including such shows as Big Brother, Celebrity Love Island, Strictly Come Dancing... to name only a handful - covering a wide range of subjects, allowing shows which have the effect of "playing God" -where will it end?! What is the ethical limit?, organ

New Phone Penalties

Today new penalties came in for drivers who use hand-held mobile phones whilst driving. The question is however, will these actually deter people? I don't think they will. There was a ban on using phones whilst driving (December 2003), which hasn't prevented anyone from using them. I still see many motorists on their phones, particularly those within inches of my rear bumper. So the fine is £60 and possible points on your licence?! Will that really bother anyone? People still speed despite the similar consequences. Also the chances of being caught in the act are slim, it's easy - see a police car, put the phone down.

Although hand-held phones are banned, what about hands-free kits/bluetooth? Surely the point is that it is hard to concentrate on two things at once, isn't talking to someone the distraction not the fact that one of your hands is off the wheel? And what about those people who text whilst driving, they are unlikely to be noticed by the police, yet they still cause a nuisance to other drivers.

The point I am making is that banning the use of hand-held mobile phones whilst driving is not going to prevent it happening and causing collisions/near misses - the penalty is not enough to successfully deter the majority. Who will police it? - Look at the car seat fiasco, the law says that children under a certain height should be in child seats, I've seen many not even in seatbelts crawling around the car. How many people are actually stopped and the fined for this? Nobody has taken any notice of the law and nobody is policing it!
The same will happen with this ban, as this BBC article states, over 1 million people are ignoring the 2003 ban already - how will these new penalties change this?

Does Law Enforcement Work?

Okay, I am in the situation where my finance's car has had its windscreen smashed by a thrown golf ball, we called the police 3 1/2 hours ago when the culprits and witnesses were still in the area, they said they would come round and they still have not arrived.

On a separate occasion my own car was vandalised in a local car park and I was left on my own at night and in the rain trying to contact someone for help as I could not drive the car due to the damage. (Not to mention the local yobs and drunks hanging around). The police were called and I was given a crime number - nothing else was done, no-one even came to see my car. Who has to pay? Me, twice in fact. Firstly the cost/excesses (and damage to my no-claims) of repairing the damage and secondly with my taxes paying for a police service, which on two occasions has not benefited me.

This leads me to question whether the law is actually enforced or whether only murder/rape crimes are considered. Yes I can understand that it may not be a priority case but criminal damage is a crime and to me it doesn't seem like it is being enforced. What is the point of having laws that are not being enforced?

Racism or Justification?

Over the past couple of weeks security in our airports has been tight, further to alleged terror attacks being planned on flights between UK and the USA. Now as security is relaxed, airport security are being told to "look out for" possible terror suspects.

The problem is that the Muslim Community are raising the issue that this amounts to racist discrimination. Just because someone is part of an ethnic minority, where some members have previously been blamed/guilty for terrorist activities, does it give the Government/Police the right to judge each member of this minority as a possible terrorist?

This is just one of the recent examples where it has been argued that passengers have been targeted just based on the colour of their skin.

The above article states that "People should keep an eye out for suspicious behaviour but nervousness is not enough."

It may be argued that suspicion is increased by the ethnicity of the individual/group. The police may justify this by stating that they must identify any possible connections to terrorist activity including race/background/location and flight details. These ethnic groups have allegedly been involved in previous terrorist scares/attacks isn't it right that they take special care to fully check passengers of this race?

Should security not be vigilant of everyone no matter of race/religion?

It has been argued that Asian/Middle Eastern passengers are being discriminated against, that it is being assumed that they are all related to terrorism in some way.

Does this link to racism? The same argument is raised across the UK that black people are not treated equally with Caucasians where the police are involved (arrests/stop and search etc.)?

Does the law benefit society?

The law is meant to protect us, yet there has been much criticism that it is too lenient. Does the law in fact act in the public interest? As a deterrent? Make our world a safer place?

Most people would say NO! I remember reading just recently, an uninsured, no license driver, of a stolen vehicle knocked over and killed a toddler. He got 3 months imprisonment! Is that justice?

However, this creates the argument: Is it justice that we really want or is it revenge? When we think about people being "punished" for their crimes what do we want? A safer society or repayment to the offender for his crimes. An "eye for an eye" some may say.

Do we want a deterrent or punishment?

Whereas our legal system does not allow "like for like" punishments, many victims and their families feel that this treatment is deserved. Does that mean those people not affected by crime can make the best judgement for punishments?

Designer Babies

Advance research into reproductive technologies has been both beneficial and controversial. Such research has lead to the ability of screening embryos prior to implantation into the mother. Although it may be argued that this can be beneficial by preventing diseases such as cystic fibrosis and in the future cure many genetic diseases, the extent of its possible boundaries remains uncertain.

Not many people would argue that on the balance it is not morally wrong to screen embryos to prevent a child suffering disease, but opinion becomes the opposite when you consider doing the same to determine the sex/intelligence/hair colour of a child. The House of Lords in the Hashmi case have ruled that the tissue typing of embryos to help their sick siblings is lawful. However, the ruling has not set any boundaries as to what such procedures can be used for. I can imagine there being a case in the future where the parents wish to "design" their child, either based on looks/intelligence/sex. We will have to wait and see what the courts say then.

Should prisoners have rights?

Okay, everyone has rights, but how far should these rights extend to prisoners? Should those who have broken the law have the same rights as the law abiding public? Is it really fair for those who have committed crimes to be allowed to watch television and play pool? Is prison really punishment enough?

Over the last ten years the number of prisoners have increased and it has been suggested that a stint in prison does not deter offending behaviour. Should the UK therefore look towards other means of punishment? Or maybe, they should make prison sentences a bigger deterrent. The figures for re-offending are increasing, suggesting that putting offenders in prison is not successful in stopping them committing crimes.

What about their basic rights? Well okay maybe they should retain the right to life and the right not to be tortured (although this may be controversial in the eyes of their victims), and have the right to live in humane conditions - after all we have abolished the death penalty, but why make prisons such a comfortable place for them to be when they are supposed to be being punished?

Vivisection - what are the boundaries?

Following recent controversy over the work done by Darley Oaks Farm, in Newchurch, UK, it raises the question: is vivisection morally wrong? It appears that there is no specific law in the UK regulating vivisection, and many animals are being used for non-pharmaceutical testing. While using animals for pharmaceutical testing may be justifiable, do we really need to test products such as make-up and washing-up liquid on these creatures? The Government has failed to implement UK or EU law stating that where a non-animal or less painful alternative method exists, the traditional animal test method should no longer be allowed. It is recognised that the Government cares more about convenience for researchers than animal protection.

It boils down to the question: Do animals have rights? This is where the controversy lies! An animal is viewed "less important" than a human, yet religion conveys that all animals are God's creatures. Is it right that we test products on animals? There are many companies that do not and they can provide good quality products which outsell many animal tested versions. Many people I know specifically go for products with the "not tested on animals" label.

People tend to raise the opinion that animal testing is wrong for non-pharmaceutical products, yet okay for those which help the advances of medicine. How can that line be drawn? Surely both are cruel to animals. The answer seemingly points to the fact that we "humans" need these products, but do not need cosmetic products also produced through animal testing.

What about organ transplantation from"animals" to "humans"? That is a different argument. Those who support vivisection must surely approve of this method of maintaining and improving the life of humans, but sadly many do not. This is a certain way of improving the quality of those urgently in need of organ transplantation, can this not be compared to vivisection for medical purposes? Why is it so different?


http://www.uncaged.co.uk/vivisect.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4178166.stm

Smoking!

There has been a lot in the news recently about the banning of smoking in public places. I am all for it. I must admit that I have never smoked and this is a very common view among non-smokers who will not be affected by the ban, but I have spent a lot of time around people who have/do especially strangers in public places. What really annoys me is when they light up in a restaurant while you are trying to eat - yes this annoys even some of the people who smoke - so ok ban it there. Working in pubs I have also had second hand smoke blown at my face, do people really need a ciggy to have a good night? Some people I know only smoke when they go out or have a drink. Why?!
Where there are large gatherings of people (e.g. workplaces/pubs/clubs/restaurants) smoking should definitely be banned. If smokers want to ruin their lungs, let them, they have enough warnings, but do they listen? No! Please don't let us non-smokers, who do not choose to intentionally damage our bodies smoke with you. What about bus stops then? This is a disputed matter, but it is still inconsiderate to light up in the small area of a bus stop. Smoking should be confined to specific areas or at home.in the car, people should be more considerate of others.
You may ask, so should we ban drinking because that causes a bad effect on your body? However, in moderation, alcohol does not cause the serious effects smoking does to our bodies. Also it does not affect the health of those around you, unlike secondary smoke!
Personally I cannot wait for laws to be passed banning smoking, and especially hope it includes at bus stops.
However, I would like to know the opinion of those who smoke, whether for or against a ban (as I know there are some "considerate" smokers out there). The best argument I have heard so far for smoking at bus stops is: "If we didn't light up at bus stops, no buses would turn up. This It is a well known fact that as soon as you light up, a bus turns up!" Well in reply, all I have to say is I haven't had any problems as a non-smoker waiting at the bus stop with other people who do not light up.
Non-smokers would be just as affected by the ban, it would improve their lives!

Compulsory Organ Donation

Should organ donation be made compulsory?
This issue is at the heart of the medical system, with the growing number of patients on waiting lists for transplants should those persons who die and are capable of providing usable organs be made to do so? (well their families anyway). Already doctors are able to ask the dead person's relatives whether they can use the organs, but should the law go as far as requiring the donation? One argument is that all usable organs should be made available, however the opposing argument notes the patient's right to autonomy and highlights that the choice is with them. We ask therefore whether a patient's autonomy extends past their death and should their body continue to be respected? Or should we go for the greater good and help all those waiting for help, which they are able to provide? Especially if the person involved later is cremated.
You may say that some of those people on the waiting list don't deserve the help because they require a transplant after self-indulgence, but for many people their need is through illness or defect.
If it should not be made compulsory, should more people be aware of the option?

Occupier's liability

Recently I have been considering putting barbed wire at the top of our boundary fence (between our front garden and waste land, away from the public highway) in order to prevent the local kids climbing over it continuously and causing damage to the already old fragile frame. Then I sat back and considered, what if some stupid kid injures themselves?! I would be liable! Where did the law go wrong? Under the Occupier's Liability Act we are liable for anyone who enters our property whether they are invited or trespassers! So basically a burglar can come in and if he injures himself whilst in the property can sue the property owner for personal injury! How does that work then? He shouldn't be there in the first place, he is a trespasser! If in the middle of the night you met face to face with an intruder would you think twice about knocking him out? You aren't even entitled to protect your property unless you use "reasonable" force, how are we supposed to know if they have a gun/knife on them? Should we just let them take our stuff? And what is the definition of reasonable? - The answer to this is that there isn't one within the law, everything is reasonable this and reasonable that, but just what is reasonable? To different people it may be different things in different circumstances! The law is in much need of change, but with "reasonable" being used throughout the legal system nobody can be bothered or just don't want to.

Glad I got that off my chest it has been bothering me for a while now!
Anne

Same-Sex Marriages

Same Sex Marriages? In November 2004 the Civil Partnership was passed in the UK allowing same sex couples to register their partnerships. I would like to have your opinion? There are arguments on both sides of the line and it remains a controversial issue.

Further details can be found here and here (pro arguments)

Welcome

Hi everyone! Welcome to my blog. I am creating a blog dedicated to our opinions of the law, whether they are good, bad or just plain absurd. I shall be providing my own rants and raves and general views and want to hear from you too!
Anne