Snapper

Use your mobile to dob in hoons...

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html

I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be charged with
using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.

Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on people "dobbing"
in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip without
evidence.

Sylvia Else

Snapper wrote:
> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>
> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be charged with
> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>
> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on people "dobbing"
> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip without
> evidence.
>
>

They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.

Sylvia.

RogerM

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
> Snapper wrote:
>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>
>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>
>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be charged
>> with
>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>
>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on people
>> "dobbing"
>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip without
>> evidence.
>>
>>
>
> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is changed.
> The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon. Merely
> identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>
> Sylvia.

True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in security
cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.

Roger

Sylvia Else

RogerM wrote:
>
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
>> Snapper wrote:
>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>
>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>
>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be
>>> charged with
>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>
>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on
>>> people "dobbing"
>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip without
>>> evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in security
> cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.
>
> Roger

I don't know that a time and date stamp would help. The problem, as I
see it, is that a video will not usually be sufficiently good to allow
the driver to be seen and identified.

If the police just go to the owner later and demand to know who was
hooning in the vehicle, the owner is likely to deny any knowledge.
Unless there's a law that expressly makes the owner liable, then the
police will have no case.

Sylvia.

atec77

Sylvia Else wrote:
> RogerM wrote:
>>
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>> news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be
>>>> charged with
>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on
>>>> people "dobbing"
>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip
>>>> without
>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in
>> security cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.
>>
>> Roger
>
> I don't know that a time and date stamp would help. The problem, as I
> see it, is that a video will not usually be sufficiently good to allow
> the driver to be seen and identified.
doesn't need to be , the charges laid stay with the owner until proven
otherwise
>
> If the police just go to the owner later and demand to know who was
> hooning in the vehicle, the owner is likely to deny any knowledge.
> Unless there's a law that expressly makes the owner liable, then the
> police will have no case.
there is you silly bint .
>
> Sylvia.

Sylvia Else

atec77 wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> RogerM wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>> news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be
>>>>> charged with
>>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on
>>>>> people "dobbing"
>>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip
>>>>> without
>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual
>>>> hoon. Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in
>>> security cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.
>>>
>>> Roger
>>
>> I don't know that a time and date stamp would help. The problem, as I
>> see it, is that a video will not usually be sufficiently good to allow
>> the driver to be seen and identified.
> doesn't need to be , the charges laid stay with the owner until proven
> otherwise

That's not a general rule. It applies only to specified offences.

Sylvia.

atec77

Sylvia Else wrote:
> atec77 wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> RogerM wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>>> news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
>>>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be
>>>>>> charged with
>>>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on
>>>>>> people "dobbing"
>>>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual
>>>>> hoon. Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in
>>>> security cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.
>>>>
>>>> Roger
>>>
>>> I don't know that a time and date stamp would help. The problem, as I
>>> see it, is that a video will not usually be sufficiently good to
>>> allow the driver to be seen and identified.
>> doesn't need to be , the charges laid stay with the owner until
>> proven otherwise
>
> That's not a general rule. It applies only to specified offences.
just shows how uninformed you are , hooning and traffic offences are ,
so tell me how would it not apply in that situation
>
> Sylvia.

RainbowWarrior

"atec77" <atec77NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g8b3q7$1h8$1@aioe.org...
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> RogerM wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>> news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be
>>>>> charged with
>>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on people
>>>>> "dobbing"
>>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip
>>>>> without
>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>>>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in security
>>> cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.
>>>
>>> Roger
>>
>> I don't know that a time and date stamp would help. The problem, as I see
>> it, is that a video will not usually be sufficiently good to allow the
>> driver to be seen and identified.
> doesn't need to be , the charges laid stay with the owner until proven
> otherwise
>>
>> If the police just go to the owner later and demand to know who was
>> hooning in the vehicle, the owner is likely to deny any knowledge. Unless
>> there's a law that expressly makes the owner liable, then the police will
>> have no case.
> there is you silly bint .
>>
>> Sylvia.

And so many people fail to realise that although the video footage may not
get you a conviction, it will get you noticed and probably at least a random
roadside roadworthy check, while your thumbing your nose to the cops that
they can't nick you for hooning.

And the good thing is it's a little harder for someone else to falsely dob
you in for hooning because they think your car is too loud.

Toby Ponsenby

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:21:41 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Snapper wrote:
>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>
>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>
>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be charged with
>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>
>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on people "dobbing"
>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip without
>> evidence.
>>
>>
>
> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>
> Sylvia.

10, 9, 8 , and so on - countdown to legislation - the obvious gambit
will be the owner having to prove they are NOT the hoon, by supplying
the name address etc of the real hoon..and so on.

There's a precedent we let through without jamming lit torches and
pitchforks up the collective arse of GovCo..

You were warned.

Latest in QLD - today?
Majority jury verdicts. (Wheeze in this one is that there needs to be
only 'one' jury member standing in the way of a hung jury. Doubtless
more later - dare I say it - look for 2/3 majority decisions - that's
****wit juror heaven. Remember, GovCo is both the prosecutor and jury
selector:-))
Trials formerly requiring a Jury to be jury-less by speshul request...

Seriously, the GovCo jerks are completely and utterly out of control.

Sylvia Else

atec77 wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> atec77 wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> RogerM wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>>>> news:g8atcl$iuj$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>>>>> Use your mobile to dob in hoons...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...0-2862,00.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be
>>>>>>> charged with
>>>>>>> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on
>>>>>>> people "dobbing"
>>>>>>> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>>>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual
>>>>>> hoon. Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> True, that is unless it has time and date stamped on it, as in
>>>>> security cameras are not evidence unless so equipped.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger
>>>>
>>>> I don't know that a time and date stamp would help. The problem, as
>>>> I see it, is that a video will not usually be sufficiently good to
>>>> allow the driver to be seen and identified.
>>> doesn't need to be , the charges laid stay with the owner until
>>> proven otherwise
>>
>> That's not a general rule. It applies only to specified offences.
> just shows how uninformed you are , hooning and traffic offences are ,
> so tell me how would it not apply in that situation

It doesn't evey apply to all traffic offenses.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/v...125/s84bc.html

<http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=boolean&meta=%2Fau&mask_path=a u%2Flegis%2Fvic%2Fconsol_act&query=operator+onus+o ffence>