Stop this crazy Bill

Karl Turner MP. 

Read another ex police officer's view of emotion and the law. 

Seven years jail for some-one's inexpert and angry idea of you?

Karl Turner, who has only been an MP for Hull since 2010 replacing John Prescott, has already managed to get his name in lights with a Bill to imprison drivers for seven years on the mere perceptions of inexpert and hostile witnesses. 

His Bill, which is for 2nd reading on the 9th September 2010,

Says:17 May 2011 : Column 192

Dangerous Driving (Maximum Sentence)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

5.39 pm

Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the maximum sentence for a conviction of dangerous driving from two years to seven years; and for connected purposes. 

Note: Dangerous' previously Reckless Sec2 RTA 1988. Reckless has been replaced in 1991 by dangerous. It is certain that, unlike reckless, lots of drivers can be dangerous without any effort at all and are simply poor drivers; whereas reckless did at least imply some deliberation. 

In his address to Parliament, and elsewhere, he continually cites serious injury cases for emotion but no politician should use the, knee jerk, scare tactics of the sisters of BRAKE when seeking to destroy lives and families and have people locked up for long periods. 

Complaints have already been submitted to the Speaker and other MPs about Mr Turner's tactic. His Bill doesn't require injury at all or even an accident to qualify. Just the mere perception of others, no matter what their expertise, is enough to make a case of Sec 2.

We are appalled about this and urge all drivers to write to their MPs to warn them of this very dangerous Bill.

In the meantime does this MP think that UKs 30 Million drivers just do it for fun? That they are the enemies of the State?

Do read more of this MP at: MP blows his top & Karl Turner wants you jailed

We are totally as one with the other driver groups.

Write to your MP,s. Warn them of his tactic and that the Bill requires no accidents just impression of dangerous. It's very easy. Use Write to Them and it's all done for you. Write to your MP here.

Twitter counter

Featured Twitter Users

The baying mob and Court of Public Opinion

Here again this ex cop gets his priority right too.


Yet another terrible accident where there was no speeding involved either.


It was an accident.  


(Click image to enlarge.)


But, in view of this case and the following one,  why is there a Lincoln driver now in jail because a girl ran in front of his car when he wasn't speeding or breaking the law at all? See: This story here.

Why was this woman charged?

This woman wasn't speeding but merely had a terrible accident which killed her friend. She pleaded guilty. But of course she would since death by careless carries seven years. But why was she charged is the question? She shouldn't  have been expected to make any plea.

Where have we come to when the police do not even understand the word ACCIDENT?
Click to enlarge.

Lincolnshire's Ex-cess-ive Speed again.

Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership spoil their Operation Octane initiative for motorcyclists by using the extra syllables of a non legal term 'excessive speed' that has been slammed in a road safety report. It doesn't exist in law and is always used to confuse 'speeding' with dangerous driving says the report: The Three legal States of Speed.

• Is this initiative to focus on the motorcyclists who ride too fast or dangerously?

• What does the Partnership mean by 'excessive speed'? Usually the authorities just mean in excess of the speed limit by use of this confusing term when everyone else thinks they mean 'too fast'.

• Do they mean 'speeding', including those who just quite safely stray by 'error' over the limit as most of their 'speeders' do? If so they should say so.

DEM asks that officials stick to the appropriate and only legal and official states that apply. 'Speeding', dangerous or careless. They point out that these also contain less syllables so to choose a confusing non-legal, four syllable term, ex-cess-ive speed, seems almost deliberate.

Is Operation Octane about the 'too fast' (dangerous) riders or perfectly safe accidental 'speeders' again?

Lincolnshire Keep their cameras and?????

So Lincolnshire keep their cameras, income and expensive Driver Awareness Courses for perfectly safe drivers and their point is???

Perpetual motion at last?

The idea that electric cars are a panacea for conservation of energy and the environment is wishful thinking.

Any physicist will confirm that you cannot get something from nothing.

If electric cars are able to produce more, or even the same energy output unloaded that is put into them, then mankind would have at last achieved perpetual motion it seems to us.

These cars will need to be powered from either, oil, gas, coal or nuclear power stations. I think the Green movement must believe that renewables can achieve this sort of energy when it is becoming increasingly evident that it is pretty useless and needs massive subsidy to be pretty useless too.

Assuming then that we have not achieved perpetual motion, then we must accept that these cars, loaded, will lose much energy from friction and wind resistance and indeed the need to slow them more rapidly than to accelerate. Added to this is the effect of hill climbing where even more power is needed but is simply not returned, on descent, because energy is used to overcome gravity so that we are not too fast in descent; thus cannot use the energy consumed in the ascent.

So how does the cost of their manufacture, in terms of energy used, design and disposal, compare with current vehicles and how do they affect the environment when the energy source is considered?