« Cameron's new "crusade" embraces rights of Muslim women | Main | Lidington calls on Sinn Fein to match words and deeds »

Comments

Sorry

Okay Denis, clearly I have a problem with italics, but my question remains: can you give me one example please?!

Well, I'll give you one, and then you can think of some more for yourself.

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - Section 87:

“No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for which it is being used on that occasion”

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is the law of the land and it applies in its entirety to everybody, including the drivers of emergency vehicles, but through this specific exception it allows them to break speed limits when necessary.

Thanks Dennis. I shall think of some more. How's this:-

"Gay people shall be treated equally and not discriminated against unless the person discriminating claims the discrimination is ordained by God"

“No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for which it is being used on that occasion”
Certainly in emergency situations there is no reason to limit the police in that regard, but with regard to the Fire Service and Ambulance Service to allow them to ignore speed limits might well result in more injuries and deaths than were saved by their getting there faster - ambulances and fire engines can be involved in accidents like anyone else and unlike police drivers they are not trained in driving at high speeds.

Changetowin, I am not surprised to hear you being so doctrinaire. Why shouldn't Sikhs not wear crash helmets? It's a free country. They should arguably pay higher insurance premia because the costs of injury to them are likely to be a lot higher. If we start down the road of legislating for what is good for people to do or believe, then we will end up pretty quickly in a dictatorship of virtue. Perhaps you should fine obese people while you are about it. There is loads of scope for giving people scope to hold beliefs and behave in ways that others may not always approve of. But that is the essence of a liberal society, something of which you have clearly lost sight.

Michael, you misunderstand me. I don't think there should be group specific exemptions from laws. So I think that the case for a law is either so great that it should apply to all or it should apply to nobody. As I said above, my personal view on motorcycle helmets is that while it is highly desirable that people wear them it should not be a law. Therefore Sikhs and those who enjoy the sensation of wind blowing through their unhelmeted heads should be free to enjoy riding their bikes!

But the police do have a group specific exemption from observing the speed limit when necessary, not FROM the law but UNDER the law - in this case, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - and you say that is wrong in principle? I see no problem with it, provided the case for the group specific exemption is sound.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker