Despite attempts by the WA Government to make this into a luxury car thing, or an equal before the law thing, I think it’s clear to anyone who values the rule of law that this is bullshit.
A PERTH doctor is unable to recover his $200,000 Lamborghini after it was seized by police who caught his mechanic driving it at speeds up to 70km/h over the limit.
The mechanic was allegedly clocked driving the luxury vehicle at more than 160km/h in a 90km/h zone in Perth’s east yesterday.
The doctor who owned the car had left it in the care of the garage where the mechanic worked.
Under Western Australia’s anti-hoon laws, police can impound any car exceeding the speed limit by more than 60km/h, even if it is not the property of the driver.
[snip]
The Lamborghini’s owner did not have extraordinary circumstances which met the criteria for the car’s early release.
“We try to be fair, without favours, so whether it’s a Lamborghini or whether its a Kingswood or a Holden Commodore, we judge it fair, case by case,” Mr Gregson said.
“This case did not meet the grounds of an extraordinary hardship.”
I guess innocent unless proven guilty should not be an extraordinary circumstance, although sadly I don’t think that’s what they mean. It really doesn’t matter whether the guy has one car, or a hundred cars. It’s not about hardship. It’s about the fact that he is being punished for someone else’s crime (a crime which, I might add, has not yet been proven in a court of law).
This must be how we keep Hitler out power.
It appears that we have a law that tries to punish the car. That is, the car is now to be impounded for some period, held against it’s will if you will. As you say it’s complete arsehattery, the mechanic will probably go down for reckless driving, lose his license and get a hefty fine. He may go to jail if he has prior convictions. That should be the end of it. This is yet another example of letting toddlers draft statutes. Summary justice, dontcha love it?
“Punished” is a funny choice of words. So he won’t have his toy for a few days, I doubt he is suffering unless he has the constitution of an infant.
This is just another fluff piece beating up on [insert government here]. It’s glossing over or ignoring the real idiot/s, the mechanic and possibly the prestige garage that lets it’s employees go on joy-rides in client’s cars. The impounding actually may change the behaviour of the perpetrator if they lose their livelihood over it and it might change the behaviour of the employer (if there is one).
By toy, you mean the property he bought which is his and which he owns?
So it’s innocent unless punishing you will serve to change someone else’s behaviour?
This was actually the entire point of my post, btw, and the strategy appears to have worked on you. Turning into some kind of class war to distract from the actual issues concerning how the law is unjust.
The idea that I am the one who has played the “class card” is disingenuous or naive. If it takes a $200,000 Lamborghini being impounded for this law to be debated then that’s the classism. I don’t think that rising above that notion is somehow a higher ground for the conversation.
So the law is an ass, big deal. Why do I need to weep for this guy in particular? Because of a dictum from a Murdoch paper? Forget it, especially when the punishment is so benign. One less car, meh.
The fact that he is privileged enough to get the media to listen to him is problematic. Duh. It doesn’t negate the point. And I said that the government played the class card. I only said that you fell for it.
I don’t recall saying that you had to weep for anyone in particular. In fact, I argued that he and his car weren’t really the point at all.
I fell for nothing here. The conversation isn’t very interesting unless you are willing to talk about that “duh” part, aspects of which are actually non-obvious (like the lack of focus on the negligent parties). If you want an echo-chamber conversation about how the law is stupid then I’ll oblige with an agreement and then stay out of it thanks.
I don’t want an echo chamber, but your knee-jerk “who cares, he’s rich” is very uninteresting and it’s that I want to avoid.
Discuss the privilege aspects, but there’s a difference between criticising the lack of variety in the voices who get heard in the media, and implying that a person’s privilege negates the issue that they’re using their platform to raise.
All I did was call the car a toy, which I don’t think is unwarranted. I made no reference to his socio-economic status. You brought up “class war” and inflected my comment with that idea. You turned this conversation into the conversation you claim you wanted to avoid. You set up that straw-man.
It’s not much comfort for the owner Anna, but there is a potential civil liability against the mechanic. (The garage would likely escape vicarious liability because the conduct most likely qualifies as “going on a frolic of his/her own” outside employment parameters.)
Should label that legislation Torque Car Incrimination Act WA.
Typical though of drafters who never really consider the scenarios of their knee jerk legislation. Clearly they never analysed the efficacy of Basil “Fawlty Towers” belting a Morris Mini with a branch as a way to see how justice can be done.
This kind of legisaltion is related to those of land and other property.
State Governments now have the power to remove whatever common law and property right they like.
Unless we stop accepting that they can use this power against people who are quite innocent, we are heading for a police state.
It is not relevant that this man is not in any hardship as a result. It could have easily been someone of less means. Being innocent and caught up in excessive, overbearing legislation is what the problem is here, and we must not ever accept that!
I’m with Sam on this one. The incident only occurred because the car was the car that it was. Had someone left their “Falcadore” in there it would not have occurred. Nor would this incident have been newsworthy under Galtung & Ruge so Anna, you are essentially pleading the case for elite privilege.
Your resort to the “innocent until proven guilty” maxim is — how shall I put it politely? — misconceived. The alleged criminal gets this. The owner’s vehicle is evidence. The owner is contributing to the operation of the law and probably having a lovely time with the publicity. I know that were I some privileged profligate git, I’d be enjoying the whole thing immensely.
Fran,
The Not-A-Falcadore hasn’t been impounded as evidence – it has been impounded under WA’s anti-hoon legislation. There’s nothing in that Hun report about the police keeping it as evidence, none of the quoted statements from the police say that they require it as evidence, so your declaration that the car is evidence, and everything you say thereafter is, to put it extremely politely, completely unfounded.
This type of thing has happened to so many other people before this guy and it’s only on MSM because it’s a hot car that was being driven by a working mechanic. So yes we can see the glaring unfairness that he had left it in the mechanic’s care and none of this is his fault yet he’s paying a price because it’s locked up for a month. The police actually said if there were special circumstances he could apply to get it back – but obviously this isn’t his only mode of transport so no big deal (he probably only drives it on Sundays). I’m very sure that he will be able to sue over this but wouldn’t it be refreshing if he just told the mechanic to pay the holding/impound fee as anyone can see the guy will already suffer enough through fines, loss of license, possible loss of job etc. And he’ll probably get free services from the mechanics employer to make ammends. But otherwise I don’t see why this guy should get special treatment when others that have gone before him have suffered similar injustice but not had the glossy story to bring attention to the fact that they have had to go without thier car that was probably more needed and missed.
This is not an unintended side-effect of sloppy lawmaking. The law is specifically designed to impound the car no matter who is driving it – this is targeted at unlicensed drivers who take their parents’ car hooning around town. All car impounding incidents are listed in my local paper, and a good number of the drivers are, in fact, not the owners of the car.
So, is it fair to punish the owners for allowing someone else to commit illegal acts with their car? Or is it reasonable to expect car owners to take precautions to prevent other drivers using their vehicle?
There is no fairness in the system for anyone.
Typical though of drafters who never really consider the scenarios of their knee jerk legislation
I reckon that’s probably unfair to the actual drafters. I’d be surprised if the likelihood of circumstances such as these were not brought to the government’s attention by their public servants when the legislation was proposed; part of the public service’s function is to advise on “unforeseen consequences” of populist positions. It’s much more likely that the government was properly advised and gave the Drafting Instructions anyway – ie they didn’t care, calculating correctly that most victims would be inarticulate little people who’d get no media coverage.
The Dr has indeed suffered an injustice. It is true that if it was a bogan with a falcadore that suffered the same injustice there’d be no fuss – as Neville Wran once said, the best advice you can give someone born into the working class is to get out of it as soon as possible. I’d lay quids that this sort of thing has already happened numerous times and not made the papers, but injustice is injustice and we oughtta deplore this instance of it too.
Gummo …
It may well be evidence if the accused challenges the charge. Impounding secures it.
[mastercard ad]
Having a Lamborghini Gallardo that does about 9 mpg in the city to parade around on a Sunday? $200,000.
Having large swathes of the country know you’re not just someone in the Perth Telephopne directory with “Dr” before your name but someone really successful who has been wronged by the system who can attract the sympathies even of ostensible lefties? Priceless.
How long will it be before the insurance company and some prestige dealer steps in for happy snaps of them handing over a suitable loaner?
Maybe this would do?
This is facism.The Dr can now only sue the mechanic who is probably broke anyway.It is a case of inflexible law making.
The other case in point is Peter Spencer and all farmers.The big Corps get subsidsed and are allowed to mine more coal and oil but the farmer is left carrying the can by being carbon sinks with no compensation.If CO2 is a poison why are we mining increasing amounts of it,taxing it at a consumer level and let the big boys increase their profits?It is total hypocracy.The world has gone insane!
We live in a world of oligarchy whereby the Corp World has taken the whole system hostage.
Right on, DD.
So the law is an ass, big deal..
I don’t understand, it is a big deal. Rich people are just as entitled to justice as poor.
@2
I thought we were going to have an interesting conversation about the law. You seem to dragging things down to the tabloid TV level, not helpful.
There are other laws like this. For instnace, if your dog attacks someone whilst in someone else’s care, then the dog wil be impounded. The dog is being punished in this case. And arguably its fair, even though the owner may argue that the dog wouldn’t have attacked under their care – e.g. the dog may always be muzzled under their care.
@12
“The owner’s vehicle is evidence”
I don’t think you get it. The owners vehicle has been impounded as it was used by someone to break the “hoon” law, the matter has already been decided, no evidence is required.
I presume that if my car was stolen and the theif breached in the same way that I would be entitled to get my car back? Then again this law is so poor I would probably be punished along with the thief.
“So, is it fair to punish the owners for allowing someone else to commit illegal acts with their car?”
No, but he didn’t allow someone to use his car, make sure you get your facts straight. You see that’s the problem with this kind of law, drafting is always going to be a problem. That’s why we give courts and judges the power to make decisions based on a particular set of facts.
These anti-hoon laws are another example of how in a generally low crime society this state government has found yet another opportunity to flex its law and order muscles. Truth in sentencing, stricter interpretation of parole and early release policy and outrageously unnecessary stop and search legislation are all contributing to extreme overcrowding of prisons here. The cost is huge and the benefits to the taxpayer minimal.
The impounding of this luxury car, or any car in these circumstances, is not only unjust to the owner, an entirely innocent party, it’s pointlessly expensive. Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous other cars impounded are such worthless bombs the owners can’t be bothered reclaiming them when released. The taxpayer on top of storage costs has had the expense of their disposal. Evidence, Fran? What more was necessary than the license plate number and proof of ownership?
“It may well be evidence if the accused challenges the charge. ”
I don’t think this is even possible. I must say all your arguments so far are highly emotive and extremely weak. The impounding of the car is a punitive measure not some sort of procedural requirement.
“What more was necessary than the license plate number and proof of ownership?”
Even these are unnecessary. All the cops needed to know was:
a) Who was driving the car?
b) Did they have permission to do so?
Who owned it, whether it’s even registered at all, etc etc are apparently completely irrelevant under this legislation.
Patricia WA:
How expensive is it to impound cars? Especially prestige cars? Not expensive at all. You can flog them off for parts easily enough, and in the case of this vehicle make a tidy sum.
The bottom line is that this chap will get his precious status symbol back with enhanced bragging value in 28 days, which is, after all, the primary purpose for having such a car. The state has actually done him a favour. He has had his 15 minutes of fame, something some poor chap with a Toyota Corolla could not have got.
At 9 mpg (city) and 12 (country) this car would be spewing 600g/km of GHGs in the city. Personally, I’d have impounded the car until 2050 or put it into the crusher(just kidding) but really, I don’t see the problem.
Hoon driving is a serious problem and hurts far more people than does a law which sees some privileged narcissist have his ego massaged for a few weeks as the state demonstrates that the law applies to all.
“Hoon driving is a serious problem and hurts far more people than does a law which sees some privileged narcissist have his ego massaged for a few weeks as the state demonstrates that the law applies to all”
Yes, even to those who have done nothing wrong! What a great law!
Thanks Fran, for the excellent wait what the fuck are you talking about?
Where are the condemnation threads deploring the other instances?
How are the “poor” people in other cases getting any more justice than this “rich” person? In any case, my comment wasn’t about class, it was a comment about the punishment being benign. I thought I knocked that straw-man down earlier.
By the way, I don’t disagree with either of these ideas of equality but you are both comparing this event with other events which don’t actually exist in our consciousness for obvious reasons. Equalist statements reinforce the “worthy victim” modality of the article. He is being treated unjustly, but not unfairly under the law as it stands. In fact, the socio-economic status attached to his possession affords him more justice through the media than those affected by this law who are “poor”. So let’s switch those statements around as a thought exercise…
No one has said those things yet have they? I think it’s worth asking ourselves why and perhaps even owning up to our internalised biases.
Which he owns, is responsible for, and allowed through neglect to be used in a fashion that placed the community in great danger.
@Martin B
I don’t think that’s a reasonable chain of custody.
What I stated was in direct opposition to the sentiment of the linked tabloid article. I’m not buying the idea that this is a grossly unjust law worth getting riled up about. That would be a tabloid response. Subsequently I’ve asked people to check their equalist statements against the backdrop of entrenched media and societal bias.
Sorry for dragging things down. The suggestion of introspection is such a bore.
No probably not
I guess I’m just not as outraged as some by this. I think responsibility for motor vehicles and their isn’t taken as seriously as they should.
I imagine that the intent of this kind of provision is more aimed at ensuring that eg parents maintain strict control of their childrens access to their vehicle and don’t negligently allow unauthorised ‘borrowing’. Obviously the facts of this case are a little different to that hypothetical and so different arguments present themselves.
But I still don’t find myself able to get worked up about it. Sure I love my personal property. But I’m prepared to consider that the law might have other purposes than defence of property rights
@33
“So he won’t have his toy for a few days, I doubt he is suffering unless he has the constitution of an infant.”
Sounds like a dumb tabloid statement to me.
“Sorry for dragging things down. The suggestion of introspection is such a bore.”
Concern troll alert.
“I’m not buying the idea that this is a grossly unjust law worth getting riled up about.”
Well the only reason I can discern that you feel this way is some sort of suppressed jealously towards the owner. The argument against the law is based on sound legal principles. What have you got?
“Obviously the facts of this case are a little different to that hypothetical and so different arguments present themselves.”
Yes, different arguments, which should lead to different conclusions than the one reached by the WA police. It’s pretty simple really. Nobody’s asking anyone to get ‘riled up’ as far as I can tell. It’s just a spectacularly dumb application of the rule of law.
Everyone – I’m pretty sure nobody is feeling all melty inside for the plight of the Lambourghini-totin’ doctor. The point is that this legislation is stupid, and whoever drafted it without provisions for cases like this was also stupid.
As noted above, had the car been blatantly stolen, the owner would have it back immediately. What exactly is the difference?
I think I’ll write to Adele Carles and ask her opinion on this!
That it wasn’t stolen perhaps? It was knowingly and willingly given by the doctor into the care of the mechanic.
Obviously the doctor authorised the mechanic to do certain things with the car, which would include driving it under certain circumstances. Just as obviously the doctor would not have expected the mechanic to behave as they did. The law appears to put a strict liability on the owner of the vehicle for the use of the property. The counter argumentis that there are reasonable limitations to what can be expected from this arrangement.
I’m happy to consider that the law is an ass. I’m not completely convinced it’s quite as black and white as some others think.
Was this law passed by the Carpenter Government?
<emAt 9 mpg (city) and 12 (country) this car would be spewing 600g/km of GHGs in the city.
But what does this have to do with anything? So it would be an outrage if it was a Prius!? We can’t go round locking people and things up cause we disagree with them, that is what the law is for.
Sam, I see where you’re coming from – and in principle agree – but I’m here to discuss _this_ case, and _this_ car, not a hypothetical situation that may or may not tick all the demographic boxes.
Just because a dude with a corolla has not the wherewithal – financial, politically etc. – to get the air time this case has, ignoring this case will do nothing to redress the imbalance.
Indeed, arguably, this case is the best chance corolla dude has of getting his concerns addressed, precisely because it’s getting the attention he wouldn’t. Sure, it doesn’t counter the more fundamental imbalances and injustices are society is rife with that led to the situation in the first place, but one battle at a time, methinks.
I think so. It was introduced by them at least. Both of the major parties are to blame for this one.
The idea that the owner of the car is in any way responsible is quite ludicrous. So we can’t leave our cars with mechanics anymore? Or maybe we just need to put it in writing that we don’t give them permission to drive our cars at dangerous speeds.
To misquote some German bloke from about 60 years ago:
“First, they came for the rich, Lambo-owning doctors, but because I was not a doctor, I didn’t care …”
While I can’t get too worked up about this particular bloke being deprived of his flash car for a few days, that’s not really the issue.
Patrick …
the “corolla dude” wouldn’t be in this situation because nobody would think it was worth taking for a high-speed joyride. In fact, that would be embarrassing.
And of course, that wouldn’t be newsworthy even if it happened.
Not really. I merely make the point though that trhis is clearly not a circumstance in which the owner is suffering any quantifiable harm, whereas the Prius owner might.
This car has only one purpose — to rub the owner’s status in the fac es of those poorer than him. In our society, that is perfectly legal but not something we should bend over backwards to protect, especially when in enforcing the law, the “victim” is actually a beneficiary.
“The law appears to put a strict liability on the owner of the vehicle for the use of the property”
At last a reasonable justification. As this is a criminal case though is the principle of strict liability relevant? I have a limited knowledge here both of the criminal law and this legislation however it would appear to be summary penalty against the owner of the car. In the case of other summary penalties, say a speeding fine from a camera, the owner of the car can shift the penalty to another person if they can show that it wasn’t them that was driving the car.
This law, like the “assaulting a public officer rule” (which has also had problems upon application), is purely populist rubbish and that’s why it’s so hard to find a rational justification and that’s why we end up with the kind of blustering the Fran and Sam hope will pass for a justification.
And yes I think it was the Labor party that brought it.
The schadenfreude expressed by some at the car owner’s expense, simply because he owns an expensive car, is very childish. The implication that he is somehow complicit in the mechanic’s hoonery is illogic on a scale that you’d struggle to see on Andrew Bolt’s site.
This means you Fran Barlow.
I don’t see how any of that is the point, Fran. This isn’t a law designed to deter people from showing off their wealth.
What if the car had been a Commodore owned by a working class family? They do high speeds, but aren’t necessarily status cars. Sure that family may not get as much press as the doctor, but has been noted repeatedly, how does ignoring the issue raised by this privileged doctor help those less privileged?
So far no-one here on the thread has suggested we weep for, pity or be outraged over the treatment the poor doctor has received. So focussing on the fact that he has a luxury car and won’t suffer very much from losing it for a while is completely beside the point.
The question is, do we really want our laws to penalise the innocent as long as it deters crimes committed by other people (quite aside from whether or not it works)?
It was meant to be a rhetorical flourish. Marrying the concept of “toy” and “infant” was quite cute I thought. Others thought I was attempting to denigrate him for his wealth, and promptly shoved words into my mouth to that effect, words which I’m still attempting to extract.
Weak.
Nice ad-hominem attack there. Clearly I am Gollum.
Perspective. I think I mentioned that I also think the law is stupid in subsequent comments, just not overwhelmingly so. Just because your argument abandoned your original complaint about my comment doesn’t mean you have to invent new ones to replace it. Especially when we are essentially in furious agreement.
This car has only one purpose — to rub the owner’s status in the fac es of those poorer than him. In our society, that is perfectly legal but not something we should bend over backwards to protect, especially when in enforcing the law, the “victim” is actually a beneficiary.
There is a lot wrong with this paragraph.
1) Nice straw man there, I had no idea that was the *only* reason for a sports car. Heaven forfend the bastard actually enjoy driving it.
2) If it is legal, we should protect it. That is, after all, what law is for. At the risk of sounding like a Catallaxy-head (which I’m most assuredly not), I like living in a secular, democratic society, and part of that is – largely – if it’s thought to not really be hurting anyone else, you can do whatever gets your through the night.
3) I don’t understand who the victim is, but regardless; if the victim isn’t meant to be the beneficiary of law enforcement, seriously, who is?
I honestly kind of surprised to see how quickly you and a few others have bought into this class warfare angle. It’s completely immaterial to this situation. That’s why the lady at the front of the court has a blindfold.
I think it’s possible to say yes to that when we are talking about what are effectively simple civil (monetary) penalties. This isn’t a zero-sum black and white question. There may be a corollary and perhaps a fuzzy line with being taxed by a government that provides services that you don’t use, although I admit that it’s not clear cut in any way shape or form and I just thought of it then off the top of my head.
At no point “Sam” did I imply he was complicit in the mechanic’s “hoonery”. And for Schadenfreude (note that German nouns require an initial cap) one needs to take pleasure in the suffering of another, and as far as I can tell, this chap isn’t suffering — quite the reverse, as I’ve made clear.
“… privileged narcissist have his ego massaged for a few weeks as the state demonstrates that the law applies to all.” = I really disapprove of his consumer choices, therefore nothing else matters.
Some people love fast, flashy cars. So what? The idea that the only reason to purchase one is status anxiety is risible.
“This car has only one purpose — to rub the owner’s status in the fac es of those poorer than him. ”
You’re either mind reader or you’ve got a chip on your shoulder the size of Mt Augustus.
“Perspective.”
Ah so perspective becomes the criteria for this law. Well that’s alright then.
“Especially when we are essentially in furious agreement.”
That’s great! You meaning was obscured by the weakness of the points you made given that the OP is talking about how bad the law is from a legal angle. The quote below illustrates my point:
“The impounding actually may change the behaviour of the perpetrator if they lose their livelihood over it and it might change the behaviour of the employer (if there is one).”
It is completely ridiculous that we punish those who haven’t done anything wrong in the hope that the actual perpetrator will feel remorse. You could try this one at a victims of crime group meeting and see how you go.
“Nice ad-hominem attack there. Clearly I am Gollum.”
Weaker my precious.
Anna said:
Did I say it was?
You betcha they aren’t, and it probably would not have occurred. What would be the point? You’re hardly going to get nicknamed “Ferris” after that.
It means that we don’t make a fuss about stuff just because it involves privileged people, which is more egalitarian. Of course, this is the silly season, this is a class-based society and of course, Galtung & Ruge applies, as noted above. So maybe that’s OK and the overhead is that people like me blow raspberries.
Unintentional irony, no doubt …
The innocent are always penalised to a greater or lesser extent in coercing and constraining the guilty, or the about-to-be-guilty. Every compliant driver who gets pulled over in an RBT is being penalised because a comparative handful flout the law with devastating consequences for innocents. What happens if you lease your house unknowingly to those running an MDMA lab? It can become a crime scene and you will be denied access to it for some time even after the offenders are hauled away.
This chap’s circumstance is no different, except that he is probably doing quite nicely out of the fuss and some peopole are inviting us to see him as some sort of victim, essentially because he has momentarily been deprived of his fascinator.
Gosh …
@49
Oh dear it appears that you are trying to come up with a justification. I think you’ll find that you’d be to give it up if you tried this in a first year tort class.
This man isn’t a victim of crime, he is a victim of bureaucracy. Again with putting words into my mouth.
This incident has shown up what is clearly a flaw in the anti-hoon law that resulted in an outcome that was not the intention of the law-makers. What we should expect from the government of the day is public recognition that what has happened was not fair or right and changes to the law will be made ASAP. In addition, the government should act to right this particular injustice by returning the car to the owner without delay.
The particular incident should also be a trigger to review the circumstances under which cars can be impounded as well as other issues associated with this particular law. There is no reason why immediate impounding should be restricted to owner driven cars with the possibility of later impounding for some other cases. (Such as parents being the registered owner of a car that is mainly used by the offending driver.)
The measure of a fair and just country is the way that minorities and those that the majority of the country don’t particularly like are treated. This is one of the reasons why I strongly support a charter of rights.
Have any of the commentators above got examples of incidents where similar injustices occurred without any action by the government or the media.
Fran, first, thank you for the lesson in German grammar; second, Schadenfreude is defined as taking pleasure in the misfortune – not suffering – of others.
“This man isn’t a victim of crime, he is a victim of bureaucracy”
Again very weak. I’m wouldn’t dram of putting anything anywhere without permission, that would be a trespass. You appear to have played the avoidance card. I assume you’re finding it difficult to come up with some sound reasoning to support you “punish the innocent to punish the perpetrator” policy?
Hairsplitting “Sam” … although suffering need not be the result of “misfortune” in most cases, the word misfortune implies suffering and suffering is described euphemistically as “misfortune”.
Note below:
Exactly.
The point is not just that it happened to a rich doctor (is that better Fran? FFS) and so therefore we should be outraged. Although part of the point is that if it can happen to someone as privileged as him, then it can happen to anyone and almost certainly has. (BTW, are you seriously arguing that people don’t hoon in Commodores, Fran?)
The logic is quite absurd, really. It’s terrible because bad things happen to less-privileged people who don’t have access to the media, so when terrible things happen to someone who does have that access we should ignore it. If the less privileged are more likely to suffer from lack of access to a voice in the media, aren’t they also more likely to suffer the effects of bad laws such as this since governments, the police and the public service probably understand this dynamic? That it can happen to someone as powerful to him is all the more reason why we should pay attention.
“What we should expect from the government of the day is public recognition that what has happened was not fair or right and changes to the law will be made ASAP”
That is the only reasonable course of action. Unfortunately the current tendency seems to be to come up with more shoddy, ill considered legislation. There’s an epidemic of it. SA has the “bikie” laws, over here we’ve got this crap plus the mandatory jailing of people who assault a public officer. Years of court bashing by the media has lead to to this.
Anna continued:
It’s not as funny, given the context in which you deployed the descriptor poor. Putting rich there would have made little sense, and the dual meaning of poor is no accident. A bit like the word villain but let’s not digress again into etymology … (mind you Mr Nolan might like this example given his post in Tower of Hope)
Not at all. In NSW I expect there would be quite a few Commodores (but probably even more Nissan Exas) impounded and hardly any Lamborghinis or Maseratis.
Of course, in these cases, the people really would have been hooning in their own vehicles.
Fran, Commodore owners pay exceedingly high motor vehicle insurance because they are often stolen and used for joy-riding. But hey, at least your offensive stereotyping isn’t restricted to wealthy doctors, I suppose.
So should we get rid of all remand, given that that is a far more serious punishment for people who may be presumed to be innocent?
BTW I’m not trying to be a smartarse there (that just comes naturally). It’s just that it seems to me that the law already balances presumption of innocence against more pragmatic matters anyway. (And as I said I just don’t see the impounding of a vehicle as being as huge a punishment as others obviously do.)
Unfortunately if you live as I do in WA, a state run by Basil Faulty,with a Police minister who thinks Margret Thatcher was right,and where all they do is pass more and more draconian laws,after a while you do begin to wonder.
With the whole hearted support of various jocks on 6PR,and the compliance of the cops,and a complacent population,read some of the comments on Perth Now you might think things are not so great. So far as the constant reduction of Civil Liberty’s, in WA it is a lot further down the track toward Govt control than many realize,the way it is going you will need a dictionary sized book to know which laws not to break as you walk to the local shops.
I want to know if the police have the car up on blocks or are taking it out for a test drive themselves. That’s the only reason I can think of for them to retain possession.
“note that German nouns require an initial cap”
Not in English they don’t.
“So should we get rid of all remand, given that that is a far more serious punishment for people who may be presumed to be innocent?”
In general, yes, we should get rid of remand, except in extraordinary circumstances. Compared to the population serving a sentence, remandees are vastly more likely to be female, indigenous, homeless, unemployed or living with a mental illness. They are from memory, about three times more likely to die in custody and the number of people in remand is growing at about 7 times the rate of the prison population and average times spent in remand are likewise growing (I think the national median is about 12 weeks).
Boo-hoo for the guy who’s temporarily lost access to, presumably, one of his cars. How many people get locked up every week for non-payment of fines or missing a court date?
d
“How many people get locked up every week for non-payment of fines or missing a court date?”
I dunno. Is it relevant though?
Anna @41 -
Originally Carpenter (even Gallop?) legislation, but beefed up by the Barnett government last year. I believe the original confiscation period was 48hrs, then 7 days then a month. They beefed it up to 28 days for a first instance and, I believe removed a lot of the discretionary powers the coppers and courts had to interfere in the decision.
Fran @54
What happens if you lease your house unknowingly to those running an MDMA lab? It can become a crime scene and you will be denied access to it for some time even after the offenders are hauled away.
Actually, this illustrates the point nicely. If criminal confiscation laws operated the way this hoon law does (and some of them do) that house could be appropriated and sold by the state – even though the owner had no knowledge of the crime probably forbade its use that way in the lease.
Sam @58
This man isn’t a victim of crime, he is a victim of bureaucracy. Again with putting words into my mouth.
No, he’s a victim of bad law, which was the point of the post.
A few people seem to be arguing that he’s getting attention simply because he’s rich. Not so, for mine. The story is getting attention because it’s out of the ordinary – flash car, doctor – and because it’s similar to an earlier story that attracted a lot of interest.
The media would have found any car, I reckon, that was out of the ordinary just as interesting – a couped up VW with a hippie paint job would have gotten the same attention.
And the underlying issue is one that’s worth highlighting – how many other people, who don’t own expensive cars, have been put in the same position because of this dumbarse law that allows no flexibility or discretion in the way it must be applied?
Relevant to what (or to whom), exactly?
(I expect the final answer is ‘probably not’ but I’ve never let that stand in the way of carrying on on blog comments before)
d
And, incidently, anyone that owns a motorbike that’s bigger than a 250cc could easily go for this kind of thing. I’ve got at least one friend who spotted a bike mechanic racing his bike around the streets after a service (and no, it wasn’t a massively expensive Ducati or something similar).
What offensive stereotyping Furious?
Here’s a list of vehicles impounded in Queensland although obviously it doesn’t say why they were impounded.
This from the previous year was not detailed but mentions Commodores
Apparently in Victoria, Falcons are commonly seized.
Cranky Nick@72
This chap is not going to lose his car. It is simply temporarily impounded. He will get it back within 28 days.
What stereotyping?
Fran – “Not at all. In NSW I expect there would be quite a few Commodores (but probably even more Nissan Exas) impounded and hardly any Lamborghinis or Maseratis.
Of course, in these cases, the people really would have been hooning in their own vehicles.”
The assumption that Commodore drivers are “hooning in their own vehicles”. How do you know this? The Commodore is the car most likely to be stolen in Australia.
But that’s because that’s the mandated punishment, not because it’s required as evidence.
A family who loses access to a house because there’s an investigation going on is the victim of an unfortunate byproduct of the need to investigate an alleged offense properly.
If the doctor wasn’t allowed to get his car back until the coppers had downloaded the contents of its electronic system so they could prosecute the mechanic, I wouldn’t have a problem with a reasonable delay.
The bloke committed no crime, and couldn’t reasonably be expected to take any action to prevent the commission of this one – surely we can’t possibly be arguing about whether it’s OK that he suffers any kind of punishment for that? (However minor in the scheme of things you might think this particular punishment might be).
I don’t think there’s anyone on this thread who didn’t already know that Fran. But thanks.
Thanks darryl. As usual, I agree with almost everything you have to say.
The relatively benign nature of the term ‘hoon’ disguises the fact that this is a dangerous life threatening activity in which the vehicle becomes a potentially lethal weapon. Considering the potential for harm, any law which gets across the message to a third party that their activities will be penalised is justified, especially considering the minor inconvenience to the owner of the vehicle, the law is entirely justified. The cost or type of vehicle is irrelevant, as is his or her occupation obviously.
I was merely responding to Crank Nick@ 72 who quoted me
Adrian @81
And how is that relevant to this situation, pray tell?
The message this gets across is that the law is stupid and inflexible, and that if you leave your car with a mechanic you might lose it for a month through no fault of your own.
Harshness of punishment is no deterrent, btw, as study after study has shown.
And punishing the innocent certainly isn’t.
“Considering the potential for harm, any law which gets across the message to a third party that their activities will be penalised is justified, especially considering the minor inconvenience to the owner of the vehicle, the law is entirely justified”
I’d have thought taking away the mechanics licence does this nicely, maybe a stint in jail too. The only “message” being sent by the impounding of an innocent bystander’s car is “don’t get your car serviced or you might have it confiscated due to someone else’s dangerous driving”, which is hardly in the interests of road safety now, is it?
Fran: Because the property confiscation laws confiscate property. Crankynick was using an analogy to show how it would work if we applied the principle of punishing innocent people to other laws.
Would you like a definition of analogy, or are you happy to provide that, too?
Ahem. It seems we agree, Bertie W.
Furious said:
Yes but most of them are not going to be used for hooning — though the occasional joyrider might. Some would be sold for parts, others used in the commission of robberies etc … their ubiquity makes them useful for these things.
In any event, if someone did have their commodore stolen by a joyriding hoonster and it was impounded and held beyond a reasonable time for evidentiary purposes, and assuming the car had been reported stolen as soon as practicable, then I’d be against it.
I’d also be more sympathetic because unlike our rich doctor, this probably would be their only car so there would be hardship and hardly anyone in public would think it worthy of remark, much less sympathy. As I keep saying, Galtung & Ruge rules apply.
FDB @86
I guess the other important message this sends is to make sure you hoon in someone else’s vehicle, because that way you skip half of the intended punishment.
Interestingly (and I’m yet to confirm this) but a bloke at work reckons the other exemption to the law is hire car companies, who don’t lose their car if someone who hires it gets done under the same law
“Yes but most of them are not going to be used for hooning — though the occasional joyrider might”
Really? On what basis is this assertion made?
I’ve got 2 friends who’ve driven Commodores over the years. I’m pretty sure every single one of their cars was stolen at least once, and only ever for joyriding. In the order of ten thefts total.
Things seem a little tetchy for a lovely Friday summer afternoon … perhaps Anna you’d better move on to the next in your series of ‘useful and beautiful’ posts: we’ve had Chanel and Lamborghinis, what’s coming up for consideration? Champagne, diamonds … ?
FDB said:
Gosh, isn’t that interesting?!
Mystery of Adelaide’s missing cars
I like my data better than yours.
Analogy Anna? No thanks. I’d prefer that CrankyNick used it aptly when making a point though.
Confiscation was not proposed in this case.
Fran @92
And I replied to your point @78
Plainly, in this case CrankyNick, I regard it as no punishment at all — just the reverse, as I’ve made clear, so the cliam falls at the first hurdle.
More broadly though it could mean in practice that the garage has to compensate him, or the doctor’s insurance company, which in turn could mean that next time the garage operator takes more care with his employees in circumstances where a car of this nature presents too inviting a target.
Fran @94
Or, as everyone else has been arguing, the law could be redrafted so innocents don’t see their property confiscated when – and clearly we need to keep saying this for your benefit – they have done nothing wrong.
And the offending driver was the owner of the garage, it appears.
I regard it as no punishment at all — just the reverse, as I’ve made clear, so the cliam falls at the first hurdle
You have gotten yourself in a tangle during this discussion, haven’t you?
So the coppers were actually doing the doctor a favour when they confiscated his car for – and I’ll keep saying it – nothing he did.
Yes
This law is all about rubbing the offender’s nose in what he has done.
For some reason, people who commit traffic offences are the only people whose noses the law allows to have rubbed in their behaviour. In NSW, there are calls to crush cars seized from “hoons”, and once again, this is all rubbing the offender’s nose in the offence.
*
On the other hand, if someone commits a sexual assault, murder, armed robbery, theft, or any other offence on the statute books, the law is all about the offender’s rights, rehabilitation, “innocent until proven guilty”, etc etc, etc. However, do something stupid, and I will acknowledge, often dangerous, in a motor vehicle, and the law is there to grab you by the scruff of the neck and rub your face in what you have done, to really give it to you, and make an example of you, in a manner that does not apply to any other class of offender.
*
I spent 22 years enforcing laws in NSW, but I think this type of legislation is dangerous, and belongs in a police state. Also, while I am not, and never will be, rich myself, I agree with the person above, who pointed out that rich people are just as entitled to justice as poor.
*
As for any evidentiary considerations, it is normal police practice to photograph cars and bulky exhibits and return them to their rightful owners as soon as possible, unless the actual item is required for production at court, or there is disputed ownership, or some other compelling reason for them to be retained.
Fran – “I like my data better than yours.”
Really? You’re a fan of News Ltd’s journalism via private sector Press Release approach? How odd.
It is very difficult to think of a system of ethics that could justify the confiscation of the car in this instance. About the closest you could get is a utilitarian argument that the confiscation, while disadvantaging the owner, has a broader community benefit that outweighs the cost to the former. But I can’t even see that applying here. Confiscating a vehicle when the owner could not have been reasonably expected to prevent its illegal use while outside his care serves no broader purpose. Who exactly will it deter from future joyriding? The appropriate deterrent is simply to punish the mechanic. The answer to the injustice is simple – add a qualifier to the legislation that states that cars will only be confiscated if the joyrider is the owner, or the owner could have reasonably prevented the vehicle from being used illegally. The law was not intended to confiscate cars that were stolen (except perhaps by children of parents’ vehicles) and so should be redrafted to prevent it from happening.
Some of the arguments made above are just silly. Fran, I suspect you are just bored and playing contrarian. I can’t possibly believe you think the law is just in circumstances such as this.
Nobody is arguing that the doctor should get special treatment. The article merely draws attention to the problems with the law as currently drafted and applied. If the guy was a bricklayer and had a second hand commodore stolen, the confiscation would be similarly unjust, regardless of whether it was written about in the paper.
The law is certainly about more than protecting property rights, but violating property rights should only be considered when there is a broader right or interest to protect. That simply doesn’t apply in this case.
As for Daryl’s comment about people being locked up for not paying fines or not attending court being more serious miscarriages of justice – that is entirely irrelevent to this argument (I won’t get into a debate about whether they are in fact more unjust – which is debatable). Again, nobody on this blog is arguing that the confiscation is, in a relative sense, a more serious miscarriage of justice than other examples we could all provide. But how does that alter the injustice of this law in this and other instances?
I found some stats from the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council that list the Commodore as the top theft target for both professional and opportunistic thieves. It was a PDF from March 2006. Number of vehicles missing from opportunistic thefts: 1095. Number for professional thefts: 169. I don’t know how they work out those numbers though, seems to be opportunistic refers to cars that have been stolen and dumped.
Opportunistic includes joyriders but it would also include those who want to commit criminal acts, sell to a chop shop, or do an insurance fraud.
I read somewhere that 7% of stolen Commodores were recovered, which discourages the view that joyriding is a major driver of commodore theft. (no pun intended)
So the coppers were actually doing the doctor a favour when they confiscated his car for – and I’ll keep saying it – nothing he did.
Yes
Could you explain that to me please?
The shorter “”Fran”: the doctor deserved it because he is ostentiously rich. It’s Clive Hamilton’s ethics with non-sequiturs.
Although as someone suggested, I think she just having a larf.
Indeed. Let’s all give Fran her props for her efforts and then stop letting her make the thread all about her. The comment @96 is enough proof that she is just in it for the lulz.
So…
I’m against restriction of judicial discretion in general. So I’m certainly against pre-judicial penalties.
OTOH I just can’t see the impounding of a car (or licence) for a short period as a huge penalty in general. (Of course there are many circumstances imaginable where access to a car was important for livelihood, but no-ones suggested that is the case here.)
I’m also against the general goal and formulation of anti-hoon laws. So that makes me agree with most above. But it is clearly much less severe than the case that only Darryl picked up on. So I’m curious why people adamant that there must be no punishment before conviction haven’t articulated how detention before conviction fits in. (Ok, so I agree with Darryl, but it would be nice to hear other people say that.)
I’m happy to agree that the law is bad in general principles. I suspect (from ignorance) that it’s not as badly drafted as people are suggestiong. If you do wish to enact a stronger responsibility for the use of ones motor vehicle (which in principle I have no objection to) then this would certainly cover the cases of routine (even if unauthorised) access and deliberate loan for the purposes of use on-road by another. I’m not suggesting that greater responsibility means total responsibility.
Joyrides by the mechanic or parking attendant (and I struggle to come up with too many more realistic scenarios not covered by the above, or theft) I suspect are very much the minority, and not experienced at a great rate by the average suburban commodore.
Mechanic is prolly wondering what the fuss is all about?
Doctor in disbelief.
Owner of business facing ruin.
Car prolly out on the town from the lock-up, more joy ides?
Many people suffer, law seems rather silly?
Half
“I read somewhere that 7% of stolen Commodores were recovered, which discourages the view that joyriding is a major driver of commodore theft.”
Somewhere, eh? Compelling stuff.
For me, social equality isn’t just good in theory, something to which you pay lip-service. It’s a pressing need. In the world I live and work in, it’s much closer to the front of my mind than most of the people I encounter. This is a left-of-centre blog. I’d hoped it would be a lot different here, but actually, it’s not so different from my real life world. Count me disappointed.
Here we are at more than 100 posts and as far as I can tell, nobody, apart possibly Sam who disavows its thinks there’s any serous problem with joining a cheer squad for someone who thinks that the way you express your humanity is to show indifference to the planet’s resources and rub people’s noses in your extravagant wealth. In the country where this chap’s name is common, Uganda it would take the annual average per capita wealth of 142 Ugandans to buy his car. And yet here, the cheer squad is doing a Mexican wave. A chap here who says he’s a green alludes to Pastor Niemoller putting him in the chain that leads to holocaust victims. The site author, Anna, invokes Hitler. And why? because a chap with a car that would make someone who fancied living like Diogenes think a stretch Hummer was nearly as ascetic as wearing a barrel and asking the powerful to stop blocking the sun, would be denied that car for 28 days.
I’m aware,as I said that that this is an unequal world. Everywhere there are people who feel the pain of elites more easily than the distress of those without means. The elites have their own phrases ready as shots across the bow of critics — tall poppy syndrome, leveling down, celebrating mediocrity instead of achievement etc. and here too this six or seven-figure tosser who thinks a car common amongst hospital registrars — A BMW 5 series, is beneath his station — or perhaps he has one of them too. Certainly, that one will never go for a joy ride.
So I am disappointed, rather than laughing.
This guy isn’t a victim of a miscarriage of justice. He’s being treated like everyone else rich enough to own a car worth risking your job to have a hoon in. Best of all, he is getting benefits from the car that you couldn’t script and couldn’t pay for. Tens of thousands of people now know he’s a success in life (or a rich tosser (take your pick) but it’s all good. And here at LP, even the resident lefties think he’s the poster child for the rights of the little guy. The novelty hand is up and it speaks of equality before the law and fascist repression of poor rich doctors, yet people think I’m joking.
Hmmm ….
So what you’re saying Fran, in essence, is that you are ideologically incapable of engaging with the topic at hand.
Well thanks for telling us.
Maybe now you’ll shut up.
Apparently Police Minister Rob Johnson has done a back flip. The phones must have been running hot in Parliament House since this morning when he very sternly announced that not only would he not be making an exception in this case, but that it would be costing the good doctor some $900 in costs before his car was finally released!
Apparently he has been convinced to changed his mind and will be making an exception after all! It would be nice if this very latest from the Perth ABC local news could be the very last word on this thread…….
Mr. Johnson also “said he had decided there was room for a minor amendment which may allow for the substitution of an offender’s vehicle in place of an innocent person’s vehicle.”
So there! Fair enuff?
Give it straight back to them. If the government gets you on a technicality, you get the government on a technicality. If the government shows “discretion”, so do you.
Did the doc buy that car (or any other car) NEW? If so, and if the High Court stands by its own decisions up to Ha v. NSW (1997), the stamp duty paid on the car was an excise and was therefore unconstitutional. If the doc successfully sues for a refund of the duty, the States will be obliged to refund all such duties back to the year dot. Ouch!
Of course the Commonwealth might impose a 100% “tax” on such refunds, as it did after tobacco “franchise fees” were struck down in Ha v. NSW. But a similar “tax” on refunds of vehicle duties would far more dangerous because the final payers are much easier to trace, and some of them would argue that the “tax”, being a blatant attempt to enforce a constitutional breach, was itself unconstitutional.
If the doc has paid payroll tax, that may be an excise too (Google “What if GST and payroll tax are unconstitutional?”).
Is the doc also involved in a fight with the Commonwealth? Well, if he’s ever had to withhold GST or personal income tax, that was arguably a breach of s.82 of the Constitution.
Any of these matters could be raised in a local/magistrates court or small-claims court provided that the Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General are notified.
I am not a lawyer and the above is not advice.
Nobody hold your breath.
Reading this thread is like watching a group of bored, slightly peckish, mongooses chow down on a carpet snake with delusions of grandeur.
Wrong, wrong, wrong Gummo.
Not carpet snake but deep fried gecko.
Patricia WA is the only person in my (brief) scan who seems to have come up with anything remotely justifiable as to the continued persecution of the Doctor and impoundment of his toy. Her second, very late post indicates that they are no more prepared to do right and deal with the real perp, the errant mechanic who couldn’t resist taking it out for a spin. Everyone now knows the doctor did not commit any crime- the car was under control of the mechanic and liability must fall to him, unless the entire automobile service and repairs industry has just hit an ice berg.
So why is he being persecuted?
The doctor appeared to do no more harm than by inference; “place a car in the hands of a mechanic for repair purposes” in which the joy ride is irrelevent to the actual offence anyway. Was this law correctly gazetted, btw?
And even if the coppers wanted to checkover the car, why was there no provision for the car to be returned to its owner quickly and without fees, since the mechanic was responsible for the vehicle? And why should the police need for evidence, perhaps against the mechanic, in a misdeameanour case, preclude the car owner’s rights to his property?
Ok maybe he can take it the civil courts later, but is that reall y the best we can do?
The impoundment and fees represent a kick in the guts no less egregious although of a exponentially less severe and literal nature, than to Doomadgee of Palm Island. But it is still an outrage in the same spirit of arbitrariness that also theoretically threatens the rest of us!
Folks, we are seeing this authoritarian streak reassert itself across the nation- the last time was that pathetic case still being played out in Queensland over a young couple gaining access to a chemical means to termination of pregnancy.
Whilst I agree with Pat WA’s comments about impounding as evidence, in the light of her second post I suspect she has problems with a flagrant assault on notions of evidence, proof and public intelligence, as just about anyone else.
I’d see it as yet another trangression of common law rights, a big trend in these times. In this case action has been taken that injures the victim and precluded his rights and some hard core LauraNorder types would even see it as a “good”.
More Dr Haneef stuff.
PS, just noted Gavin Putland’s contribution. And to think ordinary people have to suffer for the shrewd reasons he suggests, but his comment closes the circle somewhat.
Sam Bauers, etc, you comments have my sympathy, in a world of starving people.
But I suspect Anna Winter was hunting for something specific and much different, and opinions on the doctors morality would be a side issue and distraction to what it was that she was trying to draw attention as to implications on several different levels involving law and politics.
Plus it was only a Lambo. Not like it was a One-77 Aston Martin or a Bugatti Veyron
FDB@107
At least as compelling as your claim thyat you have these two friends …
@109
Not at all. What you are demonstratiung is that your ‘ideology’ is so pervasive that you think the matter can be treated without reference to its social context, and that it this individual is but a microcosm of the whole. That’s why you think anecdote is data and why this chap’s circumstance tells of the character of the system as a whole.
It’s why people can with with a straight face write (@1)
Well the car is very pretty, does come from a good home, and Ferris Bueller was not a documentary.
FPS …
The new shorter Fran (who apparently wasn’t joking after all): any law that beats up on people who engage in conspicuous consumption, especially consumption where a lot of GHGs are emitted, is by definition a fine instrument of social justice, regardless of whether those people have done anything unlawful or not.
I am reminded of an incident during the 1975 Federal Election, which of course followed the dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor General, Sir John Ksrr. Older readers of this blog will recall that the Liberal Party election slogan was “Turn on the Lights” (sung to great effect in the ads by Renee Geyer, but I digress). A student at Sydney University who decided that direct action was needed, smashed the headlights on all the expensive cars packed in a street near the uni, and put a note on the windscreens, “Now turn on the lights you bastards”.
I am sure the car owners deserved it. Some of them might have even been Liberal voters. And of course they were all large GHG emitters, though no one knew about climate change (Climate Justice!) at the time.
I wish my bank would compound my interest as frequently as Fran compounds her errors.
Just wishin’.
Gummo — you ain’t alone.
“Not at all. What you are demonstratiung is that your ‘ideology’ is so pervasive that you think the matter can be treated without reference to its social context, and that it this individual is but a microcosm of the whole. That’s why you think anecdote is data and why this chap’s circumstance tells of the character of the system as a whole.”
Keep digging champ.
@117
“It’s why people can with with a straight face write (@1)”
How do you know what shape my face is?
Hang, Ive got it! Fran has been channeling Dagget.
Ah, of course. The Lambourghini is just a hologram.
Sam @ 118 just about sums it up.
Except that @118 Sam’s comparison fails because:
a) we don’t know that that the cars attacked are operated by comparably wealthy people
and
b) there’s no clear benefit to the people whose cars were damaged exceeding the out of pocket costs
Here, the chap in question either suffers no out of pocket costs or inconvenience and even if he does, it is massively exceeded by the benefits
Not only that, but
c) the action taken conforms to law
So Sam is the one being frivolous …
I do find the defensiveness telling though.
“Here, the chap in question either suffers no out of pocket costs or inconvenience and even if he does, it is massively exceeded by the benefits”
Syntax error, as my C64 used to say.
Of course, FDB! Though I’m of a different generation and following this thread I’m wondering if we may find out how many Lambourghinis can race around on the head of a pin!
Fran – “For me, social equality isn’t just good in theory, something to which you pay lip-service. It’s a pressing need.”
Is this why @ 63 you chose to characterise Commodore owners as likely to be hooning in their own vehicles, when the statistics show that they are most likely to be the victims of vehicle theft? Your post makes the assumption that impounded Commodores are there because their owners are hoons.
Again, Fran – exactly how is this bloke benefiting from his car being confiscated?
Fine @130:
Obviously the most substantive benefit to him, as Fran outlined @117, is that he’s part of a community that has abandoned the principle of equality before the law.
Because, as we all know, this kind of legal inflexibility always impacts most harshly on the rich, and it’s really important that we don’t use these kinds of high profile cases to challenge the stupidity of the governments that pass them.
Or perhaps because forcing him onto public transport will remind of the struggles of the working class, and he’ll repent his capitalist ways and become a member of the vanguard of the glorious socialist revolution.
OR maybe he’s secretly been using that lambo to further his evil schemes for world domination, and removing it for a month is the only way to foil his vile bid for power, and only Fran stands between us and a lifetime of servitude to Doctor Dastardly. Who knows what weevils lurk in the hearts of man? The Barlow knows.
Fran @108: I think “fairness” is a core value of a decent society. So when you say:
I would agree that improving social equality is important because the current spread of incomes is clearly unfair.
However, once you want to use your commitment to social equality as an excuse for applauding unfairness to on the grounds that his income is higher than average and you don’t agree with his taste in cars we part company because I think fairness is such an important measure for evaluating decisions and actions. Once fairness is only used selectively we are into “the end justifies the means country” which leads to appalling societies such Russia under communism.
Of course, different people have different ideas of fairness and there will be times when it is impossible to be fair to everyone. However, this particular law is unfair on two important grounds. Firstly, in that it can lead to punishment of innocent owners as in the case of this post and secondly it imposes additional penalties on a driver who owns the vehicle for no obvious reasons that a governments obsession with being seen to be tough on crime.
As you are well aware I am in favour of introducing regulations to reduce the average fuel consumption of new cars. I could also be convinced that high performance sports cars that can reach obscenely high speeds should be kept off the road. However, these are separate issues that should not be considered when considering the application of the hoon laws.
I guess I have a prejudice about a police minister who has spoken in favour of chemical castration and the death penalty. However, what Patricia WA@110 reported him saying suggests that he has as much concept of fairness as Kevin Andrews and should be sacked from cabinet. Would be interesting to know what his position would be if the offending mechanic didn’t own a car.
John D Says:
Nobody has yet shown how this action is unfair, so the premise is not made out. All other vehicles are impounded in this way. I have no problem with that, though I have noted that people of lesser means will probably suffer more often than this chap as a result of the application of the law.
You also trivialise that which is germane. His greater means is manifest in the nature of the vehicle, which is designed purely for recreational purposes — i.e. it’s a toy the chief function of which is to display high status. It’s like the ermine robes of the ancient Romans or wearing long trailing gowns or having a jewelled sword and codpiece. It’s unlikely he takes it shopping or picks up the kids at soccer in it.
This means that although technically, it’s a car. discursively, it’s something else. What for an ordinary person is a punishment is for this chap, a boon. Again, this makes this fellow’s case unlike those of others with ordinary cars. The manner of the state’s dealing augments its value as a high-status toy. A high status artefact that few know about is not as valuable as one that lots know about.
You haven’t established that this person is being punished. He looks like he is being rewarded.
You haven’t established that this person is being punished. He looks like he is being rewarded. The government’s motives are beside the point. If the government is cynical or dishonest, that’s a separate question. Is the law reasonable? That’s the question.
So would I. I don’t vote for conservatives, as you know. Yet that too is beside the point.
Of course getting his car impounded is a huge benefit. The government works in such mysterious and perverse ways.
And God forbid anyone should own an object for recreational purposes. They should be punished severely. Oh hang on, they’ve been rewarded. I keep forgetting.
Yes, Anna is correct. From reading Fran’s reasoning, she must be here for the lulz. Either that or she’s an idiot. Impossible to take seriously either way.
“Nobody has yet shown how this action is unfair, so the premise is not made out”
Fran is Dagget. This is exactly what happened on “that” thread. Time and again arguments debunking the proposal were put forward and time and again they were ignored. It is disingenuous in the extreme to say that the action hasn’t been shown to be unfair. Normal principles of fairness in the legal sense don’t make a person who has not committed any illegal act the recipient of the result of a punitive act applied to someone who has committed and illegal act. If that was going to be the case an another formula would have to found. This would be the case at common law and in equity.
In making the statement above you are applying some sort of standard of your own which is in turn based on your ideological position and I’m afraid this won’t cut it. You could try and say, as S. Bauer seemed to leaning towards, that there is some utilitarian motive but it’s a very difficult case to make out based on these facts. However I note that you haven’t even bothered to to that so I guess you end up in the Dagget tank.
It would be interesting know whether this kind of judicial outcome could be challenged in countries that have basic legal rights set out in their constitutions as is the case in the US.
Correction — not his car but his flashing sign saying that he’s a success.
On the substantive legal matter, I would agree that there is a case for better specifying responsibility for control of vehicles in such circumstances.
Perhaps a standard contractual obligation could specify that the vehicle is surrendered on the basis that it should be used only in accordance with the relevant legislation.
Then the state has to show that the parties contrived to breach it in order to impound
Another day, another family bucket of Southern Fried Gecko Nuggets with dipping sauces, fries and salads.
It’s simple and straightforward, except perhaps to adherents of good old-fashioned “Eat the Rich” anarcho-cannibalism:
1. It’s unfair to punish people who are not guilty of a crime for the actions of those who are.
2. In this case, a person who is not guilty of a crime has been punished for the actions of someone else.
3. This is unfair.
This statement of the position is based on a widely held, commonplace understanding of the notion of fairness. If you, Fran, want to challenge this notion, it’s your responsibility to show how this commonplace understanding is wrong. So far you’ve failed completely – the best you’ve offered is “It’s not fair that this bastard can afford a Lamborghini but I can’t, so he deserves to be eaten”. Not going to convince anybody (but what the hell, we can have a lot of fun winding you up until your brain explodes all over cyberspace – after all, that’s what the intertubes are really for).
“Correction — not his car but his flashing sign saying that he’s a success. ”
And exactly what principle of fairness are you appealing too there? You’re as bad as the idiots who put this through parliament.
Dream on. I’m perfectly at ease with where I stand in relation to this matter. It’s your lot who are contriving strawmen to ease your angst.
Oh, so now it’s a contest to see whose brain explodes first. Well, I’m glad we got that sorted – time to walk away. And I’m perfectly at ease with that.
What I’ve suggested above is that, while there are certainly general principles for opposing the legislation, and the police minister probably is a troglodyte, nonetheless:
1. The level of ‘punishment’ here is low.
2. There are much more serious cases of ‘punishment without conviction’ that hardly anyone has bothered to explain whether they support or oppose and why, so it’s a little difficult to work out how the ‘no punishment without conviction’ idea is to be actually interpreted within our current legal system.
3. The general principle of stringent responsibility for use of ones motor vehicle is eminently justifiable.
4. There are good reasons for thinking this anomaly is very much an exception clustered around high-end cars and which are unlikely to be applicable to more standard demographics.
Of course playing whack-a-mole has been far more entertaining.
I don’t see why Fran’s principles and applications of social justice should be limited to hooning around in expensive cars.
The next time an investment banker gets a silk tie dry cleaned, and an employee of the dry cleaners uses the tie to strangle someone to death, the investment banker should be charged as an accessory to the murder. After all, he will have willingly supplied the murder weapon.
Sam
You are simply mistaken. The investment banker is the actual murderer. He [or she] did not purchase an expensive silk tie. He [or she] acquired a status symbol, to flash around impressing maitres d’ and so forth.
Furthermore, he [or she] purchased a murder weapon: the facts of the case which you set out clearly show this. I have read your account for meaning. The miscreant merchant banker should be sent to the guillotine forthwith. No trial is necessary. The employee of the dry cleaner is obviously downtrodden and should in all circumstances be hailed a proletarian of revolutionary virtue. He has exposed the nefarious plans of the merchant banker. This is useful.
It is important to see these events from a class standpoint. We must acknowledge that F. Barlow is all class.
“After all, he will have willingly supplied the murder weapon.”
Not only that, but he’s rich. And there’s no such thing as being unfair to a rich person.
“1. The level of ‘punishment’ here is low.”
Utterly irrelevant in determining whether the punishment was fair in this case, because the doctor has done nothing wrong at all, and therefore NO PUNISHMENT AT ALL IS FAIR.
“2. There are much more serious cases of ‘punishment without conviction’ that hardly anyone has bothered to explain whether they support or oppose and why, so it’s a little difficult to work out how the ‘no punishment without conviction’ idea is to be actually interpreted within our current legal system.”
Are you referring to other cases where people are punished for doing NOTHING AT ALL WRONG, or cases where no conviction is recorded, but someone thought to have committed a crime is punished anyway?
If the former, please cite. If the latter, that’s a completely different (and I’d argue more serious) thing. But irrelevant nonetheless.
“3. The general principle of stringent responsibility for use of ones motor vehicle is eminently justifiable.”
Would that principle involve not getting it serviced? That would seem to be incredibly irresponsible to me.
“4. There are good reasons for thinking this anomaly is very much an exception clustered around high-end cars and which are unlikely to be applicable to more standard demographics.”
What reasons? Show, don’t tell.
w/r/t your point #1 again Martin, you can by all means argue that this is a bunch of fuss about not very much. But you can’t argue the substantive issue – punishment for a person who has committed no offence is unfair.
Fran, can you read that last bit again? Think of it as a general principle, after taking a wee step back from your squalid little trench in this ridiculous debate. Don’t try to connect it with this particular case. Again:
Punishment for a person who has committed no offence is unfair.
Do you agree? As a general principle?
“The general principle of stringent responsibility for use of ones motor vehicle is eminently justifiable”
Yes well, I assume you’re referring to old ideas out of which grew modern negligence law. However this case probably has more to do with case law around bailment and duty of care if you’re looking for a civil angle. But it’s not a civil case. This is an example of poorly draughted statute trumping sensible common law rights.
“Ferris Bueller’s back at school”
And I see the use of party names has crept in, another trait of “that” thread (perhaps it should be called “the Scottish thread”).
Sure, as a general principle. But to understand how this general principle works in practice it is instructive to look at other examples.
Detention without conviction is a much more serious punishment of people who may be presumed to be innocent. I have asked people to explain how this should be understood so as to be able to guide the application of the same principle to a far lesser instance of ‘punishment’. So far only Darryl has done so.
“Detention without conviction is a much more serious punishment of people who may be presumed to be innocent. I have asked people to explain how this should be understood so as to be able to guide the application of the same principle to a far lesser instance of ‘punishment’. So far only Darryl has done so.”
[So far only Darryl has done so in a way you like, perhaps?]
You are misapplying the notion of presumption of innocence. Those presumed innocent but suspected of a crime may indeed have their liberty and property removed. They may for example be held without bail until their trial, without the principle of presumption of innocence being violated in any way.
What we’re dealing with here is not presumption of innocence at all (the words could fit, if we didn’t all know what they really meant as a legal doctrine). It is certainty of innocence. It is nobody-has-even-suggested-guilt. The reason you can keep saying that nobody’s really worked through how to apply existing common law principles in a case like this is simply that this case is fucking insane, and there haven’t been cases like this before. The idea that someone could pay in any way for the criminal acts of another is anathema to the common law.
“the amendments to the legislation or change in practice that are likely to be prompted by this case are going to do nothing for commodore guy”
Unless of course, the same thing happens to a Commodore guy as happened to the Lambourghini guy, in which case (because of this case) the Commodore guy might be able to keep custody of his car. A good thing, no?
I’d have thought it a bit much to expect anything to result from this case that has significant effects on completely different cases, or that would suddenly remove the attractiveness of driving fast in Lambourghinis to motor mechanics.
You take your carving knife to a knife sharpener who then uses it to kill his next door neighbour.
You are prosecuted and gaoled for being an accessory before the fact of murder.
Can any sane person argue that this is justice?
The debate here appears to revolve around the presumed difference between a knife and a Lambo. There is no difference. They are both legal products that can legitimately be owned and can be legally repaired. The assignment of agency from the owner to the repairer is identical.
I can’t believe that any sane person can argue that there is an inherent difference between a carving knife and a Lambo.
Well Katz, it really depends on whether the carving knife is some incredibly flash one which the person has obviously purchased to impress people, or whether it’s just a cheap, old job. Plainly, in the former case the owner gains a benefit because now many people know they can afford an expensive carving knife. I have no sympathy for said owner.
@139 I said:
So nice that from @142-144 you affirmed.
@145 FDB said:
There are at least two things wrong with this formulation.
1. It does embed the idea that the incident above is an instantiation of punishment. I continue to reject this and to date nobody has made any effort to show through substantive argument that I ought not to make this inference.
Punishment necessarily entails some ‘suffering’ or cost. If it doesn’t, then the punishment is purely notional as in cases where someone is sentenced to jail until the rising of the court.
2. Additionally, you conflate costs and suffering that are incidental to the administration of a law or regulation with acts intended to punish. Most people oppose terrorist activity for example, and would like to see it robustly restrained, but the measures needed to effect this restraint inevitably impose upon innocents (including of course, even massively privileged self-absorbed tossers) punishing them even though they are mostly innocent of criminal or tortious acts. These measures include the construction of scanners at airports which some think may offend restraints on indecent dealing with minors.
It is dishonest or intellectually careless to conflate these two kinds of acts, notional punishment targeting miscreants and incidental suffering imposed upon people to restrain those inclined to miscreant behaviour from playing it out. Here though, this carelessness is a form of populist posturing, which seeks to pretend that the impositions of the state upon some wealthy party may be read as having implications for the impositions on plebeians and that thus we ought to give these privileged the benefit of the injury to one … principle, even when it won’t apply in practice.
But what if the victim of the knifing had been a complete scuzzball in that he [shudder] OWNED AND DROVE A LAMBO?
Then all bets are off. Lambo owners must die.
That legislation may be relatively straightforward to draft.
However, given that most Lambos are leased, should both the lessors and the lessees come within its ambit?
“should both the lessors and the lessees come within its ambit?”
Why stop there. Clearly any ordinary proletarian folk who bear witness to the driving of a Lambo, if they permit themselves the slightest head-turn or murmer of approval, are the worst offenders of all. Class traitors, no less.
You’re a namby pamby civil libertarian FDB. Why stop at overt acts?
Probes should be permanently implanted to monitor the lubriciousness and/or tumescence of the entire population.
If a passing Lambo causes a triggering event, then instant extraordinary rendition to a Lada factory in an ex-Soviet republic.
So is Fran winding up for a knockout roundhouse, or was there a flutter of white towel hidden amongst the bravado in #139?
Once more with feeling for Fran:
Punishment for a person who has committed no offence is unfair.
Do you agree? As a general principle?
Remand is not the only fairness issue in the justice system. For example:
1. The size of the fine for speeding depends on the offense, not the income of the speeder. So, for our allegedly rich Lambo driver a fine of a few hundred dollars is an irritation at most. For someone on the pension the same fine would be a financial crisis. It is worth noting that a lot of Aborigines end up in jail for not paying fines.
2. The courts are very harsh on victims of the justice system that maintain their innocence, particularly when the court has found them guilty. Maintaining your innocence shows a “lack of remorse” that results in harsher sentences and difficulties getting parole. There have been enough wrongful convictions over the years to question the fairness of a system that treats those who maintain innocence while rewarding those who can put on a good act of being full of remorse. Perjury is considered a crime so perhaps judges who pressure the innocent to perjure themselves for the sake of a shorter sentence are committing a criminal act?
What else in the justice system is patently unfair?
“So, for our allegedly rich Lambo driver a fine of a few hundred dollars is an irritation at most.”
He wasn’t driving, so no fine for speeding was incurred.
I strongly agree with means-tested fines, in principle. Irrelevant in this case though.
Oh, and the idea of different punishments for those found guilty, depending on their plea, runs the opposite way (in theory) to what you’ve suggested.
It’s there to reward those who do admit wrongdoing and ideally show remorse, not to punish those who don’t. You can’t really have one without the other, and the only alternative would be to treat everyone the same, regardless of whether they face up to their crimes or not. That would not be a good state of affairs.
FDB asks whether:
Setting out to punish someone who has committed no offence is indeed ‘unfair’ and more to the point, irrational public policy. Whether punishment of people people who commit no offence is irrational public policy depends on whether the ends for which the policy was principally devised serve it at minimum cost in suffering or risk to those who have committed no offence (arguably also, at minimumn cost even to those who have committed some offences) and more, whether the utility of the public policy exceeds the utility cost of the public policy.
In this case, Mr Nugawela is being punished neither notionally nor (in net terms) as a consequence of the application of the law, so the answer in this case is that the law may approach rational policy. He benefits from it without costing the community much. It could be of course that he is getting a benefit from the state’s agency that he shouldn’t — public recognition and that as this costs the community something perhaps the law should be amended to make the grant of this kind of benefit at public cost less likely and thus promote greater equity.
I suggested a modification above that might achieve this.
“Mr Nugawela is being punished neither notionally nor (in net terms) as a consequence of the application of the law”
This is exactly the sort of unprincipled sub-utilitarian calculus Ms Barlow has shown time and again to be her preferred approach to ethical questions. Or should that be preferred method of rationalisation? Note also the shift towards quasi-technical terminology to give this zombie-left stupidity a veneer of intellectual legitimacy.
That is complete and utter futilitarian hogwash Fran, quite apart from the baffling syntax in para 1. Did you understand what I meant by the word ‘principle’? Utility doesn’t come into it unless you have decided to welch on a principle, which should only ever occur in extreme situations involving a competing, irreconcilable and more important principle.
I’m impressed at your staying power though.
Fran is using deliberate obfuscation, solipsism and and pompous long-windedness to avoid giving a reasonable response.
Her reply @ 162 is utter nonsense and unprincipled nonsense at that, as FDB has pointed out. Paragraph one indeed does argue that it’s reasonable to punish an innocent person, using some twisted and barmy logic which is just too baffling to work through on a lovely afternoon.
Does Ute Man know what Fran is doing with his utility?
I’d suggest impounding it, immediately
Fran, normally I enjoy your contributions even when I disagree with you, but I really think you’ve painted yourself into a corner here.
Nice one Roger.
Fran’s taken the utility and wrapped it around the power pole of principle, after a high-speed chase with the long arm of logic.
LOLlogic.
FDB @164 said:
I did, but I simply declined your invitation to dumb down the response by stripping out that which was germane.
In principle I favour perfection — a happy state in which everyone has everything and foregoes nothing. In practice I know perfection is elusive and even approaching it involves compromise and collateral damage to the interests of at least some.
Your disclaimer’s application is what you need to reflect upon before deciding when and if I’ve “welched” on anything.
Utility always comes into it, because, at least for those of us who lack an interest in the eternal or the metaphysical how one defines and serves the public interest cannot be considerded without looking at whether the principle in question is feasible in practice. To will the end is to will the means.
Di(NR) @167
While that may well be a problem for you, your perception is not a problem for me. I’m not the one suggesting that Pastor Niemoller had in mind the interests of drivers of Lamborghinis when he allegedly composed his famous causal chain.
You once claimed to ahve apologised in advance to your descendants for the state of the world and here you are waving the flag for someone helping to trash their interests.
That’s a corner you’re welcome to stand in on your own, ideally with a suitable cap.
So in willing the end of providing a platform for rich folks to publicise their luxury purchases more widely, you will the law that takes their cars away when others break the law in them, which provides this platform?
Like I said, LOLlogic.
Anna responded @172
I already foreshadowed just this consideration when I said @162:
And @136 I suggested:
“I’m impressed at your staying power though.”
Daggett like I would say. Anyway we still haven’t had a clear reason from Fran Barlow as to why depriving the owner of the vehicle use of his property because someone, without his permission in in whose care he left the vehicle, used the vehicle to breach a clearly flawed statute is to be considered fair. In fact most of FB’s arguments have veered heavily away from having anything to with the facts at hand.
Pompous blustering about “being punished neither notionally nor (in net terms)” or “irrational public policy” does not get one a law degree. I’d say at this point the Justice would ask the learned counsel to sit down and stop embarrassing ones self, not to mention wasting the court’s time and the taxpayer’s money.
So in other words, you agree that the law as it stands is problematic and should probably be altered.
All this in under 200 comments.
Yer, especially the laws that allow doctors to extort huge incomes off the backs of the real workers of this godforsaken capitalist hell hole, Stealsralya.
Fire in the hole!
You will seek in vain for a post in which I expressly say that no amendment to the operation or scope of the existing law is warranted, Anna.
Oh god, did I say that @175 I dunno what come over me. I blame the heat.
Go on admit it, Fran. It’s a crap law that will make it impossible for me to leave the Nissan Cedric at the mechanic if it makes it across the nullabore.
Fran, I’m sure Pastor Niemoller would have a similar view of people who buy high-powered penis substitutes as you (and I). I’m not arguing that the bloke isn’t a dick who’s using waaaay too many resources.
But that really isn’t the point. He’s been deprived of his property under a really stupid, unfair and unjust law.
That is all.
The braod sweep of the law isn’t unreasonable DI(NR). At some point, after fines and points fail to restrain seriously pernicious conduct temporary or permanent loss of one’s vehicle is reasonable.
I doubt the people who conceived the law thought much beyond winning the kind of law and order auction that is de rigeur in state politics so some amendment along the lines I suggested above could probably convert the law into a better servant of utility in public policy.
Fran, if you’re going to use French phrases, do learn to spell them correctly. It’s ‘de rigueur’, darls.
That’s a fine correction, for which I thank you.
I also managed to mistype ‘broad’. Most annoying.
Well, that’s as gracious an admission of defeat as I think we can expect.
Stay classy, Barlow.
No, only Darryl had in fact responded to the point at all. Now you have as well and I thank you.
Obviously they may and do. But I’m asking for a justification as to why. What exactly does presumption of innocence mean if police suspicion of guilt allows one to be punished? It seems to me that either innocence isn’t really presumed, or the system allows pragmatic considerations to override the principles involved.
Yes, suburban commodores are as attractive as lamborghinis as targets for joyriding by mechanics in the same way that vagrancy laws don’t really distinguish between rich and poor.
As I understand it, these laws are unjust because they give police discretionary powers that are fully intended to be mobilised against specific target populations. I’m willing to be shown wrong, but I don’t think that the problems that these laws actually cause for these demographics are captured by this case.
Sure, I do too. It wasn’t me that said that getting outraged at this case might be the best way to help commodore guy. I don’t think this case is going to help them at all, for these reasons.
In short: I agree with the general assessment of the legislation. However I fail to get exercised by this case, don’t see that it will be of much use and disagree with a fair amount of the reasoning that’s been bandied about this thread.
If fines and points don’t work, temporary or permanent loss of one’s vehicle is reasonable……
but don’t you see, Fran?
The fines are levied on a speeding driver.
The demerit points are placed on the licence of the speeding driver.
This car was confiscated from its owner who was NOT the speeding driver. Did you notice that aspect at all?
Say I was driving my Dad’s car, without his permission, on a special day when I had to miss school cos I was celebrating Trotsky’s birthday. And I sped. And the cops caught me. Should I be punished or should the cops seize my Dad’s car??
PS: my Dad is quite wealthy. He voted for Obama. His Dad was a bit of a unionist, that’s the guy who told me about Trotsky. My friends also celebrate the birthdays of: Fidel, Ho, Lenin, Lennon, JFK, Charlie Chaplin, and Monica Lewinsky.
Plainly, FBiP, if you were hooning about in your dad’s car (it doesn’t really matter what kind it is) on your own licence, the first response should be a fine plus points for you. If the behaviour was especially egregious or you were a probationary licence holder then you should lose your licence for some time. And if despite losing it you again went off hooning in some car then it should be impounded while the matter of your authority to drive it was established even if it was not your car.
If it became on balance probable that you took the car with the tacit approval of someone who ought to have supposed you would drive seriously contrary to law, that person should also face some charges and in the interim, loss of the vehicle. And if despite all this the behaviour continued and the same person failing a second time to take reasonable steps to secure the vehicle from you then permanent forfeiture would be reasonable.
Now it seems unlikely that Dr N’s case here would begin to fit that description, which is why I would be OK with a modification of the law to better specify cases where impounding or more longterm seizure would be apt.
My trouble with the thread as it went was that it seemed from the start to be an exercise in special pleading for someone on the basis that he had been temporarily deprived of his Lamborghini. Anna raised the Nazis before anyone had commented and Patrickb, inspired by this wrote a post that referred to “summary justice” and holding the car against its will and punishing the car.
By the time I commented @12 Anna had asserted that the government had played the “class card” (@6). @11 “property rights” advocate John Michelmore was asserting that it was a slippery slope to a police state. Clearly, this was an argument not about the sweep of the law but the rights of the privileged to be exempt from the laws they expected other lesser mortals to be bound by so that property could be sacrosanct.
This was especially problematic because it was clear that this particular thing was only plausible because the person whose car it was, was rich so it was actually quite difficult to say “but yes, what if he’d done it in a Falcadore?“. He wouldn’t have.
It should be clear that I’m not a great fan of in-your-face consumption or the hyper rich, though some may have wished I would get off the fence and said what I really thought
. Yet I rather fancy that they will get their needs met whatever we say here, but it’s troubling when they also get a cheer squad here. That’s true whatever the rights and wrongs of the law as it currently operates.
187 fucking comments and Fran finally accepts the inevitable: her position was untenable, and despite the bullshit class arguments, tortuous logic, and all of the distractions she’s finally admitted it.
I’m with whoever called it above: Obvious Troll is Obvious.
“[blah blah blah]… the hyper-rich…blah…but it’s troubling when they also get a cheer squad here. That’s true whatever the rights and wrongs of the law as it currently operates.”
Translation:
“Everyone else is right – this law as it currently operates (as shown by this case) is unfair.
However, I can’t take it when people make a minor principled stand on behalf of a rich person, so I’m gonna keep being an idiot about it.”
Wait, this reminds me of something from a while back.
Me too
Yes, but I was right and you were wrong.
As anyone can see for themselves.
Look, FDB
It’s not a matter of being “right”.
Clearly, the continuance of the thread, whose proximate cause was the persistences of FB and FDB* ultimately led to a sub-optimal thread-lengthening, which in a policy sense was retrograde and not as progressive as you might have expected, given the convergence of car-ownership and petit bourgeois conceptions of property rights, insofar as a Latinate vocabulary can ever ameliorate a deficiency in comprehension: do read for meaning please!
Now, please may I have my vehicle back? Ferris has been sent to a punitive Summer Camp.
– his paternal ancestor, Mr Gottimhimmel Bueller
*strangely similar initials – is there a connection? – you be the judge!!
Yes, I noticed that … Ferris Bueller, Furious Balancing, Fran Barlow, F(D)B …
FDB said:
One doesn’t need a computer to see what’s wrong with that piece of syntax. Even if you’re using the generic, number should be consistent.
Wasn’t it the other nerdy dude’s dad who owned the Ferrari?
It’s important to be accurate in these things.
Fran there is nothing wrong with FDB’s grammar there.
Off topic (but no doubt it will get more attention than my on-topic contributions :-p ) but IMO insisting on number agreement for indefinite pronouns is grammatical hypercorrectness at its worst, sacrificing flexibility of language for a formal rule that almost never actually enhances comprehensibility.
I will cop to using a sentence fragment as an entire paragraph, but a number agree that mine needn’t have, so poo to you Fran.
Laura:
anyone (singular); themselves (plural)
Correct (or at any rate consistent) generic usage for the reflexive pronoun would be:
As anyone can see for themself “Them” here is a singular generic collocated with the idiomatic anyone rather than a plural.
Themself is not a word. Even if it were, it contains, internally, the exact conflict you have such a problem with.
It would be fair to say, Martin, that the register of this forum is vernacular, and so your objection is reasonable, but since FDB did raise (with some cause) my usage of syntax in an earlier part of the thread, it seemed to me that he attached value to felicitous syntax.
I do aim, where I can, to give people what they seek.
FDB was criticising what you actually meant by your words. The meaning of his words was perfectly clear, with no room for conflicting readings. Not the same thing at all.
“Ourself” is also not a word.
I hope that helps.
“Wasn’t it the other nerdy dude’s dad who owned the Ferrari?
It’s important to be accurate in these things.”
The little bastards stole mine, two days later.
‘Themself’ isn’t a word! Now you’re making absolutely everything up to suit yourself, Fran.
Well then, what is the correct syntax?
*Sigh*. It seems my lot to be a Cassandra in this thread as I now, again, have points of disagreement with everyone. ‘Themself’ is definitely a word, first attested in the 14th century even if many dictionaries continue to defer to the hyper-correctness described above and regard it as non-standard. OTOH with regard to the singular ‘they’ I can hardly say it better than Geoff Pullum.
The only solution is to use a plural in the first place, viz:
As others/people/readers can see for themselves. It’s a defecit of English that we have no plural form that fits the end of the sentence.
speaking for myselves, I’d use “his good self” or “herself”, and Ferris’s teacher agrees with we (or themself)
Werll Martin, you weren’t a Cassandra in the sense that nobody would believe your claim that your contribution on syntax would get more attention than your on-topic contributions. I suspect many imagined your prediction would be fulfilled (though as yet the numbers are still a tad shy).
Caxton, IIRC — I keep thinking My Three Sons but that was Fred McMurray and the 1960s!
I think there is no reason not to use the word ‘themself’, or ‘themselves’ as a singular, however the writer/speaker thinks best.
In the former case you can cite William Caxton (“whan thise wordes were fynysshed, all the foure brethren, and all theym of theyr compauye arayed themselfe”, The Foure Sonnes of Aymon and Huon) and in the latter case you can cite Shakespeare (“Now leaden slumber with life’s strength doth fight/ And every one to rest themselves betake/ Save thieves, and cares, and troubled minds, that wake”, The Rape of Lucrece).
Why would you want a plural form for the end of that sentence FDB? Your subsequent modification reconciled the two well enough.
An alternative would have been to drop the last two words. Although it lacks the hyperbolic flourish, As anyone can see means exactly the same thing.
But the fact that they wouldn’t need it pointed out was salient, as your wrongness has been plastered all over this thread like so much… er… plaster.
Anyhoo, why hasn’t a passing moderator put this thread to death yet? I’ve never been so off topic in all my life.
That’s an interesting reference Martin, because it does suggest that Caxton used both.
I was considering:
Eche of theym sholde … make theymselfe redy but syntactically, your quote, using all as the pronoun ought to call theymselfes unless Caxton (reading back from the declension in the later Shakespeare). Perhaps the earlier one was idiomatic and thus neither plural nor singular. One of the problems with these early references is surely the somewhat idiosyncratic character of the texts. The roll-out of printing presses in the 15th and 16th centuries created a context in which both the desirability and the possibility of stylistic and syntactic consistency arose. Movable type was probably like their internet.
oops … left out a few words …
I find it amusing FDB, that you feel the need to keep asserting that I’ve been wrong, rather as if you are convincing yourself. (yourselves? maybe your elves
)
As paradoxical as it may seem, sometimes more is less you know.
That’s true and worth keeping in mind.
OTOH it is also the case that many of these (overly) formal grammatical rules did not start being articulated until the late 18th-early 19th centuries, and so are not necessary consequences of a consistent orthography and syntax.
The first known grammatical criticism of the singular they dates to 1795 which is relatively late.
“sometimes more is less you know”
And vice versa, I’ve heard.
Also, it was a joke, Joyce. I thought it amusing after so many have taken such pains to point out how wrong you’ve been just to go playground on you.
True Martin … Dryden has a lot to answer for … or should I say ..? a lot for which to answer
Now you’re going playground? That was plain far earlier than @212 …
At 191, yes.
@89 actually, FDB
Bored now.
Fran wants a dangerous Maoist cultural purge in all its glory to strip the rich by pitch fork carriers.
However, the law of strict liability underpins most traffic offences, including impounding vehicles for parking offences …. efficiency is the rationale as well as the low cost to the person affected. Also the person giving he fines will never know if the car is parked by the driver or not … What is different here is the Lamborghini has a high cost. So maybe, in spite of Fran arguing wrongly, her conclusion that the impounding should stand is based on their being no favourable treatment for the rich being justified. That is the logic of allowing this for traffic offences as well.
Traffic laws are almost always crude and allow police and wardens to much power … but they allow for the generation of a lot of revenue to state coffers. Here it is a deterrent rationale, so that makes it not very useful for revenue either.
“Also the person giving he fines will never know if the car is parked by the driver or not”
Sigh.
The fine is issued, and it’s assumed that if the owner isn’t the one who parked it, some agreement will be reached between owner and borrower. As it usually is.
Either way, only one person gets punished, on the assumption that only one person parked the car.
See the difference?
This is still going?
Maybe it’ll outstrip the other thread (which should not be named).
Yes, getting a bit stupid isn’t it?
I’m wondering if a moderator could ban me from just this one thread. Self-resraint has failed too many times.
Desk Calendar aphorism time:
Fools rush in where others fear the thread.
In ur thred steelin yur stoopid.
Looks like Rob Johnson has been reading the thread and has lifted Fran’s arguments almost wholesale.
I’m not your mother, FDB. You will just have to learn self-restraint for yourself*.
*or -selves.
Fair go, Anna. He’s a musician, after all …
CrankyNick said:
Really?
That’s nothing like what I said. I don’t recall being the least bit sympathetic or implying this was no fault of his own. Finally, I proposed amending the law to stop people like him being advantaged by its operation at the public expense.
I pointed out that this could not have happened to the commodore a.k.a Lada driver.
DI(nr) – well, a drummer, anyway.
Fran – I agree with you that Crankynick was being too kind to your arguments.
Johnson does as close to a mea culpa here as we can ever expect from a Police Minister in the midst of a huge, confected statewide Laura Norder campaign. Translated for meaning rather than spin, he’s essentially saying ‘yeah, we fucked up’.
Anna – I’m tempted to say something in response to your comment, but can’t think of anything that’s not incredibly creepy or offensive to you or my mother. Both of whom I hold in high esteem.
Agreed.
It’d be interesting to see what happened if someone poorer than you took your car and argued that you had nothing to complain about, you’ll get your “precious status symbol back with enhanced bragging value” at an indefinite period in the future.
Jobby said:
1. I’m insured, so they’d be arguing with my insurance company
2. My car isn’t a status symbol and someone poorer than me stealing my car wouldn’t be newsworthy on the Galtung & Ruge standard, since it would meet only two of the four standards. If it did become a news story, nobody would imagine that having a 2004 (TS) Astra would enhance my status.
Apart from these fairly minor problems with your analogy … oh wait … they are major ones which highlight the fact that your still miffed about being shown up as talking nonsense elsewhere.
Ah, a musician’s labourer! (to steal an old joke)
Was that a new attempt to get chucked in moderation, FDB?
So crankynick, what yr sayin is that Rob Johnson is a lipsnigerer?
Gummo @238
So much so it’s possible he’s even a lesbian.
Anna – chuck me where you want me.
A girl doesn’t get an offer like that every day, FDB.