To say, or not to say, that is the question

[RonnyRaygun]

Why don't you try driving around without a seatbelt on, speaking on a hand-held mobile phone, and when you get nicked, tell the police not to go poking there noses in because you weren't doing anything wrong because no incident occurred. See how far that gets you.

Out of interest BAS, where would you draw the line for personal involvement? And what action would you take?
For the above example, would you film the person and give evidence to the police, or would you get involved personally and warn them of the risks to both their own life and the lives of others?
What if you saw a parent smoking in their car with their kids in the back? Would you feel that their actions warranted you giving advice on the health risks of second hand smoke? How far would you go to give that advice?

 

[kazuya]

and rang H&S and they came out, held the job up for half a day,
either told them they were ok doing what they were doing or they should be doing it another way, on that particular job the outcome would have been the same,
nobody got hurt regardless.

Why don't you try driving around without a seatbelt on, speaking on a hand-held mobile phone, and when you get nicked, tell the police not to go poking there noses in because you weren't doing anything wrong because no incident occurred. See how far that gets you.[/QUOTE]

thats not even close to being the same thing, its more like going on holiday to India and seeing someone driving around without a seatbelt on, speaking on a hand-held mobile phone, then ringing the police to report them not knowing if theyre breaking any laws or not.

because the whole point was he thought it looked dangerous, we dont know if they were actually doing anything wrong or not.

 

[^woody^]

Why don't you try driving around without a seatbelt on, speaking on a hand-held mobile phone .....

and when you get nicked

And there lies the stupidity of your own argument.

You will get nicked by a police officer, who's job it is to enforce the law.

You won't get nicked by a member of the public, and there won't be any citizens arrests.

I'd also wager that you personally don't go around spotting and recording drivers you you see without belts and on their phones. Do you?

 

[bernardgreen]

You won't get nicked by a member of the public, and there won't be any citizens arrests.

But reports from the public about persistant offenders can result in police being at the right place and time to witness an offence and then take the necessary action against the offender.

I'd also wager that you personally don't go around spotting and recording drivers you you see without belts and on their phones. Do you?

There are people who do do this. A lot of people here do it following an accident when a woman car user texting on a mobile phone turned right into the path of an oncoming car. The young driver of that car suffered terrible injuries with permanent adverse consequences to her health, mobility and career. The woman on the phone was not injured at all and at frst denied being on the phone.

 

[noseall]

There are people who do do this. A lot of people here do it following an accident when a woman car user texting on a mobile phone turned right into the path of an oncoming car. The young driver of that car suffered terrible injuries with permanent adverse consequences to her health, mobility and career. The woman on the phone was not injured at all and at frst denied being on the phone.

Oh, has this thread moved on to the subject of being a witness? When did that happen?

 

[noseall]

But reports from the public about persistant offenders can result in police being at the right place and time to witness an offence and then take the necessary action against the offender.

Yes. Serious offences. If you think the police are going to go on a stake-out for seat belt offenders then you have been watching too much tele.

 

[bernardgreen]

Yes. Serious offences. If you think the police are going to go on a stake-out for seat belt offenders then you have been watching too much tele.

On seat belts I agree with you. After all the guilty person without the seat belt gets to lose more in an accident. Using a mobile phone can and has resulted in death to other innocent people. They have acted on mobile phone used while driving and, as a by product, have nabbed a few seat belt offences.

 

[^woody^]

But reports from the public about persistant offenders

There is criminal law, which is to protect the public.

Then there is employment law to protect specific employees.

People need to get some perspective in their snooping on each other.

 

[noseall]

Correct Woods. The analogies have become daft and unrealistic comparisons.

 

[^woody^]

Correct Woods. The analogies have become daft and unrealistic comparisons.

Indeed. Muddying the waters is a proved method of diverting a losing argument.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

For the above example, would you film the person and give evidence to the police,

Not easy to do - driving along and filming someone. But if I happened to have video, from say a dashboard camera, then why not? I'd contact them, although my educated guess is that it would not be admissible evidence.

or would you get involved personally and warn them of the risks to both their own life and the lives of others?

Yes, and I have done so.

What if you saw a parent smoking in their car with their kids in the back? Would you feel that their actions warranted you giving advice on the health risks of second hand smoke?

Yes.

How far would you go to give that advice?

I doubt I would actually pursue them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

thats not even close to being the same thing, its more like going on holiday to India and seeing someone driving around without a seatbelt on, speaking on a hand-held mobile phone, then ringing the police to report them not knowing if theyre breaking any laws or not.

In which case the police would thank me for my concern, reassure me, they and I would carry on doing whatever we had been, and the person driving would not be inconvenienced at all. Where's the problem?

because the whole point was he thought it looked dangerous, we dont know if they were actually doing anything wrong or not.

No, we don't, but if someone is informed enough to think that it could well be wrong, and does have genuine concerns, then he should report it. As I've said, I'm not suggesting vigilantism, with people going around stopping things like that, just reporting them to the relevant organisation(s).

 

[Newboy]

There is criminal law, which is to protect the public.

Then there is employment law to protect specific employees.

And is The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 criminal or employment legislation?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And there lies the stupidity of your own argument.

Ironic that you should use that word given how well you have paid attention.

You will get nicked by a police officer, who's job it is to enforce the law.

Indeed, but the point of my analogy was not to muddy the waters (that's a stupid suggestion), it was to highlight the fallacy in kazuya's argument that because no harm had occurred there couldn't have been anything wrong going on.

I'd also wager that you personally don't go around spotting and recording drivers you you see without belts and on their phones. Do you?

It's not a goal of mine, nor part of any routine. But I have done it re seatbelts when we were all in heavy traffic and there happened to be a police car in the queue.

And I have on many occasions phoned or emailed businesses to report transgressions by drivers of company vehicles.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes. Serious offences. If you think the police are going to go on a stake-out for seat belt offenders then you have been watching too much tele.

What about offenders whose offence is not using appropriate restraints/seats for children?