Rescue Boat Drivers Charter??

Loose Moose · 13 February 2007, 19:42

The government to the rescue. Now we don't need the RYA!!

Section 2, part f, para ii says it all!!

Light blue touch-paper and run like hell.....

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006...0060039_en.pdf

whiteminiman · 13 February 2007, 21:49

What?

This Act is to deal with people who are violent towards emergency service workers, people who park their cars and black the way... .things like that.

Note the word "rescue service" and not "safety cover". The RYA deals with Safety moreso than Rescue.

Cheers,
WMM

This link here is a much more user friendly version of the same.

www.statutelaw.gov.uk is the best thing to come out of this governments drive on IT.

codprawn · 14 February 2007, 03:08

serious harm to the environment (including the life and health of plants and animals);

Does that mean someone attacking a cabbage with a spade???

wavelength · 14 February 2007, 10:03

a sad indictement of modern society and yob culture that such an act is needed. The rescue boat bit recognises that not all lifeboats are RNLI, there are a lot of independent rescue boats/ lifeboats that are declared facilities, for sar purposes,and whilst our coastguard vehicles are covered it makes no mention of mountain rescue teams. Was it the AA (or the RAC) who claimed they were the fourth emergency service? the act has missed them out completely

codprawn · 14 February 2007, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavelength

a sad indictement of modern society and yob culture that such an act is needed. The rescue boat bit recognises that not all lifeboats are RNLI, there are a lot of independent rescue boats/ lifeboats that are declared facilities, for sar purposes,and whilst our coastguard vehicles are covered it makes no mention of mountain rescue teams. Was it the AA (or the RAC) who claimed they were the fourth emergency service? the act has missed them out completely

I don't think such an act WAS needed - just another example of Tony and his new laws - 3000 in 1 year. It is now illegal to have a quick jump in your car!!!

For example yobs throwing stones at fire engines or attacks on ambulance staff have ALWAYS been against the law - why introduce a new one? Just enforce the laws we had instead of dreaming up new legislation all the time.

wavelength · 14 February 2007, 18:31

dont agree- I'm happy to have a specific act that protects me on a shout and remains on someones record (until the rehabilitation of offenders act takes it off)to show exactly what sort of low life they have been instead of relying on some other bit of non specific legislation-and I still think it is a response to a yob culture. We had the lifeboat vandalised the other year-nobody would have dreamed of that years ago in a seaside town no matter what stone they may have crawled out from under.

Quote:

have ALWAYS been against the law

act and section please?

whiteminiman · 14 February 2007, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavelength

act and section please?

wavelength,

VERY little of our law is contained in statute. One of the wonderful things about this country!

But, the examples that codprawn gave would be in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

If the attacker did not have intent to wound

If the attacker had intent wound.

additionally various Public Order offences that I can't be bothered to look up.

Despite Blair's best efforts - there are many things that are not written down in statute that are still "law".

Cheers, WMM

wavelength · 14 February 2007, 18:50

and some poor plod has to find an offence to report that the CPS will accept. Now they have one in an impressively short act, without having to dig around and make sommat fit so that then a couple of barristers can make a ridiculous amount of money per hour arguing about the meaning of word or two and if it applies to the defendant bearing in mind appeal case law over the decades and the effect of his deprived childhood and lack of the latest playstation etc etc has had on his present frame of mind.

Poly · 14 February 2007, 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteminiman

wavelength,

VERY little of our law is contained in statute. One of the wonderful things about this country!

But, the examples that codprawn gave would be in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

If the attacker did not have intent to wound

If the attacker had intent wound.

additionally various Public Order offences that I can't be bothered to look up.

Despite Blair's best efforts - there are many things that are not written down in statute that are still "law".

Cheers, WMM

WMM these seem to apply in the situation where injury is incurred. The "new" law would (to me) appear to cover any obstruction rather than focus purely on physical injury (or e.g. damage to vehicles, which would also be covered under existing laws).

I don't know - but I suspect the penalties under this act may be more severe than for a similar offence not prosecuted under the act? just as assaulting a police officer carries a greater punishment than assaulting me.

wavelength · 14 February 2007, 21:58

Summary offence only- scale 5 fine no imprisonment
whats scale 5 these days? WMM will know.
Fortunately when old gits get too expensive to keep (and too forgetful-but ya have to work really hard at that one)they offer some folk early retirement

so I dont know any more! and am exceedingly happy, in fact ecstatic, not to care

codprawn · 14 February 2007, 23:40

The point I was trying to make is that we always seemed to manage with the laws we had - now Tony is here to help us with his 3,000 new laws things are going downhill fast.

The whole reason these yobs behave the way they do is because they can - so many new laws brought in people are afraid to tackle them in case they get into hot water. Also the Police are too busy dealing with all this new legislation to do any real work.

Less laws would remove the shackles that prevent decent people tackling the yobs the way they used to be able to!!!

Nos4r2 · 14 February 2007, 23:49

Codders, I agree with you 100%.

STFU about it please though-you're beginning to be a bit of a stuck record.

It shows that it's winter.

codprawn · 15 February 2007, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

Codders, I agree with you 100%.

STFU about it please though-you're beginning to be a bit of a stuck record.

It shows that it's winter.

Nice day today though - just wish I hadn't been working - even the tides were right.

whiteminiman · 15 February 2007, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polwart

WMM these seem to apply in the situation where injury is incurred. The "new" law would (to me) appear to cover any obstruction rather than focus purely on physical injury (or e.g. damage to vehicles, which would also be covered under existing laws).

I don't know - but I suspect the penalties under this act may be more severe than for a similar offence not prosecuted under the act? just as assaulting a police officer carries a greater punishment than assaulting me.

Absolutely. The new legislation is broadly worded to allow all sorts of things to be brought to court.

However, in Scotland (where is has been in force for much longer) they have had difficulties in securing evidence for "on the road" staff, much easier for "in-hospital" staff where they are covered by CCTV.

Personally, I feel this act would be a bit of a "last ditch" resort by the CPS, if they couldn't get anything else to stick; and barristers will still argue about the wording of statutes

it's what they're paid to do!

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavelength

Summary offence only- scale 5 fine no imprisonment
whats scale 5 these days? WMM will know.

A level 5 fine is a measly £5,000.

Cheers,
WMM