Talk:Traffic Violations Bureau

POV
Honestly, I think this is a bit one-sided. I imagine it's probably very much like what the article says, but the authors here are drawing their own conclusions, such as how not allowing discovery "is the equivilent to denying a motorist a decent chance at adequately defending him/herself". This is original research at best, or at worst the author's opinion stated as fact. Thoughts?
 * Sorry, this was me. My browser likes to forget login cookies it seems. Spoom - Talk 19:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

--Agreement--

I'm new to this, so I'm not sure I'm doing it right. However, I agree with your assessment of the article. Citations would help to make the information more reliable. It would also be easier to tell what is public opinion, what is personal opinion, and what is fact. Sealsrose (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unfortunately been to TVB 'court' on anumber of ocassions and completely agree with the author's description. The approach of almost all the judges I've encountered there is that the motorist is 'guilty until proven innocent'. Not only has this been the case with my own hearings but with almost all the hearings that I witnessed while waiting for mine as well. At certain points I felt like laughing out loud at the preposterous and unsubstantiated allegations of the police officers and the judges casual dismissal of well thought out and well presented statements of defense by defendants. It truly is a kangaroo court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.206.163 (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have pretty much rewritten the article, and I believe the POV tag can be safely removed. Nathans (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)