GM - thank you for your carefully thought out reply re PACE. My thoughts are that the law is laid down (clearly or otherwise) and we have to obey it or be charged. Equally the authorities have to frame it accurately and apply it fairly. Thus I do not think it weasely or dodgy to investigate whether the law is correcttly drafted and applied if I am alleged to have committed some offence.
A current thread re parking covers this in that a parking ticket was issued and then found to be invalid because the signage was incorrect and the vehicle was not actually illegally parked. I understand that a large percentage of appealed parking tickets are cancelled which suggests that either the parking regulations are, in some cases, invalid or wrongly applied.
|
I was going to shut up, but I can't let OldHand's post pass:
"... in my own case we shared a drive of some hundreds of miles, swapped at a service station on the M6 somewhere and then one of us was caught on camera supposedly breaking the speed limit by some 25mph or so ... We didn't have a clue who did that stint ..."
Neither/none of you can remember which service station you swapped at? You should be seriously worried by the state of your - and the other driver's (drivers'?) - memory/ies. Should you still be driving if you can't remember something like that?
"... our system of justice requires the law to prove who committed an offence ..." and sometimes this is achieved in a roundabout way. Speeding is an offence (whether you like it or not: use the democratic process to stop its being an offence if you can, but none of the main parties sees it as a vote-winner, which must tell you something). Many people do it. Speed cameras are a cheap way of catching speeders (would you really want to see hordes of traffic cars at every motorway bridge, etc, etc, waiting to follow and stop speeders? That really would be a police state, I think.
"What I find outrageous are the people saying 'taking it on the chin' or those suggesting that someone just nominate themselves as the guilty party if they aren't 100 percent sure that they are."
It's not perjury to admit guilt in these circumstances. Never has been. A plea isn't evidence.
|
GM please do not shut up - this discussion is useful and informative! Speed cameras are a very good way of catching speeders but they are a carp method of policing, which is what we want/need. We already do have a police state - there are now 244 reasons for which the authorities can obtain forcible access to your home. A new one proposed is to stop you giving your children under age 15 a drink of anything with alcohol in it. We have a police state - we just don't have enough police to run it the way Gauleiters would like to!
A plea may not be evidence but surely it is an admission? "I plead guilty" = " I admit to doing it". Perhaps I should get to court more often!
|
"A plea isn't evidence" - er...no it's a plea, but pleading guilty must say something.
Nicely said AS.
|
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
You don't enter a plea on oath.
Perjury in court is - to paraphrase - saying in evidence and on oath something you know to be false or don't believe to be true: Perjury Act 1911.
In the case of an Accused who was so drunk that he couldn't remember lamping a policeman, but the policeman has a black eye and says A lamped him, A can quite properly plead guilty, accepting the weight of evidence against him and being wholly unable to provide any defence. Or he can plead NG and take the copper through his evidence, testng it as is proper.
Obviously this example doesn't apply to those poor souls whose memories are so poor that they can't remember where they stopped ;-)
|
GM - I follow that but, not knowing court procedure, if you plead guilty to something you didn't do, are you found guilty and sentenced on your plea alone? Obviously that would not be perjury. However, if the court asked you for your version of events and you said you were driving when you weren't, and on oath, that presumably would be perjury.
|
AS, by pleading G you are accepting the prosecution's account, so you wouldn't be asked for your version.
You're sentenced on the prosecution's version.
You would probably be invited to provide any mitigation you felt appropriate, but that would deal with why the offence wasn't as serious as it might look, or why you should be treated leniently, that sort of thing (and wouldn't be on oath anyway).
|
|
|
|
i think the point of this thread is that other than some limited offences (e.g. having a made offensive weapon) then English Law presumes you to be innocent until the State proves that you are guilty.
Even if you are as guilty as sin and deserve to go to the stocks, the system is there to protect the innocent, so if a few that are nevertheless guilty slip through the net, then so be it
what we are talking about here is the principle of someone being forced to admit things to assist the state prove you are guilty..........
even though i've spent 26 years trying to ensure people are correctly found guilty of the things they've done wrong........i still find it unpalatable that the whole system goes out the window for motoring offences....and that this is compounded by speed camera offences, because they are a form of extra taxation that shows not one iota of discretion, having due regard to all other factors...
plus we are only talking about the law abiding here.....because the oiks that truly deserve it don't register their vehicles, so don't worry about it, do they
|
Agree 1005 westpig.
AS & GM, re a plea etc the point is that if you are not 100% sure that it was you driving at the time of the offence and you return part 3 of the NIP then you are open to prosecution if it subsequently transpires, via photo evidence or otherwise, that it was not you driving. The interpretaion would probably be that you were taking the points for someone else which is perverting the course of justice.
|
That should be - Agree 100% westpig.
|
|
|
|
There are plenty of ?strict liability? offences and generally they are not taken to offend any legal principle. They are usually regulatory offences.
I don?t agree that this is ?the principle of someone being forced to admit things to assist the state prove you are guilty?. There is some degree of force, but it is in requiring the registered keeper etc. to provide information. If the RK doesn?t want to provide that information, he doesn?t have to, and can simply admit the ?failing to provide?, which isn?t a strict liability offence anyway.
Westpig, we are presumably agreed that we need speed limits.
We are also presumably agreed that we need a means of enforcing said limits (by the creation of criminal offences relating to them).
We therefore need some means of obtaining the evidence where it is believed that someone has committed the criminal offence of speeding.
One way would be to massively increase the number of police traffic officers, to the point (I think) where the volume of traffic cars was significantly adding to road congestion. If that were done, it would be a relatively easy matter to stop a speeding car and identify the driver.
That would be unnecessarily expensive and intrusive.
The alternative is to expect anyone who has passed his driving test and who wants legally to run a vehicle in a free country (your point about unregistered drivers is, as always, well-made and accepted) to be able to keep tabs on who is driving his vehicle at any time.
How is that unreasonable?
|
I do think that we should some more traffic police. Some Forces, now known euphemistically as Services, have no traffic police at all. They would provide a visible presence, and presumably calming influence, on the traffic around them. With only 1 officer in every 58 actually out doing the Biz while the rest chase performance indicators and fill in mindless forms for CPS and the Home Office more visible activity and less bookwork would be a good thing and traffic police would be high on my list of a service we should have more of.
|
|
|
|
this is compounded by speed camera offences because they are a form of extra taxation
Not everyone would agree with this. I am no great fan of cameras, but in many circumstances I believe that they do help reduce accidents. That is certainly the case at a busy road by me (close to a school, where several children had been injured). At worst they are a form of 'optional' taxation because you can avoid paying by not speeding when you go past them.
On another forum a member has just posted a long rant because he has been nicked by a camera at motorway roadworks (doing 60mph in a 40mph limit) and apparently there were signs warning of cameras!! Too many drivers lack observational skills or perhaps just basic driving skills!
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to the people here suggesting we keep detailed logs or should be able to remember who was driving at any given moment.
In my case the car was leased through work, the NIP took months to work it's way through the beaurocracy before it got to us. As the drive spanned hundreds of miles and we swapped many times we genuinely had no idea who was driving at the time of the alleged offence. The M6 has at least 7 stations on the stretch we drove and presumably even someone as intransigent as the naysayers on this thread probably can't tell me which station is which from a quick drive through. We certainly can't.
Neither do I think that I should have to keep a detailed log of who was driving my car and when.
The onus here is on the powers that be to prove who has committed an offence not for me to disprove it. I asked them to tell me who I should nominate as the guilty party which they of course declined to do. The photographic evidence was useless so they dropped the matter entirely.
Is anyone here really saying that as I can't remember who was driving, don't remember speeding and there is no evidence whatsoever that I should have just put my hands up and 'took it on the chin'?
If so they are probably as much of an ass as the law.
|
To answer Aprilia, cameras are fine in some circumstances though should be used inteligently with variable limits etc.
However many cameras are a case of very poorly targeted resources, no more than a 500th sec snapshot in time catching the sober driver in a modern insured, taxed etc vehicle because he marginally exceeded a somewhat arbitary limit where as the drugged up drunk in a stolen, un-taxed, un-insured, bald tyred etc banger that was doing 90 in a 60 half a mile earlier gets away with it because he slowed to answer his mobile 100yds before the camera.
|
ultimately,if the state can't prove who did something, then the person can't be prosecuted for it... murderers have got off murder
there's a well known child murder case..... (PU can you help me out).... where the parents blamed each other and ended up being found guilty of child cruelty, because it couldn't be proved which one did the murder, (whichever one it was.. the other one would have been neglectful and therefore guilty of cruelty).
|
So, OldHand,
i. the circumstances of "your" offences were entirely different to OP's and the only similarity was the offences charged
ii. you availed yourself of the statutory defence
iii. the case was discontinued before it got to court
What was your gripe?
|
The way the people on here, who think it ok for them to speed but not for the masses, ie ignore speed limit and speed camera warning signs are going about the need for the prosecutor to "prove " who was driving are going to bring about a new law, in my opinion.
A diary fitted to each car, with details of when the driver is in charge of the car etc etc.
If neither of you can remeber speeding, nor seeing the camera warning signs then as others have said, maybe you shouldnt be driving anyway?
If you do know (and I personally think you do!) then own up, pay up and move on?
We have all been annoyed and caught? Fighting laws just generally brings out more laws and more problems.
I have been done once in 30+ years (caught I should add not just above the limit just the once!?) I was doing 44 in a 40 zone. Apparantly there are guidelines to say that prosecution shouldnt happen at the speed. Personally, i was guilty, I was aware of my error. I did the right thing, owned up, paid up, took it on the chin and now stick to limits rigidly where cameras are warned !
Its not a jail sentence !
|
Not really YB. It is alleged that a car has been speeing, the registered keeper doesn't know who was driving (100 % sure) and the prosecuting authority cannot, or maybe they can, determine who was driving by means a photograph. If it an't be proved one way or the other, case dropped and move on. There are worse crimes being ignored and not dealt with, increase the resources and prioritise the investigations. As YB correctly says, 45 in a 40 isn't a jail senetence! Put the effort into getting the untaxed, unlincenced, uninsured, No MOT brigade into the courts and off the roads, that would be way too difficult!
|
have to agree to disagree on the subject of this thread then !
But agree to agree about getting untaxed, non mot'd, un insured cars off the road.
Does that include the foreign cars being driven long term over here by the "new british" ?
|
just out of interest, at what speed was the op or his wife "alleged" to have been doing in what speed limit zone?
|
|
are going about the need for the prosecutor to "prove " who was driving are going to bring about a new law in my opinion.
That is how the law of the land works ........ except when it comes to speed cameras.
A diary fitted to each car with details of when the driver is in charge of the car etc etc.
So should I have a diary fitted to my hammer just incase someone who borrows it braek a window with it? Get real!!!
If you do know (and I personally think you do!) then own up pay up and move on?
>>
Not really worth a comment, to think someone like you could be called up for jury service! However to answer she is not 100% sure so she would be in the wrong to "own up pay up and move on" as you suggest.
|
|
|
|
So OldHand i. the circumstances of "your" offences were entirely different to OP's and the only similarity was the offences charged ii. you availed yourself of the statutory defence iii. the case was discontinued before it got to court What was your gripe?
i. the offence charged was the same
ii. I spent days and weeks worrying and many hours refuting an accusation that should never have been made- all down to the presumption of guilt that characterises our current system
iii. They only dropped the case after I fought tooth and nail to see justice was done
Q. What was my gripe?
A. The corrupt system we now see in action.
Personally I'd challenge it even in the unlikely event I ever was guilty as I don't agree with it.
|
Some of the comments on this thread would be laughable if the poster didn't believe them.
Does anyone really believe that speed cameras are infallible devices?
If
|
|
Does anyone (agree with cameras or not) believe speeding is legal ?
|
"I spent days and weeks worrying and many hours refuting an accusation that should never have been made- all down to the presumption of guilt that characterises our current system ... They only dropped the case after I fought tooth and nail to see justice was done ... corrupt ..."
Bobbins.
Utter bobbins.
|
If speeding is so dangerous in all circumstances why are they relying on an automated system that cannot stop the driver's speeding straight away? Instead the speeder is often completely unaware they've been caught until 14 days later when the NIP drops on their doormat, during which time they're probably speeding just as much.
At least with traffic cops they pull the offender instantly. There's no ambiguity over who is driving, because they've got you there and then. A traffic cop can also exercise discretion, and only stop those drivers who are driving excessively fast or dangerously, or give warnings instead of tickets. In any case the offender's behaviour will probably change instantly for the better.
I know mine did many years ago when I got pulled over for driving at 47 in a 30 by a policeman. I drove much more carefully after that (despite being annoyed at seeing a police car doing that speed without lights on the same road the next day.)
|
"I spent days and weeks worrying and many hours refuting an accusation that should never have been made- all down to the presumption of guilt that characterises our current system ... They only dropped the case after I fought tooth and nail to see justice was done ... corrupt ..." Bobbins. Utter bobbins.
That's one of the most singularly pathetic responses I've seen on this website.
The facts are that accusations were levelled at me which I asked the law to clarify and they then dropped the case.
I won and I'd advise anyone else to do the same if there is the slightest iota of doubt. Don't accept what you are told, don't 'take it on the chin', fight them tooth and nail if you aren't 100% sure you are guilty.
If more people did it then the whole system would be in doubt which can only be a good thing.
|
>>... the whole system would be in doubt which can only be a good thing.
iirc, the tory party has suggested that they may/will remove the "points" penalty resulting from automatica-camera detected offences and just limit the penalty as a fixed fine. i think that would be acceptable as then the punishment in effect is aimed at the registered keeper of the car who (assuming he/she agrees/accepts that their car was involved as alleged) can decide how/who is going to cough up the cash.
|
Its the most dangerous idea I have ever heard, typical tory idea too.
As long as you can afford the fine you can drive as fast as you like !
We all speed, some deliberate some not. some by a lot, some not!
we all know speed cameras exist. Don't speed past them, don't have to worry about points or fines!
But to try and evade it just because "it isnt fair" or "i dont like them" is not right either.
nanny state responses. own up , pay up and move on !
|
Its the most dangerous idea I have ever heard, typical tory idea too. As long as you can afford the fine you can drive as fast as you like ! ..
much better than the present one where if you are rich and/or clever, you hire a lawyer or find clever means of avoiding the points.
if you are poor and/or thick and cannot make sense of the peipoo website, you pay up and take it on the chin because some bullies tell you to, whether you are guilty or not.
|
Poor and/or thick? Maybe. Or solid and upstanding and not afraid to own up and say yes I knew who was driving, where I was and what speed I should have been doing?
No m'lord I didnt hit that man because it might have been my friend that hit him! Still equally guilty in my book! Evading laws on technicalites whilst perfectly legal is what brings the laws into disrepute!
Money is a poor excuse for running away from your responsibilites !
Its £60 3 points and a valuable lesson !
OP admits knowing the road and the camera but cant remember who was driving! Hmmmmm ??????
|
Having read the fist posts from GroovyMucker and Yorkiebar, all I can say is that they are remarkably arrogant, and make the assumption that we can all remember everything we did even 2 weeks ago (or however long it is for a NIP to arrive), and that anyone who claims otherwise is either a liar, or incompetent. Well, I can't. I doubt most other people can.
But that is part of the problem with these automated systems. No doubt some people will knowingly speed, then get caught by a camera, and try to get out of the penalty by claiming as per Cheddar. And some honest decent people will genuinely not know who was driving, and take Cheddars approach, or be bullied into possibly making an innocent person take the blame.
|
arrogant I may be but....
To me, when you drive past any camera you should be aware what speed you are travelling at.
If you are not aware what speed you are travelling at then you may well be speeding and therefore guilty, if not of speeding then at least of driving without due care and attention! A bigger punishment I believe?
If you are aware then you will know who was driving and can sleep easily.
What I hate is people who commit crimes (at any level) but dont have the guts to own up. If that is arrogance so be it!
Remember when you were little and kicked a football through a greenhouse window. You were either the sort that went and told the owner, or you were the sort that ran away ?
I know which camp I am in!
|
">I know which camp I am in!<"
What? You ran away? The age of honour has long gone, a quick viewing of the infernal box will confirm that. Money is all and there is no money in honour. Although there is money for honours, which says it all really.
|
when i got zapped by a camera van on my bike in the West Country a couple of years back, the NIP told me the location. I was curious as to a, the venue of the van because i'd not noticed it and b, the speed limit as the speed i was caught at is what i'd normally do on a dual carriageway not the A road limit as shown on the NIP
i looked at my map and could not find where it was
the next time i drove down that way i tried my best to find that venue, but could not
to this day i have no idea where i got caught
if i'd been a driver sharing the driving i would not have known necessarily who was driving down that part of the road
i coughed up like most do as it was easier
|
If the law was properly drawn up, properly applied and properly enforced there would not be any loopholes! If these highly paid jobsworths who draft the laws can't get them right then people are going to exploit the faults in the system.
|
|
My impression of Cheddar (over the years in here) is that of a man of integrity.
|
My impression of Cheddar (over the years in here) is that of a man of integrity.
ditto, and i am surprised at the innuendo about "lying" .
:: ;-) :: mind you, i don't know about cheddar's wife. she is the one who cannot remember who was driving her car! :: ;-) ::
as for armitage, i stopped taking his contribution at all seriously since he claimed above that the authorities were proosing a new law ...A new one proposed is to stop you giving your children under age 15 a drink of anything with alcohol in it. We have a police state - we just don't have enough police to run it the way Gauleiters would like to! ...
|
and i am surprised at the innuendo about "lying" .
:
Nobody who has ever received a nip has surely ever thought of lying to get out of it ?
Only OP will know the truth there. And I am not implying anything, just stating a fact! Unless you know he is not (not opinion, fact) then please dont assume I am wrong and you are right or vice versa !
|
... please dont assume I am wrong and you are right or vice versa !
yorkiebar:
are you suffering from a guilty complex (i ask only because i did not name you in my post, now did i?).
however, if you are guilty of implying something about cheddar or his missus (but not as charged by me), and you must know the truth, please take the rap and stop whingeing.
penalty is: apology to cheddar and his missus, unless you are clever or rich enough to find a loophole to wrigle out of your crime.
|
|
wasnt me, I cant remember writing anything. Must have been my friend !
|
and i am surprised at the innuendo about "lying" . : >> Only OP will know the truth there. And I am not implying anything>>
So what is "OP admits knowing the road and the camera but cant remember who was driving! Hmmmmm ??????" then. eh?
>>Unless you know he is not (not opinion fact) then please dont assume I am wrong>>
Why not take the facts as presented on face value as others do and coment on the circumstances.
Can you not understand what I have posted before, to repeat : It is a local road, the same car was driven by two people independantly along the same stretch of road about 20 to 30mins apart, to illustrate the point all the SCP can say is that the vehicle was driven past the camera once at 14:17 (not actual time) however were the two journeys the car made at, say, 14:02 and 14:17 or 14:17 and 14:32? If the former it was person X driving at 14:17, if the latter it was person Y driving at 14:17, we simply dont know.
So, again as I have said before, my wife is quite happy to give the names of the two people in question though simply does not know which one was driving at 14:17, if she simply took the penalty herself because that is the easiset option in doing so she may be commiting an offence beacuse she is clearly obliged by law to be 100% sure who was driving.
We await the photo evidence to see if it can help.
|
Yorkiebar: "Only OP will know the truth there. And I am not implying anything, "
Your earlier posts do indicate that you think Cheddar is lying, and trying to squirm out of a ticket. At least that is how they read to me. Same goes for Groovy Mucker.
|
Double standards Leif, looking at your comments in a different, but similar in a way, thread!
You will understand and you judge yourself!
I keep my opinion on all similar cases!
|
Thank you Dalglish. Please read the following and tell us what you think.
"Proposals to prosecute parents who give alcohol to under-15s - even with a meal at home - would not solve binge drinking and could create more problems, drinks producers have said.
Alcohol Concern made the recommendation as part of a wide-ranging set of proposals to cut child drinking. It highlighted figures - first published in November last year by the NHS - that showed the amount of booze consumed by 11 to 13-year-olds has rocketed in recent years."
I agree that it is not Government policy and never may be but it is an indication of the mindset of the control freaks at the top!
I have lived and worked in 2 Middle Eastern countries which could broadly be described as police states. I think we are getting very close here but it is a matter of opinion, of course. A person visiting London will appear on up to 300 CCTV cameras during their visit. If you are arrested for any offence your DNA can be taken and kept on a National Database, for ever, even if you are not charged, or are charged but found not guilty.This also applies to children. Your home can be forcibly enetered by the VAT authorities and very many other "Officials" and without a warrant. You can be deported to USA because they want you but without a case being made against you (Speak to the Nat West 3 for details) After your death your body parts may be removed with permission or consent, for unspecefied purposes (Sellafield workers). £8000 spent prosecuting a 19 year old who "barked at dogs"; not guilty Google "Man barking at dogs" in Google news for the full stupidity! If it isn't close to a police state then it is an asylum with the lunatics running it!
|
My impression of Cheddar (over the years in here) is that of a man of integrity.
Thanks PU, likewise my impression of your good self.
|
The highly paid jobsworths who draft the laws leave loopholes? never?
isnt that so that the highly paid lawyers etc can find them and earn their crust?
|
what's the alternative then?
someone in officialdom says you're wrong so you automatically have to be wrong?
there's places in the world like that and i thank my lucky stars i'm here and not there
|
Westpig.
You have a point. I used to get wound up about people on this site that call the UK a Police State. It isn't. Ask anyone who has lived or worked in one and you'll relaize how lucky we are really.
|
Pugugly, with great respect to your profession and your views I ask you to look at my post above and to read this link to an article in which policeman say they were ordered to caution people for offences they had not committed in order to give an impression of successful activity and clear up rates.
tinyurl.com/yryxtz
Whether we are or are not a police state is a matter of opinion.Whatever we are, we are moving in that direction and is should be of concern to all of us and to the shame of those who 'lead' us.
|
Whether we are or are not a police state is a matter of opinion. .........
.......... and it can only be the opinion of people who have had regular brushes with the police. I've only ever had contact with the police once in my (lengthy) lifetime and that was merely as a witness to an RTA in which there had been a fatality. I wouldn't know whether we are in a police state or not, and I fully expect never to find out.
--
L\'escargot.
|
"Arrogant"? Guilty, your Honour.
I'll add to the evidence.
The point I've been trying to make is
i. we all know about speed cameras
ii. we all know about the offences - which are, almost always, alternatives - of speeding and failing to provide
iii. we all value our cars
iv. we're all responsible adults, or should be if we want to be able to drive
v. we have a responsibility for our actions
vi. if someone uses a car for which I am responsible, I ought to be able to keep a close enough watch on what's happening to be able to tell the police if my car is involved in the commission of an offence. If I can't, then I pay the penalty.
|
vi. if someone uses a car for which I am responsible I ought to be able to keep a close enough watch on what's happening to be able to tell the police if my car is involved in the commission of an offence. >>
Firstly GM, perhaps read the two main paragraphs in my post timed at 08:06 this morning to see if it now makes sense to you.
>>If I can't then I pay the penalty.>>
This is ths crux of the matter, if you can't tell who was driving then you can't simply take the penalty, if there is a chance that it was not you driving then you may be perverting the course of justice.
|
Cheddar, I have read all of your posts in this matter and I understand the point you are making.
I haven't been clear enough.
The penalty I am referring to is that for failing to provide. It doesn't involve "perjury" (see above) or misleading the court. It is simply the acceptance that Mrs C can't provide the name of the driver who committed the offence, and that she has no reasonable excuse for not doing so.
The rest of the argument is really on that final point, isn't it: whether she ought to have been able to keep track of who was using something for which she was responsible and which was used in the commission of a crime.
The alternative, surely, is to make the RK responsible for all offences committed with his vehicle.
|
And of course it's not perverting the course of justice.
8-0
|
Thanks for the clarification.
>>The alternative, surely, is to make the RK responsible for all offences committed with his vehicle.>>
No, the alternative, surely, is to make the authorities responsible for providing evidence as to who commited the offence for which they want to apply a penalty.
|
Thanks for the clarification. >>The alternative surely is to make the RK responsible for all offences committed with his vehicle.>> No the alternative surely is to make the authorities responsible for providing evidence as to who commited the offence for which they want to apply a penalty.
Correct and this is in fact the stance that anyone in a similar situation should take.
Something else I find disturbing here is the acceptance by some posters that revenue collection cameras are 100% accurate and that they preclude any debate.
|
This is ths crux of the matter if you can't tell who was driving then you can't simply take the penalty if there is a chance that it was not you driving then you may be perverting the course of justice.
Not at all. The law allows the registered keeper to nominate the driver. Your wife wouldn't be declaring categorically that that person was driving, she'd merely be saying that she nominated them to receive any resulting penalty. She has the right to do this. She doesn't deny that the car was speeding, so she merely has to decide who is best suited to receive the penalty.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
A Police state is a place where the Police operate Death Squads etc. Zimbabwe may be a budding one, I don;t think that the UK bears comparison. (yet)
|
Having a relative in Zimbabawe i'd agree that they are now a police state........
The UK might have its' flaws and we are definitely going down a road of less personal freedoms.....but we are nowhere near a police state
the fact that the Nick Freeman's of this world exist should show that.
Do we in this country worry that the local police commander has information on us about our politics, religious sensibilities etc and will act on them to our detriment........that's a big no.
Do we worry that we might be turfed out of our homes and persecuted for no real reason.......no
Do we worry that a govt official will ask the police to arrest someone purely for voicing an opinion or having a non governmental stance...no
Does the judiciary still have independence...yes
If you are worried about less personal freedoms and the hampering of independent police/judges actions etc, which there has been a worrying trend towards... then write to your MP and/or exercise your voting rights.........
|
Do we in this country worry that the local police commander has information on us about our politics, religious sensibilities etc and will act on them to our detriment........that's a big no.
They have this information but I am not concerened, yet, that it will be used improperly.
Do we worry that we might be turfed out of our homes and persecuted for no real reason.......no
Yes. Some people have been forced out of their homes by misguided and illegal actions of others, suspected of being a pardophile, threatened by chavs, without effective recourse to the law, or protection from it to prevent this, especially in the past, Northern Ireland.
Do we worry that a govt official will ask the police to arrest someone purely for voicing an opinion or having a non governmental stance...no
Yes. You can be arrested and found guilty of an offence if you read out a list of the names of war dead at their memorial - the Cenotaph. Google "Maya Evans" for details of this insulting and heavy handed prevention of free speech.
Police state - not yet, but we are getting there
|
And don't forget the 80 year old Labour supporter, who having arrived at the Party Conference by car, was thrown out by a bunch of heavies because he shouted "Rubbish" at some minister who was on the platform spouting rubbish! Free speech? Not even within the closed doors of the conference!
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
Have a read (with the usual cautions and safeguards) and run the test.
|
Do we in this country worry that the local police commander has information on us about our politics religious sensibilities etc and will act on them to our detriment........that's a big no. They have this information but I am not concerened yet that it will be used improperly.
I can assure you they do not have this information.........not for the vast amount of the general public they don't anyway........that's not to say the odd extremist hasn't got an entry with maybe the security services or special branch........but even that would not be available to the local police..........99.9% of this country has absolutely nothing to fear on that front........and rightly so
>>
|
OK I agree that my local policeman doesn't know how I vote or where I worship but I am sure there is some stuff on file and plenty more available - Place of work, ex-directory phone numbers, recent e mails, bank accounts etc if it is 'required' DNA in about 1 person in 20 of the whole population. It doesn't bother me but it does concern me - there is a difference. I have clear concience but an uneasy mind!
|
"Place of work, ex-directory phone numbers, recent e mails, bank accounts etc if it is "
Yes if they can get a RIPA. There are safeguards even in this potty Country, I am afraid that New Labour are turning this place into an Orwell's nightmare, Home Office being split - I'm off to Joycamp if they call one branch the Ministry of Love and the other the Ministry of Truth.
I wonder how many people who brandish terms like, Orwellian, Big Brother etc have actually read the book. I can recommend it.
|
PU. 1984 but also including the cast of Animal Farm - think Prescott!
|
think Prescott!
I have often (with a silent "t") thought that AS !
|
AS,
In isolation from the allegation that the UK is a Police State I accept what you say - but only to an extent. The fixers are being mis-used in some areas, but getting a fixer isn't the end of it, the fixee can still go to Court to argue his case and then the Police would have several hurdles to clear (including CPS review) before they got a conviction or even a trial. You can't be Cautioned unless you accept it - you can still go for trial. I could illustrate with real life examples here. The much maligned and misunderstood Human Rights Act is a huge safeguard here in extremis. Only this month the Police have lost the power to clear up offences using Home Office rules, which I beliece is a move forward. I agree totally with your last paragraph.
|
Having thought about it, I agree with the principle of allowing the registered keeper to nominate the driver when the authorities don't categorically know who it was. As a taxpayer I don't want the authorities having to spend loads of my money trying to find out who the driver was just to recover a piffling £60 fine.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Having thought about it I agree with the principle of allowing the registered keeper to nominate the driver when the authorities don't categorically know who it was. As a taxpayer I don't want the authorities having to spend loads of my money trying to find out who the driver was just to recover a piffling £60 fine. -- L\'escargot.
While it's nice that you and others agree with this principal (as is your right to do) I think I'm correct in saying that this isn't currently the state of the law.
A registered keeper still has the option of stating that despite exercising due care and diligence they are unaware of who was driving a vehicle at any given time. Leaving the onus of proof with the authorities.
|
While it's nice that you and others agree with this principal (as is your right to do) I think I'm correct in saying that this isn't currently the state of the law. A registered keeper still has the option of stating that despite exercising due care and diligence they are unaware of who was driving a vehicle at any given time. Leaving the onus of proof with the authorities.
The law allows the registered keeper to nominate the driver. Obviously if the registered keeper decides not to accept this option then the authorities have to take the matter further. I would imagine that in this case a conviction would carry a greater penalty, which would help to recover the additional costs.
--
L\'escargot.
|
The law allows the registered keeper to nominate the driver. Obviously if the registered keeper decides not to accept this option then the authorities have to take the matter further. I would imagine that in this case a conviction would carry a greater penalty which would help to recover the additional costs. -- L\'escargot.
Agreed that this option is open to those that unquestioningly accept what they are told. However i think that it's very important that people realise that the option of contesting the charges and forcing the authorities to do their jobs is open to them.
It's a route that many people such as myself have chosen. In my opinion the state should also have to reimburse me for my reasonable costs in refuting their groundless allegations.
|
However i think that it's very important that people realise that the option of contesting the charges and forcing the authorities to do their jobs is open to them. It's a route that many people such as myself have chosen. In my opinion the state should also have to reimburse me for my reasonable costs in refuting their groundless allegations.
too true. If the job is to be done, it should be done properly i.e. within the guidelines and within the law......we should never get to the point where employees of the state start presuming they are right and the population has to go along with their undemocratic rulings
in my view some (to date relatively minor) dictats from safety camera partnerships have been bordering on this........and it leaves a sour taste
|
However i think that it's very important that people realise that the option of contesting the charges and forcing the authorities to do their jobs is open to them.
Well, I just hope everybody doesn't do it. Otherwise our taxes will probably go up.
--
L\'escargot.
|
"Whether we are or are not a police state is a matter of opinion."
This may not be a police state, but it is in a mess. Routinely government IT projects collapse or fail. Witness the current fiasco over junior doctors, due to botched IT systems, the current NHS IT scheme which is over budget and poor, the earlier CSA scheme and so on. And these people are discussing road pricing with charging by the mile. Yeah, right.
And we have this weird target driven culture, where success is measured by targets, which distort delivery away from providing a good service to one of achieving targets at any cost. I have heard statements on R4 from people who claim to be police employees that achieving targets impacts on 'service delivery' i.e. solving crime.
As an IT contractor I know why these government projects fail. It is because they get seduced by the highly paid smooth talking salesmen from the big IT consultancies who sell them the Earth, at a ridiculously low price which they know they cannot achieve just to get the contract, with no real comeback when it fails or goes breasts up.
I seem to have drifted away from the main thread ...
|
|
I believe that this country needs a proper up to date Bill of Rights and Constitution so that issues like this a properly regulated. New Labour bleated long an hard about constitutional reform when they begging votes, but in reality not much has changed.
|
Why dont we all just get 2 people in our cars and go for long drives changing seats anywhere we can forget and drive at speeds in excess of the limits and deny any responsibility for our actions?
That is what is being spoken about on here !
Grow up, stand up, and be counted!
Get the law changed by all means but accept your responsibilites to society.
I hate speed cameras. been caught once. Don't intend getting caught again. How? Because I ensure I pass speed cameras at legal speeds.
Lets all go stealing from shops and deny it, mug oap's and deny it, hit people and deny it. Its the same principal.
I say again, I am responsible for 4 (or more ) cars at any time and I know who was driving what when. I dont want the aggro of having to keep formal records which is where your arrogant, selfish, money backed, arguments are going!
But me and 1 other are apparantly the arrogant ones ! It appears we are the ones owning up to our responasbilites to me !
|
Yorkiebar: ?I say again, I am responsible for 4 (or more ) cars at any time and I know who was driving what when. I don?t want the aggro of having to keep formal records which is where your arrogant, selfish, money backed, arguments are going!?
Try reading what Cheddar said above: ?It is a local road, the same car was driven by two people independently along the same stretch of road about 20 to 30mins apart, to illustrate the point all the SCP can say is that the vehicle was driven past the camera once at 14:17 (not actual time) however were the two journeys the car made at, say, 14:02 and 14:17 or 14:17 and 14:32? If the former it was person X driving at 14:17, if the latter it was person Y driving at 14:17, we simply don?t know.?
Do you really know to the nearest 15 minutes who was driving your ?4 or more? cars two or three weeks ago? Really? Really, really? If you do, I suggest you must already be keeping formal records. I suspect it?d be nigh on impossible to state with certainty who was driving at an exact time in the circumstances Cheddar outlines.
It?s almost as if you?ve decided he?s trying to pull a fast one and you?re trying to make the facts fit that preconception.
V
PS Good to be back!
|
I remind you !
He knows the road, he knows the camera!
But he doesnt remember going past it ? Or at what speed?
If that is the case then he or his wife, was driving without due care and attention. A crime far higher, rightly so !
The photo should be along soon enough; I hope he has the strength of character to stand up and admit who was driving when he has had this chance!
We all know cameras exist; they are signposted too !
But it still appears to be ok to speed and not remember who was driving by the majority of people on here.
The argument appears to be getting more of "how do I get out of this" or "the law is an ass so I can speed ok " than whether photo is available to help or not!
|
|
I wonder if Yorkiebar is having difficulty breathing due to the thinness of the air on top of his pedestal?
|
And you leif should choose which side of the argument you are on?
You seem to change opinions on differnt threads.
When I am wrong I stand up for it. Do you ?
Nanny state syndrome. Oh I don't like this so I am going to pretend it wasnt me unless they find me !
You may disagree with my viewpoint, Its healthy that people do. But do you really agree that its ok to speed regradless, or ignore your responsibilites in law? Choose which type of society you want and act accordingly.
Many here dont want a police state, but dont want to be responsible for their actions either!
|
Yorkiebar: From your posts you are making various accusations including implying that the OP is a liar, dishonest, and a criminal. I really do think you are going way over the top and becoming offensive, though the OP does not seem insulted, so I guess that might be my interpretation only. But I also think that you are completely missing the entire point of the original post, and coming out with (as someone has said) a knee jerk response. The points you are making are totally orthogonal to the original post.
There was a recent programme about speed cameras on R4. It is a pity you missed it.
And to address the point as to how they could have driven past a speed camera, and not realised they were speeding, it is quite possible. I obey non motorway speed limits, for various reasons, and not necessarily because I agree with each limit. However, I have nearly been caught 3 times in 18 months by the same camera. This has never happened before, and has only occurred since moving to Luton. It is after a roundabout, and it is always when I approach from one direction. I never have a problem when approaching from another direction. Why? Because in one direction the 30 signs are well before the roundabout, and I see them. From the other direction they are placed where the road joins the roundabout. I am too busy avoiding being side swiped by other cars, and watching oncoming vehicles to notice the signs. (Luton drivers have no lane discipline, and I have learnt to be very careful.) In other words, the plonkers who designed the road placed the 30 signs at a place of maximum hazard. Morons. Utter morons. After all, is not the reason for the 30 limit to ensure safety? Hence should not the signs be abundantly clear to everyone? Is that not their purpose? Rather than to generate an income?
|
The kneejerk opinions are coming from those that are supporting speeding is acceptable until proven guilty! The very point why speed cameras actually came into force!
The camera was on a road he knows, he knows the camera too!
Was he/she speeding? That point has been missed by so many people its laughable!
|
|
Well in fairness to Cheddar, whose integrity remains in tact as far as I am concerned, he does question the NIP inasmuch as he questions whether the camera was mis-calibrated or his car cloned both issues in respect of automated enforcement. He also expresses surprise at getting the blinking NIP in the first place as he knew where the camera is for goodness sake.
|
Thats the first sensible reply for ages !
If he is adamant neither he or his wife were speeding then its important to fight!
If however................................
|
The kneejerk opinions are coming from those that are supporting speeding is acceptable until proven
Until 'speeding' is proven it didn't actually happen officially. If it didn't happen then there's no case to answer.
Surely we are all aware of the cases of people accused of driving of speeds that their cars weren't actually capable of? Should they have just taken responsibility for something they can't possibly have done?
I've avoided talking about it in my own case but I'm pretty sure that the lease car we were in (A SDI Fabia) couldn't possibly have been doing 96mph as was alleged. Not only do we never drive much faster than 70ish mph on long journeys the car would take hours to get upto such heady speeds......my RS Audi on the other hand is another matter, thank God I drive it mostly in a country with less pathetic laws regarding speed..........
|
I too detest speed cameras and believe bad driving is far more of an offence.
However, just because it didnt happen "officially" doesnt make it right to speed?
Is the op protesting against the sped he was recorded at? A very bad case to be defended fully if so! No, he is protesting at having to admit to guilt !
Did he pass the camera at speed? He doesnt know? Nor do I (for fact, but have an opinion) ! But if he did, you still think it is acceptable to deny it. I don't!
There are no cars in this country (apart from possibly a very few vintage models) that are incapable of breaking speed limits, so the skoda example is very poor argument?
I am not advocating accepting punishment regardless, no matter what you and a few others appear to believe.
talk about me not reading the posts !
|
Yorkiebar: "But he doesnt remember going past it ? Or at what speed?"
Two or three weeks ago on a road they use all the time? Try thinking about what cheddar said rather than just knee jerking a response.
And bear in mind, when you're throwing out suggestions that he was breaking a law - "If that is the case then he or his wife, was driving without due care and attention" that you seem to be asking him to lie and say he DOES know who was driving. You're inciting an act of perjury. Now that really IS a crime!
V
|
So its ok to drive past a speed/safety camera unaware of what speed you are doing? If thats not driving without due care and attention, what is?
At no point as the OP EVER denied speeding ?
|
Op isn't here to admit whether he was speeding or not - he is asking for procedural information. As there is doubt as to was driving the car HE can't admit to speeding anyway - it was the car with OP or his wife at the wheel - we don't know which, neither do they and we are waiting to see if a photograph tells us anything.
|
Right!
If op was definite neither he nor his wife was speeding at the time of the "alleged" ofence then all the information on how to avoid the fine and points is good.
If he is not sure, which is where my point is, especially regarding the state of driving, then the information is a little misguided until he has received the photo?
Is speeding acceptable or not is a very important question that is ignored by those advocating the "protest protest protest" points of view!
|
cor, cheddar does know how to produce mega threads.
i think the trick is to use these magic religious words: speed-camera or global-warming.
|
Is speeding acceptable or not is a very important question that is ignored by those advocating the "protest protest protest" points of view!
I don't see this thread as being that.........(i think curbing excessive speeding at inappropriate times is very important.......but equally important is this country retaining it's often hard fought democracy and generally reasonable legal system)
i see this thread as being about the eroding of some rights and the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. It happens to use speeding as the example, but it could in reality have been anything.
the 'anything' might well be important and probably is.......but it's the bigger picture stuff.
the state is supposed to 'prove' you guilty.......you shouldn't have to prove you didn't do it.. or incriminate yourself.
It might make my job infinitely more easy if people did have to prove their innocence...but at what cost to us all.....in my view a great cost and one not worth having, even if people get away with things
|
"Is speeding acceptable or not is a very important question that is ignored by those advocating the "protest protest protest" points of view!"
And is entirely irrelevant to what the OP is commenting on. You may want it to be relevant, but that doesn't make it so. The thread (should you care to read it) is based around someone who simply doesn't know who was driving their car at a given time two or three weeks ago when it was flashed. You seem to want it to run into a prosecution for driving without due care and attention, for some bizarre reason.
Try reading the original post and his later clarifications rather than banging on and on about how he SHOULD have known. He's said he doesn't. Live with it and try dealing with the questions raised.
V
|
Message received and understood.
Whenever I want to go out for a drive, ensure 2 drivers are in the car, wearing face masks.
Change driving positions as often as you like, but forget where.
If and when NIP arrives in the post, ask for photo evidence and say that the picture looks like neither of you (because of the face masks) and therefore any "speeding" COULD NOT have happened.
If that is too far for you to read and understand then so be it !
Whilst this may be stretching this thread a little it is exactly where it is going with the continuing arguments of not knowing who was in what seat when!
I have now moved on ! I hope others do too!
|
"Message received and understood."
Not our message; just your deliberate distortion of it.
"Whenever I want to go out for a drive, ensure 2 drivers are in the car, wearing face masks.
Change driving positions as often as you like, but forget where."
And what relationship does that bear to the original post?
"Whilst this may be stretching this thread a little it is exactly where it is going with the continuing arguments of not knowing who was in what seat when!"
No. You're talking about a deliberate attempt to avoid prosecution. What you seem unable to see is that the OP may in fact be genuine. At NO POINT has he said that the speeding offence didn't happen.
"I have now moved on ! I hope others do too!"
Ah. You've decided the argument's won, so it is.
V
|
No vin the argument is not won!
Its still as clear as mud if you understand ALL the arguments?
I have moved on though!
It is nice to now that democracy wins and the majority are right and the minority is attempted to be forced out by such STUPID posts as this one !
|
I have moved on though!
Thank heavens for that. DD.
|
Yorkiebar: "It is nice to now that democracy wins and the majority are right and the minority is attempted to be forced out by such STUPID posts as this one !"
Shame he's moved on; I'd have liked him to explain what that meant.
V
|
I agree that it is not Government policy and never may be but it is an indication of the mindset of the control freaks at the top!
armitage : glad you agree. the control freaks like their drink too much to do anything about this proposal from a non-governmental organisation (otherwise why do you think gordon-brown has consistently allowed the tax on alcohol to fall below what inflation should dictate?). he knows it is much more acceptable to tax smokers and car-owners/drivers/users.
|
">I seem to have drifted away from the main thread ...<"
I concur, it's Cheddy wot done it. it's a fair cop sure enough .... guv ;-)
Our personal freedoms are being eroded, strangely enough in the name of freedom. I can't recall a time when the authorities have been regarded with such cynical disdain by so many electors, or is that my jaundice?
No, wait, that's wrong. Jaundiced opinion. Or cynicism.
Pug must have been feeling the effects of the sun when he linked to that font of inaccuracy Wickedpedia. The true test is:
"When I walk past plod, will he beat me up?" With one or two manic exceptions, the answer in the UK is very much no. Now visit any country outside Western Europe and ask the same question. It does worry me though that my right to silence effectively disappeared several years. And I had to take my shoes off at a UK airport this week. And I assume that all my phone calls are recorded by the yanks. And I assume that my every movement in London is on CCTV.
But the sun was out today, some hydrocarbons were burnt this morning, and again this pm. The RTA was viewed with some flexibility when no-one was looking and I even swerved to avoid a rabbit. Which is unusual for me, although I was thinking about the resultant mess under the wheelarch.
"Oh to be in England, now that spring is here."
I am.
|
"I can't recall a time when the authorities have been regarded with such cynical disdain by so many electors, or is that my jaundice?"
Sorry to hear about your jaundice. Cynicism of authority is indeed at an all time high and the reasons are all too obvious to bother repeating. I am sceptical that a Tory government would cure the cynicism, though it would give a well deserved kick up the jacksy to Blair et al.
|
Yorkiebar: " The kneejerk opinions are coming from those that are supporting speeding is acceptable until proven guilty! The very point why speed cameras actually came into force!"
I think you should read the posts before you reply to them.
|
Leif
Whether you like my opinions or not, they are consistent in their belief.
Yours, as I have said before, are not.
I read, digest and understand.
I believe in social responsibility. I hate speed cameras.
Whilst there has been some good arguments (imo) back and forth, the thread has surely now been done, overdone and more?
I personally await for the OP to comment when he has had the chance to see the photo.
|
Leif Whether you like my opinions or not they are consistent in their belief.
So were Hitlers. I fail to see the relevance.
Yours as I have said before are not.
Justify that statement.
I read digest and understand.
Not on current evidence. You went well off topic and started ascribing opinions to people based on your own prejudices rather than what they said.
I believe in social responsibility. I hate speed cameras.
Good for you.
Whilst there has been some good arguments (imo) back and forth the thread has surely now been done overdone and more? I personally await for the OP to comment when he has had the chance to see the photo.
Yes I too am interested.
|
"Pug must have been feeling the effects of the sun when he linked to that font of inaccuracy Wickedpedia. The true test is:"
"Have a read (with the usual cautions and safeguards) and run the test."
I did include a PU disclaimer in that reply !
I prefer your definition by the way.
|
I for one would love to see how this turns out.
The arguements are very interesting etc but I am very keen to see how it works out for Chedder's wife.
After all, despite all our opinions etc, the outcome of this is what really matters.
I hope that this is dropped, and I wish Chedder and his wife the best of luck in securing that outcome.
|
Thanks Hugo!
Jeez, how this has run and run, while I was slaving over a hot BBQ just about keeping sane with the help of cold beer and good company little did I know that this was running and running and..........
>>cor, cheddar does know how to produce mega threads.>>
Dalglish, I think you are right re the terms: speed camera and global warming!
Just to say, Les'cargot said:
"Not at all. The law allows the registered keeper to nominate the driver. Your wife wouldn't be declaring categorically that that person was driving, she'd merely be saying that she nominated them to receive any resulting penalty. She has the right to do this. She doesn't deny that the car was speeding, so she merely has to decide who is best suited to receive the penalty."
I dont think this is right, to nominate another driver the keeper does not have to be 100% sure that it was that person driving at the time of the offence though they do HAVE to be 100% sure that they were NOT driving themselves at the time of the offence.
In our case it was on balance most likley my wife herself driving though we simply cannot be 100% sure (perhaps 65 / 35) so are waiting for the photo evidence to see if it helps.
|
Sorry to draw this on and on! L-escargot says
"She doesn't deny that the car was speeding, so she merely has to decide who is best suited to receive the penalty."
People have been prosecuted and convicted of perverting the cause of justice by nominating someone who was not driving to take the points ie to save someone getting a totting up ban, so nominating someone for 'convenience' could be very risky. See recent cases involving a Lake District family and Mr 'Loophole' and also a couple who nominated a friend from Hungary as the driver of their speeding car.
Nominating someone who was not or may not have been driving the car to take the penalty has a potentially very serious outome and penalties. Two of the Lake District lot have gone to prison although there was perjury and a deliberate attempt to alter the outcome of the case.
|
Nominating someone who was not or may not have been driving the car to take the penalty has a potentially very serious outome and penalties. >>
As I said, to nominate another driver the keeper does not have to be 100% sure that it was that person driving at the time of the offence. for instance if my wife lent her car to her brother she could nominate him even though her sister-in-law could have been driving at the time of the offence. It would then be up to b-i-l and s-i-l rto sort it out between them.
However if she were to nominate someone else she would HAVE TO BE 100% SURE that she herself was NOT driving he time of the offence.
|
As I understand it the relevant sentence says "It is the legal responsibility of the vehicle's keeper to nominate who was driving at the time of the alleged offence.", and to me the important word is "nominate". Well, I've looked up the word "nominate" in several online dictionaries and they all give a similar common meaning, namely suggest, choose, pick, etc. I can't see that the authorities can reasonably expect the average person to interpret the word as meaning anything other than that. If the person nominated is prepared to accept their nomination then I can't see that there should be a problem.
--
L\'escargot.
|
As I understand it the relevant sentence says "It is the legal responsibility of the vehicle's keeper to nominate who was driving at the time of the alleged offence." .......... If the person nominated is prepared to accept their nomination then I can't see that there should be a problem.
However if the reg keeper is to nominate someone else they HAVE TO BE 100% SURE that they themselsves were NOT driving he time of the offence otherwise they could be in big trouble it seems.
So as it stands we think the wife was driving though are only perhaps 65/35 sure in this regard, not the required 100%.
|
The NIP says "What to do if you are not sure who was driving during the alleged offence."
There are two possibilities .........
(a) The registered keeper is sure that they themselves were driving, in which case the above sentence doesn't apply and they obviously would have no reason to nominate another person as the driver.
(b) The registered keeper is not sure that they themselves were driving, in which case they are entitled to nominate a driver ~ it can be themselves or it can be someone else.
In this instance, because Mrs cheddar is not sure who was driving she is entitled to nominate a driver.
No ifs, no buts, no maybes.
--
L\'escargot.
|
That's poor old Cheddar said in his first post in a roundabout way !
200 !
|
Fine L'escargot I read what the NIP says. However, if the named keeper had 9 points on their licence, how 'not sure' might they turn out to be and thus nominate a no point colleague to take the hit for them. Being 'not sure' and then making a statement that lays 100% blame on someone else doesn't seem quite right. Mind you, it is the law so it will never be easy and sometimes 'not right'!
|
However if the named keeper had 9 points on their licence how 'not sure' might they turn out to be and thus nominate a no point colleague to take the hit for them.
Would a mere colleague agree to it? Between husband (cheddar) and wife (Mrs cheddar) it's a different matter.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Colleague might, particularly if there was some inducement offered! I understand that there are websites where impoverished students with clean licences offer to take points for cash! Obviously this really is attempting to pervert the course of what we laughingly call justice, where speed cameras are involved!
|
|
Unless you like taking a cold shower with a bunch of other guys first thing in the morning I suggest the idea of a non guilty party taking the points stops here as there is a prison sentence attributed to perverting the course of justice and it have been used. Suerly by now Cheddar has got the photo. He does not seem to have posted on Pepipoo.com. I would however warn him that that site is read by the scamera offices and there have been cases of direct approaches by the police to individuals who have posted there situation on the site. If the police rear this thread I suspect Cheddar would get a knock on the door form the BiB. Regards Peter
|
If the police rear this thread I suspect Cheddar would get a knock on the door form the BiB. Regards Peter
westpig certainly has read and commented on this thread. and possibly flat-in-fifth and midlifecrisis also have read it.
in which case, cheddar had better become a fugitve and hop off to brazil (if peter-d is to be believed) ! :: ;-) ::
|
There are supposed to be 2 guiding principles in British Justice:
1. Innocent until proven guilty
2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Both of these seem to be suspended so far as speed cameras are concerned (but that's a different rant).
In Cheddar' case, both he and Mrs C are innocent until someone proves them guilty. He cannot say for sure (ie beyond reasonable doubt) that he or his misssus was driving. The police are unlikely to be able to prove either. So, allow case to go to court, stand up and say yes, both drove that day <30mins apart cannot remember who was driving at the time, cannot prove it (ie cc slip or similar from purchase during journey). Police will stand up and say car caught speeding, but evidence does not show who was driving. Case dismissed.
At least that's what should happen....
If you GENUINELY cannot work out who was driving then you should say so.
--
RichardW
Is it illogical? It must be Citroen....
|
And how would the police find out where Cheddar lived - or are my neurotic and derided comments about how much the police know about indivduals (see 100 posts ago!), actually based on fact? I think we should be told!
|
|
I'd look for a 2002ish Mondeo TDCi driven proudly around the Cheddar area. Probably looks like it has been polished every day................. ;-)
|
RichardW (and others, to be fair) suggested that, because Cheddar says neither he nor his wife can remember who was driving, all he has to do is to say that to the court and he should be entitled to an acquittal.
Can he suggest a means by which the court could distinguish between those people who genuinely cannot remember, and those who are lying?
|
If the police rear this thread I suspect Cheddar would get a knock on the door form the BiB. Regards Peter>>
Why? Nothing to hide, I have just presented the facts as they are, furthermore I discussed it on my wife's behalf with a helpful chap from the SCP when asking for the photo.
Expected the photo today though not here, should be in the post tomorrow.
|
Actually, all of us have been involved in the discussion, so we're all implicated in a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.
Just off to hand myself in.
|
RichardW (and others to be fair) suggested that because Cheddar says neither he nor his wife can remember who was driving all he has to do is to say that to the court and he should be entitled to an acquittal. Can he suggest a means by which the court could distinguish between those people who genuinely cannot remember and those who are lying?
I am of the view that the SCP show not be able to prosecute unless they can prove who was driving, if that premise were applied they would by default be also be able to prove who was lying.
However GM, this reminds me of a question I was going to ask you 50 posts or more back, you talked about accepting the penalty, I though you meant accepting the condtional offer and I said I thought that would be wrong when the RK cannot be 100% sure who was driving.
So what penalty are you meaning, how is it applied, what does in constitute? Any info much appreciated.
Thanks.
|
The NIP says "What to do if you are not sure who was driving during the alleged offence." There are two possibilities ......... (a) The registered keeper is sure that they themselves were driving in which case the above sentence doesn't apply and they obviously would have no reason to nominate another person as the driver. (b) The registered keeper is not sure that they themselves were driving in which case they are entitled to nominate a driver ~ it can be themselves or it can be someone else. In this instance because Mrs cheddar is not sure who was driving she is entitled to nominate a driver. No ifs no buts no maybes. --
There is a "but":
But (b) above is a wrong intepretation IMO, it should read:
(b) The registered keeper is sure that they themselves were not driving they are entitled to nominate another driver.
|
There is a "but": But (b) above is a wrong intepretation IMO it should read: (b) The registered keeper is sure that they themselves were not driving they are entitled to nominate another driver.
Sorry:
If the registered keeper is sure that they themselves were not driving they are entitledto nominate another driver.
|
If you consider you can't name the driver, you'll face an alternative charge of Failing to provide details of the driver (as others have observed, the prosecution couldn't provide sufficient evidence to convince the court beyond reasonable doubt as to who was driving without your evidence), s. 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 (www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_8....2) - sorry, I don't know how to do the abbreviated links.
Failure to provide contains within it the possibility of a defence: subsection (3) says "A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle ... was."
Your mission, Cheddar, should you decide to accept it, is to persuade a bench that you "did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained ...".
|
|
Sorry, I was so long finding the link that my answer to your post 2 above got separated.
|
|
Thanks GM, will have a good look at that link.
|
SNIP ! Unnecessary quoting of post being replied to removed.
See www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=42612 for more details - DD
Your mission Cheddar should you decide to accept it is to persuade a bench that you "did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained ...".
Write them a polite and pleading letter (sent recorded delivery) asking them to 'help them to help you' in deciding who to nominate. Make clear that you WANT THEM to tell you WHO to nominate if the photographic evidence isn't clear. Also make sure that you say in the letter you have made every effort to find out who was the guilty party but despite every effort you are unable to.
My guess is that without photo evidence the whole thing will be dropped before it ever comes to court. Just like my case ;-)
|
Can he suggest a means by which the court could distinguish between those people who genuinely cannot remember and those who are lying?
It used to be that swarthy looking people and those with Scouse accents were lying, and posh middle class people were telling the truth. Things have changed.
To answer your question seriously, they can't. There are many problems with the innocent until proven guilty approach, but I'll accept it as the best available.
|
As regards the penalty, it's also 3 points and a fine. Usually pretty much what the speeding fine would be.
You may end up having to pay the prosecution costs, too: depends what your local bench is like.
|
Got the photos, rather computer print-outs - you have to pay for photos, this doesn't help in the slightest and I don't think a photo would help even if the resolution were much better.
Wife used to be undecided though now she's not so sure !
---------
How far apart are the lines painted on the road (Gatso), I thought I had read 1 meter previously and it looks like about that.
?
Thanks.
|
|
How much did they make you pay? I presume this cost is refundable when you are proven to be innocent?
|
|
Can you tell whether its your car ?
|
Can you tell whether its your car ?
>>
PU,
What's your slant on them not providing the photographic evidence unless the person pays for them...and providing very low grade photocopies that are hard to distinguish anything on?
I would have thought that a court would look dimly on this if the owner stated what has already been discussed and that they were willing to look at the evidence to narrow it down, but couldn't because the police wouldn't provide it.
personally although i understand the costs issue.......i think if you're trying to say to someone we're going to prosecute you (or someone else nominated) and that person has difficulty establishing who it was.......then the onus should be on the police to properly establish that fact....even if it costs......and carpy photocopies do not fulfil this
|
Westpig,
I think the truth lies between the two poles (IYKWIM), if everybody wanted Hi Def photos for nothing it would cost far far more to process these cases, guess they're covering their sosts on this, it would be an interesting angle to take in Court though.....
|
Sorry to butt in on a question to PU ("i think if you're trying to say to someone we're going to prosecute you (or someone else nominated) and that person has difficulty establishing who it was.......then the onus should be on the police to properly establish that fact....even if it costs......and carpy photocopies do not fulfil this") but the photographic evidence is not there to prove who was driving, but to prove that a particular car was being driven too fast. It is sometimes useful to allow the RK to distinguish between/among a number of candidates for the "Who was driving?" prize but that's an ancillary purpose. The onus remains on the RK to show he has a reasonable excuse for not being able to identify the speeder.
And that is also why OldHand's prosecution was not pursued, I think: he had a reasonable excuse (whether or not it was true) since, on his account, months had passed between the offence and his learning of it.
|
Update:
Spoke to SCP office today on wife's behalf (she is at work) to be told that unless it is a blatant case of one person taking another's points they are really not that interested in who was driving, therefore my wife would not be committing an offence if she returned the NIP as the driver even though she is not totally 100% sure she was driving (for reasons stated earlier in the thread).
It really is just revenue generation!
An analogy might be crime stats and the Police/CPS prosecuting an individual based on an admission even though they have no conclusive evidence of them commiting the crime because they want to close the case rather than ensure that the actual culprit is aprehended.
|
Sounds like it's time to make sure you have a reasonable reason for not knowing. I know you have one but I mean a reasonable excuse in the eyes of a law which is slanted in favour of finding someone guilty even if it cannot prove who it was.
Have you joined pepipoo and talked to them about it?
|
..Spoke to SCP office today .. to be told that unless it is a blatant case ..
i may be very wrong, but i would be surprised if the pperson you spoke to at scp would be prepared to put that in writing.
for starters, the person is probably a junior civilian clerk whose job is to collect the fines.
secondly, how do "they" decide if it is blatant, or less than blatant.
thirdly, i had better stop here ....
|
thirdly, i had better stop here ....
on the other hand, i will add the thirdly:
thirdly, on what grounds are they willing discuss with you alleged "speeding" matters relating to a car registered in her name? have they asked for your id or confirmation that you have the authority to act for her in this matter?
|
thirdly on what grounds are they willing discuss with you alleged "speeding" matters relating to a car registered in her name? have they asked for your id or confirmation that you have the authority to act for her in this matter?
Seems that the NIP ref, the car reg number, the keeper's name and the keeper's DOB is enough.
|
>> ..Spoke to SCP office today .. to be told that unless it is a blatant case .. i may be very wrong but i would be surprised if the pperson you spoke to at scp would be prepared to put that in writing.
In his place I would ask for that to be put down in writing. As westpig indicates later on, that is utterly disgraceful and suggests that punishing the transgressor is not the motivation.
|
Spoke to SCP office today on wife's behalf (she is at work) to be told that unless it is a blatant case of one person taking another's points they are really not that interested in who was driving therefore my wife would not be committing an offence if she returned the NIP as the driver even though she is not totally 100% sure she was driving .........
I hate to say "I told you so", but ........... ;-)
--
L\'escargot.
|
>> Spoke to SCP office today on wife's behalf (she is at work) to be told that unless it is a blatant case of one person taking another's points they are really not that interested in who was driving therefore my wife would not be committing an offence if she returned the NIP as the driver even though she is not totally 100% sure she was driving .........
that is absolutely outrageous.........did you get a name?.....I'd put money on it that person would deny the conversation is you pursued it.
That is some minion trying to make their job easier having no regard for the bigger picture. So the unofficial spokesperson from the SCP (on this occasion) is saying 'we don't care who did it as long as we get the money'.......can't see the officialdom liking that comment.......even if the reality is it is true
somewhere along the line.....if an employee of the SCP knows that a lady is unsure of who the driver was of her car....and thinks it might be her husband.....but processes the docs on that basis so that the lady cops the fine and points......then they (the SCP worker) are 'perverting the course of justice' because they are ensuring the wrong person is dealt with.......surely?
|
that is absolutely outrageous.........did you get a name?.....I'd put money on it that person would deny the conversation is you pursued it.
I dont think it is so outrageous that they said that, to me it is simply the reality matching my suspicions in that keeping revenues up and costs down (which pleases our friendly Snail) is ultimatley more important than establishing guilt, however it is outrageous that it is allowed to happen in a democratic society where innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the basis of law enforcement.
|
It really is just revenue generation!
I'd be surprised if a £60 fine covers the overheads, especially in this instance! And it'll be us poor taxpayers making up the deficit.
--
L\'escargot.
|
>> It really is just revenue generation! I'd be surprised if a £60 fine covers the overheads especially in this instance! And it'll be us poor taxpayers making up the deficit. -- L\'escargot.
Reckon they make a tidy little profit on most cases and all we have cost them is two phone calls and three sheet of 80gsm laser paper.
However what is more important, providing conclusive evidence to back up a procecution so the guilty party is prosecuted or not worrying whether the guilty party is apprehended as long as revenue targets are met?
|
all we have cost them is two phone calls and three sheet of 80gsm laser paper...........
.......... and the envelopes and the postage and the labour and the overheads and .........
Very few people assess properly the costs of doing things.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Very few people assess properly the costs of doing things.
Well I can assess what two phone calls, a few sheets of paper, a couple of envelopes etc should cost so if they are losing money on a £60 fine that is something else they are doing wrong IMO.
|
"Well I can assess what two phone calls, a few sheets of paper, a couple of envelopes etc should cost so if they are losing money on a £60 fine that is something else they are doing wrong IMO."
Well you have to pay someone to process the stuff, capital and revenue costs of the hardware both, salaries an oncosts, building leases, electricity bills, rates &c
|
|
told you so.imo the police just get annoyed when people try to get away without paying. then they go for you 5 to 28 days in prison , criminal record, as opposed to £60 fine and 3 pointsfor traffic offence.
|
Try to get away without paying = pleading not guilty! Dear Oh Dear we can't have that can we?
Police get annoyed - what a tragedy!
|
|
Wife is erring on simply taking it on the chin which frankly is the easiest option and on balance it was most likley she that was driving however we are not 100% sure. If she does we might well write in complaining about the process, the lack of evidence, why she felt compelled to cough up despite not being 100% sure, i.e. to avoid court and higher pentlies and that the clerk at the SCP said it was OK etc - just to see what response we get.
|
|
I haven't heard of anyone getting jail time for failing to name the driver. Can you tell us an example?
|
|
hi old hand, do you remember the famous one a little while ago, . the guilty went abroad on hliday and sent a postcard back home as his alabi, tried to say it was a relatie in india , ithink , but the name they gave didnt exist, the police went looking , cost them a fortune,. write now theirs ,, some taxi drivers in prison, for this very offence, ton keep thier jobs they try and nominate someone else, whitch is a bit dodgy if that person dosent have a taxi licence.
|
Yes but they didn't fail to name the driver - they nominated someone who definitely was not driving. That is the difference!
|
|
I am amazed this thread has created so much interest and so many posts. This is my first post in this thread. There have been a number of suggestions that, unless the police can prove who was driving, then there should be no prosecution. If this is the case, then surely it would be easy to adopt the strategy that it could have been one of two or more people in many cases. My wife and I both drive either of our cars at different times, so if one of the cars was caught speeding on camera, we could say it could have been either of us. There are times when this would genuinely be the case. Anyone in a similar situation could say the same, either being honest or dishonest. If it came down to proof, however, honesty wouldn't come in to it.
|
|
That's precisely the situation that exists machika. If the circumstances are correct and you can choose to take your chance in court and if you can prove that you have taken all reasonable steps to identify the driver then the onus is on the prosecution to prove who was 'guilty'. At least as I understand it................
|
forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=14699
See how much difficulty you can get your self into. Regards Peter
|
|
That's why it's important to do your homework and make sure you do EVERYTHING exactly as it should be done. In this case many basic mistakes were made. Bad luck.
|
......... the onus is on the prosecution to prove who was 'guilty'. .........
I thought the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was guilty, not to prove who was guilty.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
If you have proved diligence in trying to name the driver then it's up to the prosecution to prove who was driving ie who was guilty.
|
There have been a number of suggestions that unless the police can prove who was driving then there should be no prosecution. >>
Yes, that is the basis of every other law enforcement process!
If this is the case then surely it would be easy to adopt the strategy that it could have been one of two or more people in many cases ........... Anyone in a similar situation could say the same ............>>
The fundemental principal still applies though, it should be up to the authorities to prove who commited the offence!
Otherwise make it an offence for a keeper not to know who is driving their car at any given time , though how would that work for a company car or hire car when two people hire it, both drive it and the NIP is sent to the hire company, all they can say as the keeper is that it is one of two people then those two people cannot recall which of them was driving at 10.17am four weeks ago, I suppose they could be required to log it though if they didnt would that be an offence, where would it end!
The system is flawed, there is not an obvious solution.
|
|
The system is flawed because a driver cannot be identified from a speed camera photograph. My point was that anyone can say they don't know who was driving the car, even if they did know. If there is no proof, what is to be done? No prosecutions at all?
|
|
Is there not something in common law that prevents your wife being forced to testify against you?
|
There's certainly something in statute law.
Doesn't help. Wife isn't being forced to testify: she's being asked to give information. She has a choice.
|
There's certainly something in statute law. Doesn't help. Wife isn't being forced to testify: she's being asked to give information. She has a choice.
Yes, thereby incriminating her husband
|
I must admit, I'm all for the old way where a wife didn't have any real legal identity.
Incriminate her husband, pshaw!
|
As a new forum member I have only just ploughed through this intriguing thread and would like to venture a comment. The main point of contention seems to focus on the inability to be sure who was driving at the time of the offence. Surely the time is immaterial. Both of the two persons involved know whether or not they were speeding at the place in question. Whoever it was must carry the can. Trying to duck the issue with red herrings regarding perjury etc is just a ploy to wriggle out of accepting responsibility for having committed an offence. Either Mr. or Mrs. Cheddar must come clean.
|
Here's a scenario for you. You drive up and down the same stretch of road maybe 10 times a day. You do this 5 days a week sometimes using different vehicles- you share the need to do this journey with another person. There is no set pattern to who uses the vehicle and when.
2 weeks after the even a piece of paper arrives ALLEGING you have broken some arbitary limit at a certain time
Question: How do you know who was driving and when?
I think we've established that in order to volunteer yourself as the guilty party you need to be sure it was you.
Other than that don't nominate and risk being prosecuted for failing to provide. Unless you can prove due diligence in trying to name them. In which event there is no case to answer whatsoever. The trick is of course being able to prove 'due diligence'.
|
|
As I said earlier, it is a case of no prosecutions at all then, if this scenario can be presented as an argument against proving who was driving. All a person needs is a family member, or work colleague, who could (conceivably) have been driving the car at around the same time. No need to tell the truth as there is very little chance of anyone proving the case, one way or the other.
|
If only that was the case the world would be a better place.
As it is this defence only works IMO if you are telling the truth ie you really don't know and if you can prove due dilligence. Otherwise you run the risk of doing time or failing to provide the name.
|
As I said earlier it is a case of no prosecutions at all then if this scenario can be presented as an argument against proving who was driving. All a person needs is a family member or work colleague who could (conceivably) have been driving the car at around the same time. >>
Machika you are right, though this indicates that the system is flawed because not very one is out to cheat it, some are genuine, as in our case where my wife in genuinely unsure.
|
>>> no need to tell the truth
So lying is quite acceptable then?
Also claiming the existence of fictitious drivers is similarly ok?
And all this time I thought the perpetrator of the offence was afraid of committing perjury! Forget perjury, just lie your way out of trouble seems to be being advocated here, or am I missing something.
|
>>> no need to tell the truth >> So lying is quite acceptable then?
methinks francisco has got the meaning of machika's post completely wrong !
|
or am I missing something.
Yes, clearly.
|
>>Surelythe time is immaterial. Both of the two persons involved know whether or not they were speeding at the place in question. >>
Come on now, could you say tha three weeks ago you were doing 29 not 33, or 32 not 35 etc etc!!
|
Come on now, could you say tha three weeks ago you were doing 29 not 33, or 32 not 35 etc etc!!
obviously not in the case of a person who was so otherwise engaged, or not paying due care & attention (on a road that they admit to knowing very well and so must know the speed camera location) that not only were they caught speeding, but did not even notice the camera flash.
and as the hamiltons' and tiff needell proved, if you genuinely do not know who was driving, you can go to court and say so.
so please stop trying to make a things out to be unfair when they are patently not so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
