Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Feb 03, 2026 04:24

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Words fail me...
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 06:56 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:27
Posts: 21
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5340846.stm

So now only the rich can contest a motoring offence? :x


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Words fail me...
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 07:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
zcar wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5340846.stm

So now only the rich can contest a motoring offence? :x


This is not just about the rich, this is war on the motorist. They are getting together this team in order to justify dishing out large court costs and deterring drivers from contesting their case in a court of law.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 07:26 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
"Special Unit" set up to nab those who manage to beat the scamerati?

What if you prove the gadget was in fact faulty or placed incorrectly (per documented cases on M4 und Manchester, Folly Bottom und some others..)

Does this mean that these drivers will "be targetted" as reg numbers on data base?

Ach .. und here we have the jolly oddness of all this..

1. Company cars are not the sole property of the driver they are assigned to. Other staff can use these on company business as "pool car"

2. People HIRE cars... und may then not be easy to "target"

3. People buy NEW or USED cars.. und if you buy a used car which pinged .. ist the new driver then "targetted"?

Ist a load of ill thought out cods wallop und instead of dishing out Omega 3 to secondary school kids in the hope of getting a pass for the exam they cannot fail due to watery standards und inflated grading - perhaps money would be better spent if doughnuts laced with this stuff... :roll:

Obviously not getting enough cash. Explains why they now think of targetting cyclists as well now. Methinks our cycling pals ought to admit that we want safety - und this means a fair und proper enforcement policy not one which targets the safe blip, the ones who prove their innocence in court, but fails completely to cop the truly dangerous.

By this token - Ed will always be looking over shoulder when he gets acquitted (Ist not IF .. ist WHEN Liebchen :love:)

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 07:39 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
Quote:
Police target driving 'loopholes'

Speeding motorists could find it harder to be cleared

BBC News, Wednesday, 13 September 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5340846.stm

“There have been a number of cases where people feel that justice has not been done”, Meredydd Hughes, South Yorkshire Police

“The chief constable [Meredydd Hughes] seems to be being a bit vague as to exactly what he's saying in these cases”, James Welch, Liberty

Reckless drivers who use legal loopholes to avoid conviction are being targeted in a new police initiative.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) is training police and CPS lawyers to make stronger cases.

Police are frustrated that lawyers well versed in motoring laws are using small print to win acquittals for those charged with reckless or drink-driving.

Acpo is also introducing a team made up of a lawyer and a former police officer to help prosecute speed camera cases.

The association hopes motorists will avoid contesting their speeding charge because if they lose, their costs will include up to £4,000 for the cost of the team.

Meredydd Hughes, the chief constable of South Yorkshire Police, said officers were becoming increasingly frustrated with lawyers who used legal small print to help win acquittals for clients.

"There have been a number of cases where people feel that justice has not been done, both in the drink-driving world and in other cases where people have evaded the law having driven cars recklessly and at very high speeds," he said.

Celebrity acquittals

"I think my colleagues in the roads policing groups will share my anger when people are unjustly acquitted and I'm sure they'll be looking for those drivers.

"And if they haven't mended their ways we have an attitude in the police service that we'll see them again sometime."

Lawyer Nick Freeman, dubbed "Mr Loophole" owing to his talent for finding unusual technical defences, said it was "disgraceful" that culprits could escape punishment on minor technicalities.

He told BBC News: "For certain people who may have been involved in a serious road traffic accident, the person who has caused that accident is arrested, he's processed by the police, the police make a mistake, get it wrong and that person walks away.

"From a moral standpoint, there's absolutely no justice in that situation."

Mr Freeman says he abhors drink drivers but that his job is still to defend his clients.

Campaign group Liberty raised concerns that police may unlawfully target individuals who they believe have been unfairly acquitted of motoring offences.

There have been some high-profile examples of people avoiding punishment for driving offences, including cases where couples have argued that they could not remember who had been driving at the time.

Liberty spokesman James Welch told BBC News: "The chief constable [Meredydd Hughes] seems to be being a bit vague as to exactly what he's saying in these cases.

"If he is suggesting that police officers are going to target people they consider have been unjustly acquitted - meaning they are going to stop them on a number of occasions when they don't have a good reason - then that should be wrong in principle and probably is almost certainly illegal as well."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 07:48 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
This is not legal and cannot happen. the magistraites guidelines on the judicial studdies web site states that the costs must not be disproportionate to the fine and quotes case law for the mag's to follow ex parte "dove" It is also intimidation. It also is an indicator that we are winning and they are worried. It could all be compleatly irrelivent if Idris Francis wins, and it might even help his case :lol:

See page 88 case law in magistraites guide lines

Quote:
The costs paid should not be in the ordinary way grossly disproportionate to the fine imposed for the offence

R v Northallerton Magistrates' Court, ex parte Dove

four-and-a-half times greater than the fine imposed was disproportionate

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Last edited by anton on Wed Sep 13, 2006 08:35, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 08:29 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
anton wrote:
Quote:
The costs paid should not be in the ordinary way grossly disproportionate to the fine imposed for the offence

R v Northallerton Magistrates' Court, ex parte Dove

four-and-a-half times greater than the fine imposed was disproportionate

Thanks, that's good to know.

I think 66 times the fine should qualify for that description!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 08:35 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Radio 4 broke this story into three strands:

1. An interview with a woman who'd lost a family member to a drink driver who'd escaped prosecution. A chap from ACPO popped up said there were "107,000 such tragedies every year". Drink driving cases? road deaths? aquittals? This was never made clear....

2. A special team to "discourage" motorists from taking speeding cases to court. What will this "discouragement" take exactly??? Night-time visits from some heavies perhaps?

3. Police would keep a "special eye" on people who'd used loopholes to be found not guilty to see if they'd "mended their ways". Scary, but how do you keep a "special eye" on someone if your enforcement system is based largely on cameras?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 08:36 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
Its funny how one persons loop hole is another person's valid defence..

Is this special unit going to crack down on police officers who use 'legal loopholes' to secure convictions?

for example:

the cautions process - sees potentially innocent people prosecuted when there is insufficient evidence agianst them.

Police are abusing powers to sieze vehices to give community speed watch teeth.

Police are abusing new rules for swearing to prosecute mums who swear at kids

One for the PR team...

Safespeed spokes person XYZ said - its worth remembering that for every guilty person who gets off a speeding charge 100s of inoccent motorists are convicted every year. The press is full of speed camera cock ups - rather than spending public money discouraging the innocent from fighting their case, why not invest in proper roads policing where the driver is actually stopped at the time of the offence. The fact that more people are choosing to fight their case is evidence that people feel the current system is unfair.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 08:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I'm looking into this 'stuff', trying very hard to understand what's going on.

It seems to me to be an act of extreme desperation - they must be in big trouble somewhere and they now need to bend the law to cover their embarrasement.

I understand it was on radio 4 at 7:30 and radio 5 at 8:05. Anyone find listen again links?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 08:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
This is an attempt to "fix" badly drafted laws and poorly implemented detection and prosecution. Instead of having clear understandable laws sensibly applied we have a culture of "nit-picking" as many people feel they have been nicked inappropriately under a Byzantine system.

Summary. It's the Government's fault.

Still, with the new rules on double jeopardy they can keep prosecuting you for the same offence until they get the hoped for result. Perhaps this is what they mean by special attention on loophole crawlers.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:09 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
All they have to do is check the traffic orders, road signs and abide by thier own guidelines( EDIT: I mean code of practice and type approval) and there will be no loopholes...

(and by loopholes I mean a 40 limit displaying a 50 sign and motorway countdown markers and the wrong white lines)

unless they mean section 172... :)

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Last edited by anton on Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:47, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:17 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Quote:
The association hopes motorists will avoid contesting their speeding charge because if they lose, their costs will include up to £4,000 for the cost of the team

Now this is bang out of order! Surely, quoting this could form part of the defence in itself?!

Quote:
"I think my colleagues in the roads policing groups will share my anger when people are unjustly acquitted and I'm sure they'll be looking for those drivers"

What about the anger felt by motorists who are persecuted by cashcams?

Again, our "public servants" seem to be forgetting exactly who they're supposed to be serving! I'm really quite angry about this...
:furious:

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:23 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
SafeSpeed wrote:
I understand it was on radio 4 at 7:30 and radio 5 at 8:05. Anyone find listen again links?

Try this; http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/liste ... 060913.ram

and; http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks ... akfast_wed
. . . . about 1hr and 5 minutes into the programme.


Last edited by Dr L on Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:39, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:28 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
I've listened intently on both 5 live and R4.

What a pile of Balls.

1: the monitoring drivers aquitted on loopholes!! They're backtracking and have been all morning....the last I heard Med was saying that they wouldn't be actively monitoring but if drivers offended again it was more than likely that they'd be caught!!!!!! apparently if it rains and you go out in it you may get wet too!

2: They are going to tighten up on their training and procedures.....and??? shouldn't they be doing that anyway? Whats happened is that they have to just woken up to the fact that drivers are increasingly waking up to the scams, realising their rights and fighting back. The days of milk and honey are over for the scammers!!

3: expensive defences, costs blah blah....its all b0ll0ocks and scare tactics.

All a big non story that's been unravelling as the morning has progressed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:47 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
Of course the programmes focus on the few spectacular case and totally ignore the thousands of speed cases brought just to get money from those driving perfectly safely and as lawfully as they reasonably can.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:51 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
Quote:
The association hopes motorists will avoid contesting their speeding charge because if they lose, their costs will include up to £4,000 for the cost of the team

Robert Maxwell Rides Again!

This is no more nor less than the way the late, and deeply unlamented, Mr Maxwell used the law... As a club to beat opponents with less financial clout than himself. Worse really, as they're using the taxpayers' money to beat taxpayers into submission.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
The story from Safe Speed's perspective is about this 'team' mentioned on the BBC website that is apparently illegally intended to intimidate people fighting speeding tickets.

But I have precious little reference to understand the proposal. Has anyone seen or heard more about it?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:52 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Quote:
... unjustly acquitted ...


Is there any such thing? In law you are either found guilty or not. Someone's opinion is just that - an opinion with no legal force.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:53 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
They are severely on the back foot now.

Puplic awareness of their rights and the travesty of justice that scam partnerships represent.

I've said it time and time again. The over zealous enforcement of technical offences will only lead to a rise in technical defences.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 09:57 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 20:14
Posts: 252
Location: Hampshire
Clearly they are having problems in some areas coping with the level of people defending their cases. Why else would they bother?

So to reduce that volume they have resorted to financial intimidation.

There may even be some strains on the financial structure of the scameraships which were set up assuming a growing rate of fines. With new cameras restricted to a trickle and more motorists presumably fighting cases (and winning) the resources of some scameraships would be under pressure.

Alternatively it may have something to do with the build up of "contested" cases in the courts, anyone have an insight into that?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.045s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]