Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Aug 20, 2019 22:08

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 13:46
Posts: 11
SafeSpeed wrote:
laskhudd wrote:
fisherman wrote:
laskhudd wrote:
I mean, who gets paid weekly these days in proper jobs.?!!
Lots of ordinary working class people including some of my fellow magistrates.


Thankyou. This is very unhelpful.


Fisherman is a serving magistrate and we value his perspective.

I'm not surprised to see him defending the paperwork, and more seriously, I think he's telling us that a lot of his 'customers' are 'weekly'.


I completely appreciate this. However, nit-picking is not helpful, and irrelevent to the reasons I have begun using this otherwise extremely helpful forum. Fisherman's later comment was however extremely helpful, for which I have thanked him. Let's stop this one now please.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 17:37
Posts: 702
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
laskhudd wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:
What was he doing when he was speeding?

He had to be somewhere quickly, yes... But why?

Was it in connection with his job?

If so, ask the magistrate and the clerk what their security clearances are?

The answer will probably be that they do not have any.

He could then say: "I was proceeding at 104 mph. however, due to matters of national security I cannot tell the court why I was driving at 104 mph, nor can I tell the court why I was on that particular road, or where I was going.

"I was unable to inform the officer of any of the relevant facts as I concluded that his security clearance was not sufficiently high to warrant me giving him such sensitive information."


I love this one! How imaginative...!! It was work related since he was in a hired company car on the way to pick up his boss to drive elsewhere for an important meeting... about what I do not know...??!!


Yes, I love this one too. I like anything that offers a decent prospect of getting a mere speeding charge demolished, but I don't know what the possibility of success might be. Anyhow good luck to the victim of this stupid regime.

Best wishes all,
Dave.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 13:36 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 17:47
Posts: 61
fisherman wrote:
Plus court costs of about £40 plus £15 victim surcharge.


:shock: What ??

Who's the victim?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 13:42 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
No, it's a motorist victimisation surcharge. :x

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 13:56 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
MondeoST24 wrote:
fisherman wrote:
Plus court costs of about £40 plus £15 victim surcharge.


:shock: What ??

Who's the victim?

"Victims of crime"

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 20:32 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
Thatsnews wrote:
The answer will probably be that they do not have any.
We all have clearance for low levels. The court would be cleared, he would be asked what level clearance is needed for the information he wishes to use in evidence. If its within our limits we proceed "in camera" ie closed court. If its not we refer it to a higher court where it will be heard by someone with sufficient clearance clearance.

We see this sort of thing from time to time. Virtually all are a low level civil servant trying it on. The few real cases can almost always be dealt with by getting a more senior person to testify that there was a genuine emergency. If necessary they can be assisted by acourt appointed lawyer with the necessary clearance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 20:35 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
Thatsnews wrote:
But the magistrate would not know what these procedures are. And nor do the police.
Yes we do, and judging by the cases I have seen - note cases plural, not just one as in the case you quote - so do the police.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 20:37 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
laskhudd wrote:
This is very unhelpful.
At least it's accurate. Unlike the original post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 20:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
laskhudd wrote:
hampshireian wrote:
If this had security implications it would never get to court .


I'm not sure that's entirely true because he did explain to the officer who stopped him about his work responsibilities and showed him relevant ID. The officer was not interested. At what point would one get the chance to explain this and hence avoid court?


The PC would not have recognised the security clearance pass, having never seen one. Why? Because he has not got sufficient security clearance!:roll:

I have heard of a case when a PC was being a bit of an arse with someone who had security clearance. Imagine the PCs surprise when he received an "off the record" briefing from someone in Special Branch who told him in no uncertain terms to drop it.

Of course the PC who stopped your husband would not want to admit not recognising what your husband's security clearance pass was.

It might be worth getting your husband's boss to write to the Chief Constable or the Chief Super for the area and asking him to use his discretion. Also, ask what the force policy is on interfering with matters of national security by a serving officer of that force? :)

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 21:14 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
laskhudd wrote:
Is the "victim surcharge" that latest idea about giving to a charity helping the victims of speeding or something?
Its collected on ALL fines and not just motoring ones.
JPs were only told about the introduction of the surcharge about 48hours before we had to start collecting it. We were told that it would go to improving centres for deaing with rape and domestic violence. Whether it all goes there and for how long I have no idea. And bearing in mind that the computer system is not capable of tracking it I am not sure that any else knows either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 21:22 
Offline
Police Officer
Police Officer

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 22:37
Posts: 279
Location: Warrington
Thatsnews,what are you on about national security clearance and not recognising passes. In 18yrs of doing my job I have come across them all and the ones that are genuine as has been said dont get to court, the pisstakers well thats where they go straight to court with a stearn word in there ear about pervert the course of justice.

If someone is stopped by me and they give me a reason orr explain who they are ie Special Branch
Surveillance Units
Drug Squad
Customs
SAS etc etc then details are taken and they are sent on there way and checks are made and well, you know what will happen if they are found out to be lying.

So,If you are telling me that when someone shows a pass are you expecting us to believe that these passes show the level of immunity that they hold, even when a car on diplomatic plates are stopped, checks are made to see if the driver is the person assignes to the plates and not the car valeter or chaueffeur.

So, if this OP has got the immunity from prosecution that you suggest then don't you think that he would have played his ace card before now, cause i do, but it's obvious that he has not, thats my opinion but I stand to be corrected.
Stephen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 21:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
Stephen wrote:
Thatsnews,what are you on about national security clearance and not recognising passes. In 18yrs of doing my job I have come across them all and the ones that are genuine as has been said dont get to court, the pisstakers well thats where they go straight to court with a stearn word in there ear about pervert the course of justice.

If someone is stopped by me and they give me a reason orr explain who they are ie Special Branch
Surveillance Units
Drug Squad
Customs
SAS etc etc then details are taken and they are sent on there way and checks are made and well, you know what will happen if they are found out to be lying.

So,If you are telling me that when someone shows a pass are you expecting us to believe that these passes show the level of immunity that they hold, even when a car on diplomatic plates are stopped, checks are made to see if the driver is the person assignes to the plates and not the car valeter or chaueffeur.

So, if this OP has got the immunity from prosecution that you suggest then don't you think that he would have played his ace card before now, cause i do, but it's obvious that he has not, thats my opinion but I stand to be corrected.
Stephen


Stephen let's take this back a step, shall we?

It has been made clear that the police officer ignored the pass. He did not check on it, so might have been unaware of what it was. Just because you have 18 years experience and have stopped drug squad officers, Customs, Special Branch, surveillance units, SAS, etc, etc., does not mean that every officer will have had the same experiences as yourself in stopping all these various secret squirrel personnel. :lol: (Especially someone with -say- only 4 or 5 years in the force.)

Where did I say that he had immunity from prosecution? I didn't. Did I?

I merely suggested that if he HAD been involved in work related to his high security clearance job and this was WHY he was travelling at speed, that this might be an avenue worth exploring as a defence.

Might I suggest that rather than the driver who was taking the piss, it might well have been the constable at the roadside who was taking the piss, who seemed unaware what the high security pass actually was?

As he did not radio for instructions, it seems that a lowly PC (with ZERO security clearance) decided to set himself up as an arbiter of what counted as security clearance, with no reference to anyone else.

How many times would you expect the average PC to see one of the following non-police ID cards? Customs, SAS, SIS, SAS, SBS or MOD?

As I pointed out I do know of one instance when a PC got arsy with someone carrying one of the above cards. (I do not think he realised the significance of what he'd been shown.) Needless to say, words (very harsh words) were said...

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Gosh!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 23:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 13:46
Posts: 11
Thanks for everyone's input one this, most of you have been really helpful. I appreciate your time and effort.

Just a final point as I think some people have got carried away. My partner is not trying to "get off" his punishment. He knows he did wrong and will accept the consequences, and nowhere during this discussion did I say that he is trying to use his security clearance to get off it. However, it is his job, for which he has security clearance (incidentally he is not "a low level civil servant trying it on"!) that might be made difficult to carry out if he gets banned. His statement of mitigation explained this so that hopefully the court may consider offering a minimal ban and/or a fine, rather than a lengthy ban. Would you fancy being stuck on an air base in the middle of America without the ability to drive? FAIR ENOUGH... he should have thought about that before he hit the accelerator, I know and he knows! Believe me, he will give that much more thought in future.

Fisherman provided the info I needed regarding the possible punishment, for which I am grateful.

Thanks guys!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 00:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
fisherman wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:
The answer will probably be that they do not have any.
We all have clearance for low levels. The court would be cleared, he would be asked what level clearance is needed for the information he wishes to use in evidence. If its within our limits we proceed "in camera" ie closed court. If its not we refer it to a higher court where it will be heard by someone with sufficient clearance clearance.

We see this sort of thing from time to time. Virtually all are a low level civil servant trying it on. The few real cases can almost always be dealt with by getting a more senior person to testify that there was a genuine emergency. If necessary they can be assisted by acourt appointed lawyer with the necessary clearance.


The reason most people you see are (IN YOUR OPINION) "low level civil servants trying it on" is because, in truth, most "cases" never become cases as they do not get anywhere near your court.

Because a police officer doing his job properly would have checked the credentials of the person concerned at the roadside and referred the matter to someone who had proper security clearance, which he clearly did not. (Let's face it, if he HAD that level of clearance he would not be driving a patrol car and pulling people for speeding, now would he?)

If he established that the driver was not driving at speed in regard to an aspect of his employment, then fair enough, yes, he should have been dealt with for the offence of speeding. But to not bother to check shows that the officer lacked discretion and discernment. And might well have risen as high as he is likely to...

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 18:03 
Offline
Police Officer
Police Officer

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 22:37
Posts: 279
Location: Warrington
It doesn't matter what credentials they have and it doesn't matter what dept they are in SAS, SIS, SAS, SBS or MOD? they do not have any exemptions under the road traffic act.

If the lowly PC stops someone who is held so high in secuity cleaance then he does not have to adio / telephone any one for advice as its his decision to deal with it how he feels.

The othe thing is if someone as to drive on public roads then most nearly always inform the police and thhey either do one of three things.
1.Give details of the vehicle and just wait to see if it draws attention to itself.
2. It is given a police escort to its venue.
3. A marker is placed on PNC for info for anyone who stops it.
Quite clearly this was not the case so couldnt have been such an impotant job.
Stephen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 20:33 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
I was aware of the PNC marker but hadn't wanted to mention it as I was not sure how confidential that was supposed to be.

Nice to know that my experience about police officers and ID cards is confirmed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 20:43 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
Thatsnews wrote:
The PC would not have recognised the security clearance pass, having never seen one. Why? Because he has not got sufficient security clearance
To state that a security clearance is needed to see a pass is wrong.

I have had a few over the years and still have one now. Normally I produce it to gain entry to a building which only admits those with sufficient clearance. I show it to the person on guard at the gate. His only clearance is a standard CRB check - not a security clearance at all. He doesn't need security clearance to see my card because the card is not an official secret.
The only time I showed my pass to a police officer (for ID at a stop check) he asked if he could show it to his colleague as he hadn't seen one of that kind before.

The purpose of any security clearance pass is to confirm to people with little or no security clearance that the person identified by the card is to be allowed access to the building in question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 22:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
fisherman wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:
The PC would not have recognised the security clearance pass, having never seen one. Why? Because he has not got sufficient security clearance
To state that a security clearance is needed to see a pass is wrong.

I have had a few over the years and still have one now. Normally I produce it to gain entry to a building which only admits those with sufficient clearance. I show it to the person on guard at the gate. His only clearance is a standard CRB check - not a security clearance at all. He doesn't need security clearance to see my card because the card is not an official secret.
The only time I showed my pass to a police officer (for ID at a stop check) he asked if he could show it to his colleague as he hadn't seen one of that kind before.

The purpose of any security clearance pass is to confirm to people with little or no security clearance that the person identified by the card is to be allowed access to the building in question.


That's true of your level of security clearance. I, too, have had such a security pass. It proved I was who I said I was and that I had access to certain buildings.

But there are other people (Stephen alluded to them) who have passes which they can use to prove that they are, for example, a Customs Officer on a surveillance job, or a member of the covert security services involved in an operation. Or someone having to proceed at speed to a high security meeting called at the last minute.

Also you said: "To state that a security clearance is needed to see a pass is wrong."

I did not say that. I pointed out that someone might not recognise the significance of a security pass, which is a different matter all together. As I am sure you will realise, if you will re-read what I wrote.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:49 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
Thatsnews wrote:
Also you said: "To state that a security clearance is needed to see a pass is wrong."

I did not say that. I pointed out that someone might not recognise the significance of a security pass, which is a different matter all together. As I am sure you will realise, if you will re-read what I wrote.


Upon re-reading this
Thatsnews wrote:
The PC would not have recognised the security clearance pass, having never seen one. Why? Because he has not got sufficient security clearance
I haven't changed my mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 15:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
fisherman wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:
Also you said: "To state that a security clearance is needed to see a pass is wrong."

I did not say that. I pointed out that someone might not recognise the significance of a security pass, which is a different matter all together. As I am sure you will realise, if you will re-read what I wrote.


Upon re-reading this
Thatsnews wrote:
The PC would not have recognised the security clearance pass, having never seen one. Why? Because he has not got sufficient security clearance
I haven't changed my mind.


So you are still misguided and ill-informed. (Horse + water) Like far too many lay magistrates I have observed during the course of my work...

Any motorists would stand little chance in your court. Why? Because you already know everything before the case comes to court.

You already know they are guilty. Well, after all, those laser operators, camera operators, police officers, and the CPS would not bother prosecuting innocent people, would they? :roll:

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.446s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]