Safe Speed Forums

Last year, I appealed against a speeding conviction and court costs on the grounds that I had not had the chance to view the evidence against me before recieving a summons. The CPS were clearly nervous and offered me a deal - drop my appeal, and they would rescind the £100 court costs.
One of them then dropped a bombshell: The fixed penalty ticket offices are not physically capable of sending victims of scameras the rightful photographic and documetary evidence of their "Offence" within the 28 days given to pay up. Most significantly he added "WE KNOW THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, BUY WE KEEP DOING IT ANYWAY"

We must all do our best to make the public aware of this, and ensure we all exercise our legal right to demand from this parasite what we know they can't provide. Let's Starve this tumour of life blood and force it into oblivion...

_________________
Dave Lucas

If you accept you are the driver, then under the Data Protection act you are anyway entitled to get a copy of any information they are holding about you, such as any video or photographs of the car you were driving.

You need to promply ask for this on reveiving the NIP, since they have got about 30 days to respond.

I urge every driver who gets a NIP to ask for the information, using the Data Protection Act. Make the buggers work for there money. Then perhaps they may not be quite so keen to use there guns to demand money with penalties from perfectly safe drivers trying to go about business are lawfully as they reasonably can.

What utter rubbish.

Ticket offices have no duty to provide evidence. Their responsibility is to issue a ticket so that drivers who know they are guilty can pay it and avoid the fuss and time of a court appearance. Drivers who are not guilty or wish to contest for other reasons can decline it and go to court, where there is a duty to provide the evidence.

Fisherman, what utter rubbish.

The police do have a duty to provide a copy of personal information they have about the movement of the drivers car before the driver accepts the fixed penalty, and I obtained a ruling from the information commissioners office to say so.

It is quite reasonable for an accused person to be able to check the validity of any allegation made against them before they are expected to admit to such an allegation, particularly when it is quite possible not to be aware of having committed the offence some weeks previously.

It is my observation that a lot of drivers meekly and wrongly accept speeding allegations because they cannot face the cost, effort, distress and trouble of taking it to court. I am increasing becoming aware of cases where the speeding allegation has been wrongly made, yet fighting it through the courts can be a Herculean task for most drivers.

The legal system is immensely biased against any driver trying to obtain justice in the courts.

It is very well for you to make your pompous statements, but for most drivers receiving a wrongful speeding allegation can be a daunting matter, as I found out when I was unjustly accused of speeding. It took six months of effort, substantial cost, involved a ruling from the information commissioner and the Independent Police Complaints Commission and letters from my MP to the chief constable to finally get the case dropped.

If you represent the judiciary, then it is little wonder that drivers increasingly have little trust in British Justice and conclude they will never get a fair hearing.
.

Many thanks to Dr L - your intelligent and positive arguments give much hope to all of us who feel so threatened by this Orwellian system. In stark contrast, Fisherman's remarks are not at all in the spirit of this forum and it would seem he is trying too hard to compensate for something!. I'd be very interested to find out who he represents...

_________________
Dave Lucas

Fisherman claims to be a current magistrate. He has some interesting opinions of the Law, Justice and road safety in the UK.

Fisherman, while obviously a learned man, has shown from the above statement which small part of the bigger picture he is looking at. It is understandable for a person operating within the current system that he has been blinded by one of the conflicting interests in serving justice (ie. the one that wants it done as cheaply as possible) and clearly forgot about the implications of the Data Protection Act!!

After my appeal (Which I dropped in exchange for the CPS agreeing to rescind the court costs), I sent the court £24 as net payment for my fixed penalty. I argued that since they had, by their own admission unlawfully forced me into a position in which I had to incur personal expense in travelling to several court appearances (to say nothing of the resultant loss of earnings from work and considerable psychological distress) then it was fair for me to deduct £36 travel expenses from the £60 fixed penalty. I further argued that their actions in banking this cheque constituted their legal acceptance of this sum as full payment, and that they had no right to demand further payment.
I've still got the parasites on my back demanding the "outstanding" £36.

Can anyone advise me on how to turn the tables on them?

_________________
Dave Lucas

On this occasion even Pepipoo agree with me.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=6 ... opic=24798

Even a novice clay pigeon shooter will hit a clay occasionally(I am not saying you are newly qualified).

In this case I was not disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that you can, sometimes, give an answer that does not make sense.

All the more reason to be grateful that such an eminent voice as that of the information commissioner's office has not forsaken the cause of the Fair and equitable...

_________________
Dave Lucas

Extract of letters from the Information Commissioner's Office, Reference: END0092346

and

Even with the delays in appealing to the ICO, I still received a copy of the LTI 20-20 video clip for my car prior to attending the first court hearing. The police manipulated the video tape to make it difficult to view and analyse and in the end were forced to send me a true copy, when they realised the game was up and they dropped the case. The ipcc then forced them to carry out an investigation into why the video tape had been manipulated.

On receiving your NIP, if you accept you are the driver then any photos or video of your car that the police have are personal information about you and under the Data Protection Act you are entitled to have a copy of the video clip which contains your vehicle, irespective of whether you take the case to court, or not.

You simply make a subject access request under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. It may be necessary to include proof of identity and a £10 fee with the request. As I understand it this can be included when you return the NIP.

It should be possible to get the video clip before expiry of the fixed penalty offer, so you can decide whether to accept it, or not, based on the copy of the photos or video clip you receive
.

Dr L stated



It is too easy for them to drop the cases when they get found out. They should have to publish all cases of "manipulating evidence" or lying to get a successful prosecution and then the individual who did this should be independently prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and the force/scameraship should be called into disrepute and the system as it is now disbanded.


How can we make this happen, any ideas.

Well of course they claimed it was all the result of an unfortunate set of accidental circumstances and there was no deliberate intent to pervert the course of justice. But for months they would not even admit that there was a true copy of the video clip. Of course I believed them, since I know how honest the police are !!!
.

Unfortunately, for most, justice is a thing "bought" by those who can afford it. For everyone else, it's a "luxury" IF you're lucky!.......

Interesting Point That Fisherman Points Out.

Fisherman stated,,"The Ticket Office".

Now..IF the this is called a ticket office,,this maybe the sneaky way around allowing human rights to be manipulated.
Because that is what they are,,,JUST a ticket Office.

If the POLICE issued the ticket they know they must give evidence.
Maybe this guy is right.

Then what happens is,,guys like us will say "hang on" and fight for whats right.

This leaves the poor saps with no information or no will power to fight,, left in the dark and feel FORCED to pay up no matter what.

This is quite probable,,,after all our so called leaders allowed British Subjects to be held in what is no more than a concentration camp,,Guantanamo Bay.

_________________
Nil Iligitum Carborundum

A notice of inted prosicution IS issued on behalf of the police as it is not valid unless it carries "on behalf of the chief constable"

_________________
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

It seems that between us, we have all we need to force a Judicial review. I have seem many intelligent, compelling and well researched arguments in favour of scrapping the Orwellian Scameraships and replacing them with a legitimate road safety policy. Without a doubt, most of us would happily pay a few extra quid (anyone know the actual figures?) in taxation for the extra resources to make this happen.
By contrast, those that represent the judiciary, the police and their Government masters (not to mention the production line zombies churning out demands for money with menaces without the capacity for reason) seem to be clutching desparately at straws in the darkness when trying to justify their stance, and looking most foolish and naive in the process. They remind me of Rimmer from Red Dwarf when spouting space corps directives...

_________________
Dave Lucas