Safe Speed Forums

Better late than never. From last Thursday's Wail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sters.html

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

I gave it a mention here in my Telegraph blog.
Not much of a reaction so far though!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Isn't it interesting that all the ministers that commented all spoke in monetary terms, and not one mentioned road safety.

Seems to me that the government are realising that the speeding cases are so weak that they need to deny those accused of proper legal advice in order to get their hands on the £60.

[edit spelling]

More "eloquently" expressed HERE

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Another one for you.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/arti ... vorce.html

So, a third party spouse is now threatened with having to pay for defence costs.

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

If they want to save money on defence costs then they should stop prosecuting people who are not guilty.

Furthermore, if they expect defendants to represent themselves, as a default, then they should not be allowed to use a legally trained prosecution, instead they should have Weepej, or members of Brake, prosecuting. That'll level the playing field.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

This is appalling - talk about a Government Win Win situation !

They can use all their vast means available, to them, and if you happen to own or dare to possess more than £100K in assets or earn more than £20K (£40K joint), then you have to find all the extra money, to not only pay for your solicitor, to enable you to have a FAIR trial, with the best possible defense you can try to afford, but then you have to pay for the Government for the priviledge of winning (daring to win) !

How utterly disgraceful.

They are taking away our Rights to Justice.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

• First of all, somebody is busy creating an excess number of 'laws'.
• Second, many of these 'laws' are designed so that the majority of reasonable adults will regularly break them.
  (This, of course, does not include those sheeple who will rewrite their beliefs so that they will toodle along at 10MpH regardless of 'the posted lolly', while vehemently insisting that we are criminals.)
• Third, it surprises me that no one has yet mentioned that all the ministers that commented are behaving as if we are all guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure most of us were already thinking it, though.

Apparently, this is not about justice. It also seems this is not about saving money, either. The government seems perfectly willing to spend more to increase their likelihood of even greater returns.
Since it wasn't mentioned, it probably isn't about road safety.

Given the options and the opportunities, investors and their ilk will always do whatever they can to increase the odds of greater profits, while decreasing the odds of losing their investment.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Why do you all react so predictably to Daily Mail diatribe?

Because of the past.
The gov has history of saying what it may do, to get the reaction from "the people".
Given this govs history of removal of rights on the most flimsy of "excuses", it is reasonable that the majority of thinking people are suspicious of the motives behind this "story".



How about:



Bet you didn't know that the gov were fascists (sorry)

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

But we as a family are all ex-BRAKE members .. or rather not regularly contributing to their cause as we did in the early stages. We agree still on most things - apart from the spped camera as the "saviour of salvation"



However.. I decided to past the article in full




The problem with this is that most of the drivers pinged or challenging failry minor offences are not "au fait" with the law nor court procedures.


To be honest - if the case is completely unwinnable - then the lawyers consulted should be brutally honest about the chances of winning the case. If there is a loophole to exploit - then a clever lawyer will be able to pull the "dropped stitch". It's up to police and CPS to ensure they get things water-tight (Not easy with the sheer volume of damned forms :banghaed: we have to fill in by the average forest-load!)




Different situation. The Mad Cats pay for their kids to be educated. OK. An investment of choice in their children's future and a desire to ensure they enjoy childhoods without being measured by daft targets set by state schools (Their kids have never taken a SAT test for example and they consider their kids to be taught roundly and not to some prescribed tested target.)


But the parent who chooses to educate their child in the private sector - sees an eventual return for his money in the shape of a fairly decent-minded adult. and hopefully a fair chance of earning a decent living in an increasingly cut-throat world out there. (Or so they think.. Mine have all done very well from our local Comp!)

The point really is that parental choices of educational choices and payments for all those parties/clothes/dance/sports whatever classes are parental choices - and are made out of love and perhaps a desire of motivating/fostering ambitions wthin their children.

Comparing choosing a lawyer to advise or argue for you in court is certainly no comparison. Nor would be awarded costs if found to be innocent be begrudged as this more or less is compensation for being "falsely charged."

(I hope folk see the inverted commas as some sarcasm )



Perhaps they can turn to the court clerk for advice - but that advice may be skewed and may recommend pleading guilty to the charge they are refuting Hence the desire for someone completely independent and their right from the all previous statutes/case laws built up since the Magna Carta and subsequent formalising of "common law"



As for the Crown Court defendant ? They have a right to choose the lawyer they will think will argue their case properly/competently.


If they win - then as free folk duly acquitted by a court of law - costs should be swallowed by the CPS. This scenairio is a bit like those who were found guilty and then new evidence found their convictions completely unsound - having their compo reduced by "accrued board and lodging in prison over the years!"

It seems unfair - but the logic seems to be that "had they been out in the free world as free persons - they would have incurred these costs". Thy seem to forget that had they been free - they would have been earning money to pay for it all.





It does seem to be a worry. But all the same - drivers, bikers, cyclists need to really think before they go to court. Here - the evidence is straight forward. Copped by police officer. Prosecuted accordingly and reasons behind all decisions fully explained and recorded at the time

A cam? Folk demand the photos. (It's why unverified reports - as hearsay evidence cannot be accepted. We may have a tactful word and usually that is sufficient warning. )

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

This is appalling - just when we wondered how low our government could go they find a whole new level to sink to.

And don't think it'll happen to you....

Having been stopped in the last year and threatened with 'due car and attention' because I didn't show enough contrition this senario could have easily applied to me. If the officer had charged me I would have pleaded not guilty. I am sure that a good brief would have run rings around the officer in a court given the circumstances http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15730 But if defending myself effectively would cost ££££ and I knew I wouldn't get reimbursed then what? Especially knowing that not guilty pleas attract stiffer penalties if found guilty.

The government seem intent on taking our justice system back to Victorian times, where money and only money talked and those without it had no voice with which to defend themselves. Courts without equality for all are merely tools of oppression (or in our case tax collection)

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

I'm actually uncomfortable with the frequency that daily mail articles posted on here appear to be the voice of reason.

They're a reactionary bunch, so perhaps reaction is whats needed, instead of the blissfull ignorance displayed by so many, the wholesale trust that the government will only ever do whats right and fair.



I've had the feeling for a long time that liberty and freedom is in decline. But like said above it takes the will of the people to realise this and object to it; most don't, often I feel liberty is maybe a balence that goes up and down in a cyclic manner, perhaps like global warming/cooling. All man can do is adjust to it.


As for the article, it's testament to a corrupt and failing system when those in charge deem it necessary to deny opponents a voice and a defense. Mugabe would be proud.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I would point out that BBC links are also very frequently posted on here and they are at the opposite end of the spectrum politically from the Mail. So, are we balanced then?

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

But then with all the press stories - it's perhaps best to quote it as "as reported/alleged/per the whatever paper" because we are perhaps commenting on the article. More often than not there are facts within the piece - but these are cherry picked and spun to sell copy


nightmare politics

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

sorry, to clarify, I'm uncomfortable with how many times I'm personally finding daily wail articles coming across as reasonable and important criticisms, rather than criticising anyone for posting them. I've always thought of the mail as a bit of a joke, something you should take with a pinch of salt and a condescending nod.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

What would the European court find of an innocent driver being denied legal costs?

_________________
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

Waily material also ends up on the Vine (aka Whine prog) for discussion.


Sadly - for all the Waily's indignant faults and catchy journalese sound bites - when you do an FOI or get the transcript of any court report - you find that the article makes you uncomfortable because it does have facts as its base point.


The same facts are reported in the StUN/Mirror/Star with similar - should I call it "headline or atention seeking zeal" - but this is what sells copy for them.

What worries about this scoop is that they will have the FOI to back it and run with the story. The best bits will be cherry picked for impact of course .. and worked on. But the discomfort lies in the fact that you know they are not making any of it up.

If an "expensive lawyer" can find a loophole to suggest and cast doubt in mind of magistrates/juries - then the fault lies with us police who did not follow a procedure or did not get watertight evidence as well as the CPS.

I will say that as far as traffic offences are concerned in this area - we rarely lose.

But these offences are "absolute" and checked by police as spotted. "Mens culpa" and opposed to "mens rea" - and the latter requires proof of cunning malice aforethought

If the penalty for any offence carries a prison sentence or criminal record - which damage a reputation - then there has to be proof beyond reasoned doubt .. and the job of the defence lawyer or defendant would be to show how the allegations are unfounded. Or in the guilty plea - mitigate - plea bargain for best outcome for the guilty accused. In this latter case - court costs and legal fees shoud be kept to affordable rates as public purse usually does pay still for such guilty pleas.

Do i want injustice? Hell no.


More powers for me? Hell .. NO! I do not want a police state. I want the public to trust their police.. not feel afraid of us .. intimidated .. thinking we are "out to punish them over trivialities"

Do I say police are infallible? err No...

Do I say that the "law is the law .. ergo .. it is the law regardless of justicve?"

Certainly not.

We prosecute on suspicion of whatever. The accused has the right to defend themselves as they have to be presumed innocent unless proven to be otherwise in a law court. Even then =- they have rights to appeal.. bring in fresh evidence which they believe will help them.

if they are then found to be innocent - then why should they have to pay more? The onus rests with CPS and with .. er .. I admit .. shuffling feet here and feeling uncomfortable - at admitting that we police have to make sure of our facts, follow laid down procedures and paperwork at each stage of the proceedings.


Yes .. I know darned well that our fails have resulted in guilty getting away wiith it. Or do they? What comes around goes around and the truth will always "out itself eventually "

PS anton.. may be wrong here - but I think the European courts will take account of existing legal systems within the memebr states. UK could be on a loser there on that basis - given its cumulative history of "fair play and a role model of its own history!"

"Fair justice and legal system" - that's the legacy and legend of the Englishman. To deny it .. would seem to undermine our very culture

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

That may be the case in your area , but in Hampshire we have a very different senario. We have a load of bent coppers who don't do thier job properly and enforce speed limits that are not signed. We have county council bosses who swear on oath that the signs were there and legal untill they are proved to be wrong, he also swore that the signs hadnt materialy changed untill We pointed out stickers on the back of new signs and a county council drawing of the new speed limit dated after the "speeding offence". Police produced a certificate stating that all the signing was correct but under oath the officer admitted he had never in 4 years checked the whole site and admitted that he had pointed out defects to Dr Marion Sinclair the head of the camera partnership and she had told him to continue enforcing. There is much more mud that came out in this case.

Hampshire also prosicuted people where a speed limit had been raised but the signs not changed. They prosicuted where lorry drivers left the docks and passed 50 signs and then got flashed for breaking a tempoary 30 limit. They still are prosicuting on Millbrook Road where at least 4 50 signs are missing from 4 ways into the site. Another is so faded it is salmon coloured and on the wrong post (unlit) and obscured behind a triangular "beware cycles sign. This is amazing because they have been fighting 50 cases on the same site for 4 years through magistraites, county and high court and the case has restarted in the county court.

_________________
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

Surely not always. In my case it was his opinion versus mine - there was no absolute about it. Point is I would have pleaded not guilty because I don't think I showed any lack of due care and attention but I know it would take someone with a smarter mouth than mine to make my case. And if this ruling is introduced it will probably make people in a broadly similar position to mine just decide to take the hit. And that is wrong.

It is true that perhaps such a ruling would perhaps mainly affect cases where a loophole is the main defence case but for those who would take such a route to avoid penalties I suspect the legal costs are probably of little concern.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.