Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Nov 30, 2025 15:33

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2005 13:59 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
Saw this on Pepipoo, and thought some issues need airing here:

http://www.cambs.police.uk/camops/safet ... -04-04.pdf

Quote:
...MW said the magistrates service
is looking at initiatives, such as cold calling, which would ‘push’ people down the
line of paying their conditional offers.
[How are magistrates the right people to do this, unless they are going to say 'you will not get a fair trial from us so don't bother just pay up'?]

Quote:
TP said that in Bedfordshire notices are being put up showing that deaths have
been halved because of the cameras.
[Careful wording. I could put up signs 'showing' that the sky is red if I owned the lamposts to put them on, but they wouldn't have to be factually correct.]

Quote:
5.3 Magistrates Court
MW tabled a graph showing the volume of tickets which had been paid. AC will be
able to provide information on the number of tickets issued and begin the process
of speeding up payments.
[That's odd, we were told by JJ/Steve that the magistrate's COURT had no connection to the partnership. Obviously this was an error.]


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2005 14:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
How can they justify hiding the percentage of tickets that are being paid as being under Part 31 of the Freedom of Information Act?
Freedom of Information Act (2000) wrote:
31. - (1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice-

(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c) the administration of justice,
(d) the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature,
(e) the operation of the immigration controls,
(f) the maintenance of security and good order in prisons or in other institutions where persons are lawfully detained,
(g) the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2),
(h) any civil proceedings which are brought by or on behalf of a public authority and arise out of an investigation conducted, for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2), by or on behalf of the authority by virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative or by virtue of powers conferred by or under an enactment, or
(i) any inquiry held under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiries (Scotland) Act 1976 to the extent that the inquiry arises out of an investigation conducted, for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2), by or on behalf of the authority by virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative or by virtue of powers conferred by or under an enactment.
(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(g) to (i) are-

(a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,
(b) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,
(c) the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,
(d) the purpose of ascertaining a person's fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on,
(e) the purpose of ascertaining the cause of an accident,
(f) the purpose of protecting charities against misconduct or mismanagement (whether by trustees or other persons) in their administration,
(g) the purpose of protecting the property of charities from loss or misapplication,
(h) the purpose of recovering the property of charities,
(i) the purpose of securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, and
(j) the purpose of protecting persons other than persons at work against risk to health or safety arising out of or in connection with the actions of persons at work.
(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

I may be wrong here but I cannot see how us "the public" finding out what the performance of a particular group of "public servants" in the form of a percentage of fines collected can be defined as prejudicial to Law Enforcement - the section is about releasing information that may impact on the prosection of a crime. This is a blatant misuse of the FoI act, and the omission can only be interpretted as a strong implication that they are really bad at doing what we the public are paying them to do.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2005 23:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 16:34
Posts: 923
Location: UK
Rewolf wrote:
How can they justify hiding the percentage of tickets that are being paid as being under Part 31 of the Freedom of Information Act?

They can't really. It has been published by other partnerships so if pushed they would have to reveal it.

I suspect the figure is quite embarassing, hence they have removed it.

Gareth


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2005 10:27 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
g_attrill wrote:
Rewolf wrote:
How can they justify hiding the percentage of tickets that are being paid as being under Part 31 of the Freedom of Information Act?

They can't really. It has been published by other partnerships so if pushed they would have to reveal it.

I suspect the figure is quite embarassing, hence they have removed it.

It would be interesting to know how many of the unpaid tickets are from the "seriously over the speed limit" bracket... I have a hunch that, as an unregistered or wrongly-registered car is effectively "invisible", travelling at really excessive speed and neglecting to register and/or insure a car are behaviour traits of the same slice of the motoring population.

_________________
"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: Thu May 26, 2005 14:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 16:34
Posts: 923
Location: UK
pogo wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many of the unpaid tickets are from the "seriously over the speed limit" bracket... I have a hunch that, as an unregistered or wrongly-registered car is effectively "invisible", travelling at really excessive speed and neglecting to register and/or insure a car are behaviour traits of the same slice of the motoring population.

Mmmnn... yes that would be interesting. It would also be within the FOI Act to ask for a breakdown of offences paid by speed bracket....

Gareth


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 95 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.013s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]