Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Nov 15, 2026 16:14

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Oh, really?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
Jeannie Hoddinott, spokesman for Staffordshire Camera Partnership, for said "The onus is on the driver of the vehicle to prove their innocence, not on the Partnership to prove guilt".

Did she really say this?
When did the law change in this country?
This came from the 'Grumpy Old Sod' website, but I'm sure Captain Grumpy won't mind it being on here.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 13:04 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Does it cite a source for this quote?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 13:15 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816
Cooperman wrote:
When did the law change in this country?


About the time that scameras started to be used. If not then since Nu Lab came to power. :oops:

_________________
Prepare to be Judged


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 13:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
RobinXe wrote:
Does it cite a source for this quote?


No, but I have no doubt that it's true.
Maybe I'll email the Pratnership responsible and ask them to comment on this comment and ask if it is the case that in this country we now have to prove our innocence, asking them where the right to presumption to innocence has been set aside in law.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 14:07 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
RobinXe wrote:
Does it cite a source for this quote?

Allegedly, MCN according to http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/14/1488.asp

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 14:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 04:11
Posts: 171
Location: South East
willcove wrote:
and they give a date of 12th December -

http://www.cunningham.me.uk/wordpress/?p=146 quotes the same source but for 6th December

(also requoted on ABD for 12th)
but I can't get on to the MCN site


Last edited by cabbie on Thu Feb 08, 2007 14:30, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 14:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
well, I had not seen that quote before, but it's arrogance and disregard for over 300 years of 'innocent until proven guilty' is absolutely staggering.
Has the arrogant tart still got her job there? She shouldn't have.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 14:33 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Quote:
UK: Speed Camera Evidence Withheld Before Trial
Speed camera operators in the UK are hiding evidence to discourage court challenges.

Several of the partnerships responsible for operating speed cameras in the UK are suppressing evidence of alleged speeding incidents. The move forces motorists to risk expensive court battles even when they are unfairly accused.

"The onus is on the driver of the vehicle to prove their innocence, not on the Partnership to prove guilt," Staffordshire camera partnership spokesman Jeannie Hoddinott told Motorcycle News.

Motorcyclist Bryn Carlyon beat an inaccurate ticket by proving mathematically that the distance he traveled in the pair of speed camera photographs could only have been done at well under the speed limit. Now Staffordshire is withholding the second photo and West Midlands is cropping images to prevent the accused from using pavement markings to perform speed calculations.

Although in the US, camera photos are always issued as a part of automated enforcement tickets, this in not common in the UK. Also, motorists face penalties of up to £2000 ($3900) and six points from UK judges if they challenge a ticket in court.

Source: Speeding: Guilty Until Proven Innocent (Motorcycle News (UK), 12/12/2006)

This is absolutely abhorrent and deserves a PR - if true

“the onus is on you to prove your innocence, but we withhold the means for you to accomplish this”


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 15:04 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
smeggy wrote:
“the onus is on you to prove your innocence, but we withhold the means for you to accomplish this”

In addition, something instinctively tells me that the pratnerships are perverting the course of justice by withholding this evidence.

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 21:02 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Quote:
Jeannie Hoddinott


Surely that's an anagram.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 21:18 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
I thought Lembit Opik was an anagram ...

_________________
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: Fri Feb 09, 2007 00:07 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Alan Yentob: surname backwards is "Botney"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 00:26 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Johnnytheboy wrote:
Alan Yentob: surname backwards is "Botney"

How could you have missed the obvious: Alan <=> ----


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 00:42 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Johnnytheboy wrote:
Quote:
Jeannie Hoddinott


Surely that's an anagram.

Yes, it's Jihad no detention! :wink:

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 00:57 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
smeggy wrote:
Quote:
UK: Speed Camera Evidence Withheld Before Trial
Speed camera operators in the UK are hiding evidence to discourage court challenges.

Several of the partnerships responsible for operating speed cameras in the UK are suppressing evidence of alleged speeding incidents. The move forces motorists to risk expensive court battles even when they are unfairly accused.

"The onus is on the driver of the vehicle to prove their innocence, not on the Partnership to prove guilt," Staffordshire camera partnership spokesman Jeannie Hoddinott told Motorcycle News.

Motorcyclist Bryn Carlyon beat an inaccurate ticket by proving mathematically that the distance he traveled in the pair of speed camera photographs could only have been done at well under the speed limit. Now Staffordshire is withholding the second photo and West Midlands is cropping images to prevent the accused from using pavement markings to perform speed calculations.

Although in the US, camera photos are always issued as a part of automated enforcement tickets, this in not common in the UK. Also, motorists face penalties of up to £2000 ($3900) and six points from UK judges if they challenge a ticket in court.

Source: Speeding: Guilty Until Proven Innocent (Motorcycle News (UK), 12/12/2006)

This is absolutely abhorrent and deserves a PR - if true

“the onus is on you to prove your innocence, but we withhold the means for you to accomplish this”

The only consolation is that every time they do something like this, it surely must make a whole new raft of people realise that they are only in it for the money. Why else would they attempt to stop people proving their innocence pre-court? What possible other explanation could there be, except that they're trying to intimidate as many people as possible into coughing up because they don't want to face court (with the threat of extra points and expenditure)? Scumbags of the highest order.

The cameras themselves are bad enough, but the incredibly dishonest and misanthropic way in which they are administered is what really gets my back up.

I'm surprised none of the letter bombs ended up at one of the pratships. And no, I don't condone them, or violence of any kind. And that includes the kind of indirect violence perpetrated by those falsely claiming that cameras are saving lives.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 01:00 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4815
Location: Essex
Johnnytheboy wrote:
Quote:
Jeannie Hoddinott


Surely that's an anagram.

Tying in with the shaving thread: "I dent, I jot one hand" :-)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 15:30 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
smeggy wrote:
Quote:
UK: Speed Camera Evidence Withheld Before Trial
Speed camera operators in the UK are hiding evidence to discourage court challenges.

Several of the partnerships responsible for operating speed cameras in the UK are suppressing evidence of alleged speeding incidents. The move forces motorists to risk expensive court battles even when they are unfairly accused.

"The onus is on the driver of the vehicle to prove their innocence, not on the Partnership to prove guilt," Staffordshire camera partnership spokesman Jeannie Hoddinott told Motorcycle News.

Motorcyclist Bryn Carlyon beat an inaccurate ticket by proving mathematically that the distance he traveled in the pair of speed camera photographs could only have been done at well under the speed limit. Now Staffordshire is withholding the second photo and West Midlands is cropping images to prevent the accused from using pavement markings to perform speed calculations.

Although in the US, camera photos are always issued as a part of automated enforcement tickets, this in not common in the UK. Also, motorists face penalties of up to £2000 ($3900) and six points from UK judges if they challenge a ticket in court.

Source: Speeding: Guilty Until Proven Innocent (Motorcycle News (UK), 12/12/2006)

This is absolutely abhorrent and deserves a PR - if true

“the onus is on you to prove your innocence, but we withhold the means for you to accomplish this”

Completely agree with smeggy here, what a disgraceful state of affairs if this is indeed the case.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

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 : 0.014s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]