Safe Speed Forums

In this instance, I disagree. If the 'rule of law' broken is merely a technical one, with no harm caused to person or property, then no.


It's extremely unlikely that we'll be able to change a law that is such a cashcow... And I do have the right to choose which laws I obey.

I believe it is the introduction of pathetic and spiteful laws that are responsible for the general disregard now for the law.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

How's that then?

You don't have the right to choose which penalties (imposed on you for breaking the laws you chose to ignore) you have to meet - a prison sentence, for example, does not include "detained at her majestys pleasure if that's OK with you".

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

So fraud against a multimillion pound organisation - stealing a few grand from a bank, for example - not a punishable offence? They've got lots more, doesn't damage them, no-one is injured.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Ummm, how do you work that one out? Theft from an organisation causes damage to their profitability...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

As an individual, if I consider a law to be unjust/pathetic, I will ignore it. If I get prosecuted for ignoring it, then that's tough luck on me.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

ahh, yes, what better use for the little icon thing ...

So it's tough luck on you, so when you get a fine and points for speeding, guess what?

It's Tough Luck on you!!

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Ummm, didn't I just say that?

Or have you had a particularly long liquid lunch?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

no, no, I'm just pleased that someone on this site can recognise that being penalised for speeding is actually your own fault ... because everyone else seems to think that getting a NIP for speeding is someone else's fault!

You've really cheered me up, I was starting to lose faith in people, but now knowing that at least one of you realises the truth means that there is hope for the rest of you!

Botty burp, I salute you.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Well it is a Friday, so I'm glad I've cheered you up!

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I think you have misinterpreted the views of camera opponents. If you get snared in the existing regime then it IS your lookout. However, we believe that defending yourself against an unjustified speeding charge is, indeed, part of our justice system. This is not making it "someone else's fault" just ensuring the law as written is operated properly.

Most of us believe that the speed enforcement means and process is flawed and does not achieve its stated primary aim of increasing safety.

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

I woud add to Malcolm's post that fighting through the courts is one way of impeding a disproportionate response from police courts and government.

I work with a group 20 of conservitive libriarians and draftsmen. people who wouldnt put thier jars in the bin with out washing them. people who wouldnt leave a bit early if the boss was on holliday. Half of them have been criminalised by this fiasco. None of them to my knowledge have had a note worthy accident in the last 5 years I have worked with them.

Mean while the government has been stuvck on the same message and ignored pedestrian education, encouraged binge drinking, Told pedestrians that every accident is due to speeding cars. After 10 years of this message 6 year olds are now 16 and passing this mad message to thier kids.

_________________
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

Just goes to show the lack of a connection between occupation and cleanliness on the one hand and the abilty or desire to control the speed of a car on the other.

how else could they possibly have known an offence (apart from, of course, exceeding the speed limit) was being commited?

he would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling motorists.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Well No, Not really!

It goes rather more towards showing the "Lack of connection" between whether or not people are capable of driving safely and whether or not it is desirable to criminalise people for driving in a manner whereby they exceed "Urm Fingles/netue"

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

I can't waste any more time on this thread.
Bye

_________________
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

Give 'em bread and water! Keep 'em in rat infested cells - then hang 'em all!


"That'll "learn 'em"!

Am being facetious of course!

Lawyers will plead for mitigation. Sadly, they seem to have more success with "tales of woe" than with most other cases. We seem to spend all our time rounding up the same old to appear before the same old .... it can be a bit soul destroying at times. Our fault though. We just could not get the evidence or prosecution failed to convince the court . Or we made some minor error in the paperwork which the defence pounced on. and turned into a "major error"

But of course, we seek to put away those who pose a real theat to society. The punishment is depriving them of their liberty. Locking them in a cell etc. As a society we should try to educate/rehabilitate and provide a means to make a living after their release.

This would help them "repay" the cost of locking them away as well as their learning from the experience.

BUT sadly.. to our collective cost

We also fail badly on that one as a society overall. We then go into a downward spiral of recidivist/career criminality and "regarding prison as an occupational hazard"

We get the community service/let off with a tag/curfew/ASBO etc right some of the time - but markedly wrong in perhaps 40% at least of all cases By this I mean some hard cases see an ASBO as some kind of "trophy" punishment.

But I think we tread a very thin tight rope on some of the cases and when a court's trying to balance up the evidence against any mitigating circumstance - one factor can "tip the balance". It's difficult to say on-line without being "specific" about cases I've been involved - but it does depend on how a case is argued in court to the judge/jury/magistrate in some of these "grey" cases which have some emotion in the background The law likes to think in terms of "black and white". "Grey" areas cause it confusion.

Why it "likes" speeders. Nice clear cut black and white. You were either proven to be above a fixed lolly or you were not speeding at all. The calibrated evidence is pretty clear cut





Three strikes and you're out!

But we have to draw a line somewhere and I would agree that a court would have to consider a custodial sentence for serious repeat offences.




Ah.. but the problem. You lie to a court. How can I be sure the person is not lying to me in the future?

That person might be a key witness to a serious crime. But with one count of blatant fibbing in his history.. how sure could a court be that he's not fibbing again?

It's serious. It's like fibbing to a boss over qualifications to get a job which you ain't qualified to do.

Anton - I am not going to spout the "law" at you. Nor do I pull the "holier than thee cos I have a uniform with proverbial shiny badges all over it" I try to put things across relatively diplomatically ( I think )


Fisherman - Ern's bus driver.


Once dealt with a bus which collided with a low bridge. Person on top deck was a fatal and two serious. This was way back when in the past. Driver was new to the route. There were three bridges and the third one was the one he hit. From his perspective on approach - he could not see or judge the third one would take the roof off the bus. Inquest at the time ruled a truly unfortunate accident and no charges were brought against the driver. The insurance company was probably stung though.


These days with Sat Nav. Alas the bossy woman giving the instructions is taken more note of than actual common sense of the road ahead Along with a blind faith


As for the lorry driver? Heck - we'd have tried to have the key thrown away here Steering a big lorry with knees whilst gobbling down a tin of spaghetti is a real . He could have stopped at any one service area on the A55 (which to my memory does have parking lay-bies) to eat his meal without compromising his safety/other driver's safety or his digestive system

_________________
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.

I won't reply to the issue because fisherman is trolling.
he is not debating

_________________
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

Hmm, thats the second time you said you won't reply to this thread

Actually, Fisherman is not trolling, he is making a valid point. I have a work colleague who is extremely quiet and unassuming. He gets on with his job and you'd hardly notice he was there. Yet when he gets behind the wheel of a car he can be a complete cock He was once coming back from town during his lunchbreak when some perceived injustice occured. He chased the 'perpetrator' 8 miles back up the motorway to give him a piece of his mind

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

You will always have an uphill struggle to prove cases. The rules are that any doubt must go in the defendants favour. I couldn't begin to count the number of cases where we were pretty sure that the offence had been committed as charged and then brought in a Not Guilty verdict. Because pretty sure isn't good enough.



I once asked a defendant who was about to go down for the latest of a very long list of custodial sentences why he kept on offending. He told me that jail was his equivalent of my income tax. Both unpleasant, both unavoidable, both a direct consequence of our chosen paths in life.



Nicely put.
People outside the system are generally unaware of the range of factors that courts must consider before deciding on a sentence. As an example, yesterday I recieved my copy of the latest guidance for sentencing offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has 139 pages, A4 size.



As I frequently point out, I don't like dealing with specific cases because we have to rely on what was in the local paper. As all cases are dealt with according to individual circumstances, there will always be those that do not merit prosecution and others that do.



Considering he ( if the press reports are accurate) has a 12 year good driving record and put in a guilty plea the sentence appears to have been in line with the guidance.

A debate is a disscussion during which people present opposing views, and explanations for them, in the hope of extending knowledge and understanding.

Calling a view which differs from yours "trolling" is not debating.