Safe Speed Forums

I know i am probably the worst fo spelling and grammer (even my german friend corrects my English), but surely there is a gramatical error which makes your sentence incomprehensible? I think there is a noun missing after the two adjectives?

Fisherman, I sincerely hope that you don't stop posting on this site. Your posts always seem balanced and well though out. I await with interest the result of Claire's checks, but have no doubt that you are who you say you are.

As for Lucy, well I have very little knowledge of the law and so have no idea if you are right or wrong. You did however make some serious errors in some of your posts about things I do understand and therefore wonder what you really do know. I hope you keep posting though because you have some interesting things to say, but please stop the personal attacks - they are not helpful or necessary.

Yes I would love to check which court Fisherman precides in, but he seems to be a bit shy. If he uses the priveldge of stautus, then he must behave accordingly. I would be very pleased to know that Safe Speed have confirmed his identity so that the Court Service could contact Safe Speed in the event of a complaint of his proffessional conduct.

Feel free to complain. I would be happy for anybody from HMCS to inspect my posts here.
If they found that I had disclosed confidential information ie information which could not have been obtained by a person sitting in court during a hearing I would have a problem. I haven't done so.
If they found I had obtained some benefit, either financial or in kind, from my position I would have a problem. Neither of those applies here. In fact I lose money in terms of broadband costs, not to mention my time.

This magistrate
http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/
is FAR more controversial and critical of the justice system than I am, he gets invited to join in broadcasts about the justice system and has no problem with the authorities.


The reason I don't wish to be identified is because I don't want people turning up at my door causing trouble, neither do I wish to give people the chance to be even personally offensive than is possible at the moment.


I note Lucy has not so far responded to my offer to step down. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that it is a criminal offence to pretend to be a qualified legal professional? The Bar and the Law Society pursue all cases of pretending to have professional legal qualifications. As Ian Clegg found out to his cost.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Fisherman: I have no intention of revealing my identity or my qualifications or abscence of them for this reason. People may be incline to give my posts greater or lesser weight accordingly. It is not who I am, it is my comments that are of relevance.

You have clearly made your decision about me and my legal contribution.

However you may wish to take at look at the "cornering" thread and ask yourself whether or not my contribution on left-foot braking could be from a person who is profficient in this? And if so, how they know about this?

You may also take a peek at "ESP a life saver" and ask yourself where my knowledge comes from on that? Also the dynamics of Traction Control. Within those threads, my posts have been challenged, probably because I dont start of stating I'm this that or the other and try to intimidate others. And you will clearly see, that I consider challenges and freely change my postion and express my genuine thanks for these well though out challenges.

But as you have been told before by many people, you would be better tackling the comments by reason, not by the authors status.

However your challenges are made by I'm right because I am a Magistrate, full-stop, with no reasoning (copy/paste of legislation is not reasoning). Therefore your abilities as a Magistrate become fair game. It would have been much better in the Hamilton matter if, as a Magistrate, you had enlightened readers with the Court Guidlines that were issues to prevent another perverse outcome like the Hamiltons. Do you have access to the guidlines in your Court? This is what concerns me, either you are not a magistrate or don't keep upto date.

Thank you for those words, semitone, perhaps you would like to address Fisherman and others who make personal attacks on me for the sake of unbiased balanced posting?

Fisherman: I didn't join this site to try and force people to step down and just as you dont want your personal identity revealed, neither do I. But I don't apply to be identified by a badge!

All this "I'll fall on my sword for Safe Speed" is now pathetic.

Would be much better if you could dig out the post-Hamilton court guidance.

Lucy, you are doing yourself no favours whatsoever. Further evidence can be found with a quick Google search that you may not have any relevant qualifications.

Somebody calling themselves Lucy W posted this on the Shropshire Star website:



So presumably this Lucy W and you are one and the same.

Lucy W also posted this on the same website:



You may or may not have working class "routes" and I'm not sure if you mean that you had a University education that deprived you of something or (more likely) that you had no University education. If you had no University education it is highly unlikely that you have any legal qualifications. You may be an expert in vehicle dynamics but in that I case I would have expected your knowledge of physics to be better.

Please stop these attacks on Fisherman.

Yes it would be, but the flip side - ad hominem – would be at least as bad.
One can of course state their profession/qualifications/experience. If others have reason to disagree then they can voice why and it should be left at that. Needless repeats of assertions against a person could lead readers to conclude something about the poster.


Fisherman, your input has always been very valuable. There is no reason for you to cease posting here regardless of what other posters can prove themselves to be; besides, it is always good to thoughts bouncing off equally capable minds. Both of you may well end up disagreeing, but has the law always been applied with absolute consistency?

semitone: just how sad are you googling me!!

I'm sure Fisherman will explain that you can rise to the highest peak of the judicial system without a law degree, not sure what you point is here?

I might suggest that you view the banter in local papers with a pinch of salt as well.

I have noticed that Spafe Speed lacks a sense of humour.

And just when are you going to address the attacks on me? I've been called a liar and ex-con frequently.

But like I say, its Safe Speeds site, they are free to ask me to leave without reason.

i didn't ever suggest that you should be identified. in fact I actually said that I am sure you can rely on Claire to keep it confidential. Neither did I suggest that you should be forced to have an avatar, merely that an appropriate one would be available.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Probably very sad, but I don't care I'm sure you've just Googled me



You haven't reached the highest peak of anything to do with law though, have you?



Well you wrote it! Is it true?



But Safe Speed members do



You have provided little evidence that you are not a liar.

I share Paul's dream of a free and fair forum where people from all sides of the road safety debate can post without censorship and without personal attacks.

A lawyer would be able to advise on law from a professional standpoint, whereas all I can do is to give my understanding based on experience. A lawyer would also be able to give information about court procedure, as I do. I would hope that any genuine lawyer would be willing to share the task with me. But as a lawyer would be much more valuable a contributor than I could ever be, I would stop posting if the lawyer was unwilling to share the work, rather than let this forum deteriorate to the level of so many others.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I have acknowledged that this is possible by asking if you are FILEX. You didn't answer.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Getting tired now, (you are probably going to "win") so only short posts from now on addressing a single point sorry.

And just what evidence is there that I have lied? Where have I knowingly made a false statement of truth with the intention to decieve.

All this liar accusaution is a feeble attempt to force me to disclose personal information, that you can't find from google.

Well it is encouraging that we both agree that calling people liars when we do not know the facts is not at all helpful and will not save a single life. Hopefully others will come to share out view and move forward.

However, I disagree that a lawyer would be more valuable here. Without the challenge from the judicual point of view the realistic complexities of advocasy and its uncertainly would be lost.

You must be aware that there are many myths about the law. A post from someone, who admits a connection with the justice system and which contradicts a myth, may make people seek proper advice from a lawyer rather than going off to court badly informed as is all too often the case at present. That surely is something worth doing.



I have to say that, on balance of probabilities, I am of the opinion that you have no professional legal qualifications whatsoever. Where things are easily looked up you have the level of knowledge I would expect from anybody with a bit of time to spare. Where things are not easily looked up you make a lot of very basic mistakes.

However, I do not seek to impose my beliefs on others and hope that they will look at the evidence and make up their own minds on the subject.

i have no knowledge and very little interest in such things. I don't read the threads and wouldn't be able to criticise the posts there if I did.


I have never said that. I do say that I post from experience in the system and state what that experience is. Some people will accept that background as useful in the circumstances, others will not. But I am always honest. I have never made statements, in jest or not, that are not true. I have never suggested anything that might lead people to assume I am something I am not. Pro bono work for example. Thats mostly out of respect for posters here and partly because, unlike you it seems, I am not prepared to risk custody by leading people to think I am a lawyer.

Sometime reasoning is appropriate, but when a piece of legislation has been so clearly misunderstood it is best to post the law. That way people can see for themselves what the real facts are without being misled by the eloquence or otherwise of the posts.


One of those will be proved shortly, the other is subject to constant review in court. For those who lack knowledge of court procedure, every day at the end of court proceedings a post court review is held. This involves all the magistrates that were sitting on the day plus the court clerk. It is a no holds barred, free and frank exchange of views in which anybody who is not up to date, or who displayed a lack of expertise, hears about it in plain english. Sometimes very plain english. I get no more, and no less, complaints than any of my colleagues.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Probably on the grounds of calling yourself an ex-con, andd then explaining that that was a lie.

A short and sweet post from me.

Fisherman: Whilst I appreciate that I can never satisfy you of my professional qualifications, you may be surprised!

As for am I FILEX, what difference does it make if I say yes or no? Surely you can be a solicitor with-out any degree, law or otherwise?

Johnny boy, it was a joke, grow up! Sorry you didn’t get it at the time and then failed to get it when it was explained, but that’s hardly my fault is it?

Hairy Ben: Whilst the legal limit is 35mg, I understand that there are guidelines only to prosecute 40mg+, perhaps someone knows if this is still so? (However if this guidline is still in place and CPS want to prosecute, being 35-40mg can not be defended by a claim that the guidelines are being breached)

A bit of advice: sarcasm really doesn't work on forums...

(and that wasn't sarcastic!)