Safe Speed Forums

What's that got to do with:
"Chickens come home to roost".
Fellow Traveller!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From the Forum Rules


Anyway what has anything on this topic got to do with Chickens?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

d.c. b.whaley wrote


Not a lot, if you pick out the odd word and create a debate about it!
Neither has it anything to do with coming, home or to as individual words!
Now you can spin AWAY on the topic of English language, grammar, sentence building etc etc.
Perhaps you should start to spin towards poultry, widfowll, domestic birds etc etc
The list is endless, detracting and pointless.
But it does subvert the thread, which is simply what I am saying.
I WILL continue with the THREAD.

THE DUE PROCESS SCAM!

I'm sure everyone on this forum & others is aware that "Due Process" is the cornerstone of British Justice!
Laws, Guidelines Rules & Regulations must be adheered to!
After all without rules where would be be.....................?
That's Right Blackburn CTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's how due process starts under THE PARTNERSHIP!
First an NIP issued:

and very specifically states:
"Please note that we are unable to enter into any correspondence into this matter unless this form is is correctly, signed (underlined) and returned."
Now I would say that's a rule to be ignored or so the CTO manager decided!
However this is A DOUBLE SIDED document and on the reverse:

It's a document that comprises of boxes to either tick or fill in in calital letter as is therefor enabled to be scanned in & read by computer software to generate OFFICIAL records.
It has 7 sections to it and SECTION 6 requests that in the event of being unable to name the driver an explanation is required here.

This document could, and did, create problems, as, at the time, forums were advising that photographs should be requested and were supplying on line documents & pro forma letters to support their readers!

This would never do for the Partnership!
SO........................!
THEY HATCHED A CUNNING PLAN!

The idea is:
If somebody applies for a photograph he gets charged £10.00 for it, even if he hasn't filled in the ORIGINAL NIP and when we send out the photograph we'll send another "Section 172 statement" and see if he fills that one in!
However this will not be in the format of the ORIGINAl and won't be able to be scanned into the OFFICIAL COMPUTER system but will be dealt with by the CTO Manager.


He will then enter into correspondence with the COMPLAINANT, each time sending out HIS Section 172:
THEN (After a bit of PHOTOSHOPPING!)HE SENDS THIS ONE!

I've actually seen one of these filled in and produced in court by THE CPS!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone spot the difference ?
The clues in here!
I wonder how many have been DONE with this document since 2001 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is an actual case! Finished & gone through due process)
Here's the documents that The district Judge based his rulings on:

DOCUMENT 1.
Now the judge SCRUTINISED these documents for a period of Time.
Here's the accompanying letter, from the CTO Manager, with the documents sent out to THE DEFENDANT 13th february. He claimed that he had sent out the ORIGINAL COPY of THE NIP but this was way out of time and should have resulted in a Court appearance for speeding!

DOCUMENT 2.
Here's the document sent out to the NON-Defendant on the 14th February :

DOCUMENT 3.


Full explanation later! Have to collect Gt Grandchildren from the school!!

Explanation of "THE PROSECUTION AT ALL COSTS" Documents 1.2.3.as above:
Document 2. is the accompnanying letter with Document 1.
It clearly explains that the person it is addressed to is the potential defendant, that the ORIGINAL NIP has never been filled in (Issued 3rd Jan 2007) and is dated Feruary 13th 2007. OUT OF TIME.
Due Process should be: summonse issued for failing to name.

However it claims to be in support of a copy of THE ORIGINAL NIP enclosed.
DOCUMENT 1. was sent out instead.

It also guides the recipient to fill in sections4,5,& 7 in order to avoid prosecution.Their is no other choice on this document
(What would you do fill in the stated or get done ?)
After all it's just bureaucratic ???? What harm can it do ? It will get me off the hook!

Again this document is dated 13th February 2007.

Document 1. is the "Jewel in the Crown" of all Prosecuting documents. It is so heavily PHOTOSHOPPED that it is almost amateur!
1. IT HAS TWO RECEIVED STAMPS! One at least 4 days before it was written!!!!! (SENT OUT PRE DATE STAMPED?)
However, whoever received it spotted it & dated it correctly 8th March 2007!

2. The Statement on a REAL 172 reads:
"IF THE ADDRESS BELOW IS A LIMITED COMPANY, THIS FORM IS FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE COMPANY SECRETARY" however this has been overlapped with cut & paste so that it reads:
"IF THE ADDRESS BELOW IS A LIMITED COMPANY, THIS FORM IS" the bottom line has been completely overlapped!

3. No postecode on the address for the CPU Blackburn. This is never missing on any other official document.

4. At part 4. The statement:

"IF YES tick here then go to part 5. IF NO then go to part 6." Indicates the most important part of the section 172 Statement, where a detailed explanation MUST be given as to why a driver cannot be identified!

PART 6 HAS BEEN CUT COMPLETELY OUT OF THE DOCUMENT AND PART 7 MOVED UP TO COVER THIS UP!

I have removed all personal details but can inform you that ALL the fonts used to fill in times, places, speeds etc, are not the usual fonts found on any similar versions of this "Section 172" document anywhere. They are actually windows fonts that indicate this document has been manufactured on a PC.

DOCUMENT3. is then sent out to another person on 14th February 2007 claiming that HE is to be prosecuted for the offence.

WHY ARE WE TRYING TO PRIVATISE THE ROYAL MAIL.IT'S THE MOST EFFICIENT SERVICE IN THE WORLD!

I CAN WRITE A LETTER ON THE 13TH FEB 2007 SEND IT OUT WITH ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO BE FILLED IN AND IT'S DELIVERED AND RECEIVED SO FAST THAT I CAN HAVE IT RETURNED TO CHARGE ANOTHER PERSON THE NEXT DAY! AMAZING!!!!

[b] Except for one thing It didn't get back until the 8TH MARCH 2007, 22 days AFTER It was decided to issue a summonse to somebody else for the offence!


The police, The judicary, The CPS are all aware of these documents but wanted them buried.

By the way Guy 1, who never filled in the NIP, didn't get done!

Guy 2 who filled in all the documents in the timescales got done for "Failing to name"!

JUSTICE DONE LANCASHIRE PARTNERSHIP STYLE!

Based upon the above, it is clearly an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

If more than one person is involved, then it is conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Who prosecutes the prosecutors ?

_________________
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

yomukuk wrote:

Well spotted & commented on.
Who knows.......................
IPCC, The chief Constable, Lancashire Police Authority..........................?

jomukuk wrote:


Maybe the CPS carry the responsibility; seeing that they presented the Documents!


FULL GUIDELINES HERE:
http://www.westerncircuit.org.uk/Docume ... 202005.pdf

NOW, DOES ANYBODY FANCY BRINGING THIS POST TO THEIR ATTENTION ?

THE CHIEF's CON for CASH! UPDATE!

Home Office latest figure published 30th April shows the latest figures for Chief Constable's CAUTIONIN POLICY IN LANCASHIRE for 1st time offenders!
Full link here: Lancashires on page 61! (Might be of interest to steve)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0709.pdf

How Many Caution ? NONE! Nobody in Lancashire travels at CAUTIONING POLICY SPEED BECAUSE THE PARTNERS IN THE SPEED AWARENESS RIP OFF DON'T GET MAKE ANY MONEY££££ OUT OF IT£££££

THE CAUTIONING POLICY IS JUST SPIN! BOOST THE SPEED AWARENESS ATTENDEES! WE GET PAID EVEN IF THEY DON't ACCEPT!

This is Blackburn CTO & Lancashire County Council wagging the DOGS BODY, and IGNORING, with immunity, The CHIEF DOG's ORDERS!

How can CIVILIANS be of an HIGHER AUTHORITY than their boss!

There must be " A SQUARE SORT OF ANSWER" to this question!

Perhaps somebody should " LODGE" a complaint!

But who to..................................


Sleep well in your beds Lancashire! WE are fighting CRIME with FIGURES! BUT NOT VERY WELL................Good job you don't know about it!

Postman just arrived:
Nigel Evans M.P. has asked Lancashire Chief Constable to explain how:

"HMCS are of the opinion that the claimed FPNs claimed for payment from The Treasury have never been received by Cumbria & Lancashire Courts System and roughly equate to "ALL MOTORING ISSUED FPNs during this period"
Looks like Steve's going to be a busy man!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder how much of THIS is related to scamera-generated speed awareness courses, and payment of same ?

_________________
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

jomukuk wrote:

very nice find jomukuk.
I think you can now see how the speed awareness course was first used to milk the money under the road safety camera (It was invented in Lancashire by Neil Cunliffe of Lancashire County Council)however if the people who went on them weren't removed from the FPNH1 forms they would be boosted for the direct future grant system.
This was my first thought when I noticed the large number of "Unpaid FPNs" every year in the Partnership accounts.

Then it was sold nationally and has now become a growth industry throughout the country without any regulation or financial control and is really "outside" the law and the court control over the finances of all types of FPNs.
The Partnerships knew that ALL FPNs were to be put through the court when the direct grant scheme was to come in at 2007! So it's logical that "speeders" will now be dramatically reduced!!
The PR machines will now begin to go into overdrive that its "cameras" that have reduced the speeding throughout the country! It never was "really as bad" as the Partnerships claimed but had to have high "convictions" to justify the high incomes required to build their empires!

Credit where it's due, shouldn't that have read something like....

Ribble Valley MP Nigel Evans, who was assisted by "Yimitier", who had, through all his hard work uncovered the figures, and brought this information to my attention....

Yimitier, you yourself deserve a knighthood for what you've done. If it wasn't for people the likes of yourself and others on SafeSpeed, Pepipoo etc, where would the public be...

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Yes, well done Yimitier!

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

One of the two WARNINGS issued from Lancashire Constabulary!

IT'S FOR A SECTION 172 "FAILING TO NAME!"



Thanks to Safespeed just received one of the two warnings issued from Blackburn CTO!
The "defence" is a pro forma letter downloaded from pepipoo in relation to section 172 failing to name.
I might be wrong but, I don't think that a section 172 can be resolved with "A WARNING"! Only a court can decide!
However in "The Court of Blackburn CTO" the JUDGE makes up his own laws & sentences!!!!

Certainly beats fines & points under this system!
I would certainly like to be a friend of whoever has this power!


THE POWER OF THE WEB PUBLICATORS!

Here's the previous correspondence that led to "THE WARNING!"
It clearly shows that the writer was well aware of his legal obligations under the law!

Yes! THE COURT WILL DECIDE! The court of "Blackburn CTO!"

Magistrates & The Judiciary in Lancashire should be made redundant under this system!

Is this "Warning", PCoJ? plus adjuducating himself and therefore deliberate depriving a "defence" from being presented to the courts!

It's got be AT LEAST CONTEMPT OF COURT!

The warning is issued as a punishment for a "section172 failing to name". It clearly states that "this offence will be brought to the magistrates attention in any future offence! (anything known , your honour!)

The Court is in session in Blackburn CTO!!

p.s. Note the 14 day delivery for photograpic evidence sent: Under DATA PROTECTION ?!(PACE & CIPA aren't allowed in Blackburn CTO.)
NIPs have to be returned within 28 days!
14 days delivery, 2,3 days for delivery each letter plus time to read & write etc!
Could easily run out of time under this system and then automatic prosecution kicks in for "FAILING TO NAME".

Could these documents be part of the Disciplinary shortly to be heard at Lancashire Constabulary "for failing to process "certain" documents ? They were supplied to the Investigating Officer on the 2nd of November 2007.

Just wondering, but is charging a tenner under the "Data Protection Act" to see a photo, appropriate in these circumstances? Surely this is a fundamental part of the "transaction" that is occurring?

What next, your supermarket charging a tenner to get your till receipt, or your electricity company charging you a tenner (on top of all the other non-DD and non-paperlessbilling) just to see your invoice?

So many potential flaws

mb
p.s. Indeed, can we charge them a tenner for the information that we have to give them

is there a point to this thread

_________________
now retired