Safe Speed Forums

The challenge set out on page one and reiterated above today is to malcolmw and Johnnytheboy in that they have alleged that the CSW has no legal force; I am not accepting any side issue questions that do not have any relevance to this issue.

It is up to them and anyone else who cares to address the issue of the alleged "no legal force" when the legal force (your terms) is shown quite clearly in the legislation I have quoted.

It is clear you have difficulty with interpreting the law, as do malcolmw and Johnnytheboy as it appears to be based on "what they and you feel to be right" rather than what the law is. Perhaps Mr. LLB will assist.

I could of course be completely wrong in my interpretation, I look forward to considering your submissions on this but please restrict them to fact rather than your own opinions.

I can see where you're having difficulty. Nowhere does it say that any two witnesses are sufficient, merely that one is insufficient. This really does highlight your lack of legal understanding. You never did answer my question about your legal training, though you seem happy to keep highlighting mine.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

This was the first request for citation of corroborating evidence in this thread, it remains unanswered, thus can only be regarded as unfounded opinion. In light of this...



...must also be regarded as unfounded opinion. Not only that, but the unfounded opinion of someone with no legal training or knowledge whatsoever.

If said prosecutions have succeeded then there would be court reports to that end. Having found no such reports despite a thorough search the only conclusion that remains is that GS is making things up to fit his wild fantasies about being someone who's words carry any weight whatsoever, anywhere, ever.

Greenshed, you've had ample opportunity to substantiate your assertions and have been found sorely wanting, therefore I posit that you are Walter Mitty, and I claim my prize!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I will make it very easy for you.

Interpret the following in the terms of the number of witnesses that can or may give evidence in legal proceedings. "NOT ONE".

Thank you Robin.


Never mind the point that DCB has eluded to, that in real-life that 'lay-witnesses' still needed the police to to the real work.


It seems the only difficulty is your interpretation of our posts - or should that be misrepresentation?
All I have ever said is that you've never shown legislation that you can show supports your claim.


You have given no facts to support your claim.


Quite clearly, it is open to interpretation, so it is anything but 'quite clear'.

It might be clear for you, but you haven't shown yourself to be of legal or intellectual worth. Even professional, trained, expert-witnesses have got their, court quoted, basic understanding of simple logic, completely, utterly and laughing wrong.

...Carry on evading - again!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

With what you've shown: none!
"Not one" is within the SET "none"

Do you get it now?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

None does not appear in the set "witnesses that can or may give evidence" the smallest number is One.

You appear to be sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la la la la la la la la la la la la

You were the one that first brandished qualifications, now answer the essay question for which you are eminently qualified.

Nah, I did a research project instead, no trace of any of the type of cases you mention.

Keep evading Walt, everyone can see your true colours.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Really? You're the one ignoring the reasonable requests for you to back up your unfounded opinions, don't think anyone is fooled Walt.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Why mention it then? Chimp.

Please refrain from using such language

I will have to remember in future that casual chat is no longer permitted on this forum and that only precise legally correct language and statements are permissible.

It seems from other reports (quoted by dcb earlier) that the BBC did get it wrong as I suggested in my post above. These people were not prosecuted on the sole evidence of the CSW volunteers.

The arguments on here about the legal status of witnesses and my use of the colloquial expression "legal force" are actually not relevant to the point I was trying to make. I am not aware of any motorist being convicted of speeding on the sole evidence of CSW personnel as was implied by the original BBC report. This may be technically possible but AFAIK has never happened and probably never will for the reasons already rehearsed.

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

Perhaps GS might get it if it were explained thus:
The CSW have no greater legal power than any other citizen, that of citizens arrest. The law surrounding that is quite specific, one must witness a crime being commited, and you may detain the miscreant until such time as they are taken into custody by a police officer.

Lol, its ok, the fact that all he has left are insults shows the paucity of merit in his case.

Greenshed, you have no legal training or knowledge, yet you purport to understand the working of the law, and have demonstrated amply that you are unable to do so.

You could quite easily vindicate yourself, simply cite the cases you are so sure exist. Even sharing with us your bona fides for attempting to speak with any authority on the subject of law would help you reestablish some small modicum of credibility.

The fact that all you can do is hurl insults and weakly attempt to divert attention away from your inability to hold your own in this discussion just highlights the fact that you are utterly ignorant and out of your depth (pun intended).

Prove me wrong or pipe down Walt!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I guess Walter Mitty" and "Walt" are not considered abusive then.

I thought you wanted to limit yourself to demonstrable facts?


The wording for "witnesses that can or may give evidence" has not been given! I thought you wanted to pertinent facts?


I think it is now clear to the reader that you're not going to give the necessary supporting legislation for your opinion, despite the fact you've tried.

If you truly believe that a mere “one alone may not” is lawful acceptance of “at least one”, despite not accounting for what constitutes “one”, and that it is ‘quite clear’ then let’s just agree to disagree.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It is, which is exactly my point.

There was no prosecutions for mobile telephone offences until they were...well....prosecuted. This is exactly the position in which we find CSW speeding prosecutions, as far as we (you and I) are aware. There may well have been some and there may have been some in Wilt's but reports are conflicting.

Well done malcolmw, you have worked it out.

They are an accurate description of how you are coming across, now quit diverting, prove me wrong or pipe down Walt.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.