SafeSpeed wrote:
This press notice just in:
The Legal Guys News Facility
The plot sickens. It turns out that this supposed 'Legal Guys' PR was a very odd and inaccurate document. I believed that I had received it from Simon Tonks, who I know and who is quoted, however it transpires that it came from a hotmail address with 'Simon Tonks' fradulently shown. Here is the email as received with full headers:
================================
-------- Original Message --------
Return-Path: <thelegalguys@hotmail.co.uk>
Received: from hotmail.com (bay1-f4.bay1.hotmail.com [65.54.245.4])by secure29.schmolie.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id j229G1926189for <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 01:16:01 -0800
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;Wed, 2 Mar 2005 01:16:00 -0800
Message-ID: <BAY1-F46D3C11D8089FB5CB140D905A0@phx.gbl>
Received: from 62.232.7.147 by by1fd.bay1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:15:16 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [62.232.7.147]
X-Originating-Email: [thelegalguys@hotmail.co.uk]
X-Sender:
thelegalguys@hotmail.co.uk
From: "Simon Tonks" <thelegalguys@hotmail.co.uk>
To:
psmith@safespeed.com
Subject: Our Hero is a no show at Court
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:15:16 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_697_3d3b_1ab6"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2005 09:16:00.0300 (UTC) FILETIME=[73354EC0:01C51F08]
X-Mozilla-Status: 9001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: $Up"!>Cd"!bO1!!1`M"!
Paul,
thought you and your readers might be interested in the result of a case
that went to Birmingham Magistrates Court yesterday. I'm aware that your
website has been following the developments in this case.
The bad news is that the NOSTO bloke was a no show.
SimonT.
======================================
'The Legal Guys' PR was attached as a Word document. The document has been examined in detail and has not revealed any further information.
I don't even understand how this email routed to me with
'psmith@safespeed.com' in the 'to' field. I don't own safespeed.com.
David Edgar has recently launched a web site:
http://www.notsoaccurate.com . On the subject of this PR David's web site says:
02/03/05 Defendant receives press release from "The Legal Guys" who falsely claimed that Defendant did attend Court on the 1st March 29005 but left when his case was called. Having attempted to establish who The Legal Guys were it would appear that no one has ever heard of them, this fuels the speculation that the press release has been published by the establishment in a rather amateurish attempt to discredit the Defendant.
In response to the false statement: The Defendant did not attend the Birmingham Magistrates' Court on the 1st March 2005 because he was at home on the advice of his medical advisors, the Court was well aware that he would not be attending as he had written to them on two occasions submitting medical certificates.
The trial listed for the 1st March 2005 was listed for two hours and not a full day and was intended to deal with the Section 172(3) offence of allegedly failing to identify the driver, it was not as stated by the false statement as intending to deal with the speeding offence which had already been dropped by the CPS for obvious reasons.
Since the Court has thus far failed to notify the Defendant of the outcome of the proceedings he is unable to comment upon the suggestion that it went ahead in his absence, should this subsequently prove to be correct an immediate appeal will be launched to both the Crown Court and the High Court.
With regards to the comment made by Simon Tonks who is a member of the Association of British Drivers it has now emerged that he did not make any such statement and had no idea that his name had been used in the press release Mr. Tonks has now joined in the search for "The Legal Boys".
With regard to the campaign against the Gatsometer speed cameras nothing has changed, the fight will continue regardless.
Should any one know of the whereabouts of "The Legal Guys" the Defendant and Mr Simon Tonks would be interested to receive such information as both now intend to sue the individual(s) responsible for malicious falsehood.
What do you make of that folks? Strange isn't it?