Notso Accurate?

[SafeSpeed]

The Following just in from David Edgar:

PRESS RELEASE 4


Since a small minority of people have posted some less than helpful comments that I apparently know nothing about the law and I have allegedly ignored dealing with an NIP I would be obliged if I could be allowed set the record straight.

I have been a litigant (unpaid) for almost 11 years in both civil and criminal law, this also includes intellectual property law with respect to inventions and designs, in that time I have successfully represented myself in many Courts winning 80% of my cases, the other 20% would have been won if I were not up against an old boy network that is both bent and incompetent.

I have won (and lost), in many Courts where I have appeared alone with no support or funding including the County Courts, Magistrate’s Courts, High Courts, Appeal Courts including the High Court which is regularly seen on TV and is otherwise known as the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand.

Currently I have three cases on going in the Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, I have had numerous complaints upheld by the Ombudsman and received compensation, I have also received compensation from the Law Society as result of bent and incompetent solicitors and this does not include the countless cases I have won for my self and others at many tribunals.

I successfully saved my elderly mother’s life last year when the NHS tried to kill her by way of involuntary euthanasia (caught on camera doing it), sadly I was less successful with my elderly father who was neglected to death last by the local authority, needless to say those responsible for his death will be introduced to an out of court settlement in due course.

Whilst the satisfaction of restoring some justice is very rewarding it has badly affected my health, last year I had a heart attach as a result of the relentless pressure.

So for those of you out there who think I know nothing of the law I would respectfully ask you to revise your statements as I feel I have earned my law degree the hard way.

With respect to the current RTA Section 172 (3) case it should be noted that I do not have to prove that the Gatso’s are failing to meet Type Approval as I already have a robust defence to that charge. So I do not have to crusade for anyone and can abandon it at any time but I choose to do so because I know from bitter experience that the only way to change things is to fight it and keep fighting it until they listen.

I have used this Court case as a platform to expose the scam that we all know is criminalizing millions of innocent motorist but very few of us are willing to fight the bent establishment for the greater good of the motorist.

To correct the obvious legal misunderstanding with respect to my case please see an extract from my formal defence statement:

The police served an NIP stating that pursuant to Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 I had allegedly exceeded the speed limit, this being 41mph in a 30mph zone [The allegation]. They then stated on the same NIP that pursuant to Section 81 RTRA 1984 they had photographic evidence in support. [The material evidence] in addition pursuant Section 172 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I was obliged to identify the driver. Since it is well know that "he who alleges must prove" I then continued....

I then responded to the NIP by stating on the form that the driver was unknown to me and in a covering letter I had no recollection of the alleged incident and make no admission of guilt, I then asked for sight of the photographic evidence the police claimed they had in their possession thus complying with the statutory defence of using reasonable diligence as in Section 172 (3) to identify the driver.

Having received the photographic evidence from the police I then responded by letter and stated that inter alia, the photographic evidence failed to identify the driver and it was my contention that the evidence was inconclusive and therefore would not support a successful conviction, furthermore I was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time of the alleged offence and could not reasonably identify the driver as their identity was unknown to me.

The police then sent another identical NIP to complete however I returned the same stating that I was not aware of any requirement in the RTA 1988 which compels me to duplicate the same statement of facts which I had previously made, I therefore returned the form and asked the officer to identify which section of which Act requires me to do so, strangely enough he never did!

I then stated that should the police commence a prosecution I would defend the same and apply for a Defendant's Costs Order I also stated that I would be relying upon material evidence in support including the case: Regina v Detective Superintendent Adrian Roberts, Head Middlesborough CID 2001 whereby he was not charged following an alleged speeding charge because he couldn't remember who was driving his car due to the photographic evidence conveniently being "inconclusive".

The police then commenced the prosecution and I received a Magistrates' Summons which was subsequently dealt with by entering a plea of NOT GUILTY. I would point out that at this time I was not aware of the serious inaccuracies of the Gatsometers.

Whilst I am reasonably confident that I can defeat the Section 172 (3) charge I am also confident that I can rely upon the Crown's documentary evidence which they have already filed and served, this being a witness statement by a member of the West Midlands Police Camera Enforcement Unit who has stated that pursuant to Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 the Gatsometer BV Type 24 AUS was Type Approved and was working correctly at the material time since I am of course permitted under Human Rights law to question any Witnesses the prosecution bring against me therefore I will be exploiting the failures of that particular Gatsometer to comply with the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook the likes of which I now have in my possession and the same being relied upon when the Calibration Certificate is signed, this also being disclosed as evidence for the Crown.

Allow me to quote from the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook, in particular section 3.4 under "Terminology" A speedmeter will be considered to fail a type approval test if it displays an incorrect reading of speed outside the tolerance range of error" The "Measuring Accuracy" being a positive error no larger than 3mph (or +3% above 100mph) and since my evidence will prove a wapping 26% error I rest my case!

There are also a number of other serious matters which the PSBD Speedmeter Handbook has identified.

I would also agree with Paul Smith's (Safe Speed) argument that this case is very much in the public interest with regards to speedmeter accuracy so I will be inviting the Crown to reintroduce the speeding charge in order that I can deal with it legally and technically.



David Edgar

[SafeSpeed]

This press notice just in:

The Legal Guys News Facility

Date: 1st March 2005

“People’s Hero” No Show at Court

Thousands of motorists were left fuming today as their “People’s Hero” failed to attend his own trial for a speeding offence.

Mr. David Edgar, of Walsall, West Midlands, had previously been very vocal in the development of his defence against the so-called “greed cameras”, where he claims to have categorical proof that speed cameras may not be as accurate as the Police claim they are.

A source at Birmingham Magistrates Court stated that Mr. Edgar, who had previously had his case adjourned because of his non-attendance in January of this year, did actually come to Court today. However, prior to him being called to Court, Mr. Edgar decided not to defend himself, and left before the case was heard.

Mr. Edgar’s non-attendance meant the Court had to deal with the case in his absence, and returned the decision that he was guilty of failing to complete his Notice of Intended Prosecution – technically referred to as a Section 172 Offence.

Mr. Edgar was fined £150 plus £300 Court costs, and his driving licence was suspended until such time as it was produced to the Court for an endorsement of 3 penalty points.

Simon Tonks, a local anti-speed camera campaigner said:

“This is bitterly disappointing; Mr. Edgar has let a lot of people down with his promises of proof. We were very hopeful that this case might shed some light on the speed camera schemes, as there have been fears for a long time that the implementation of speed cameras is less about road safety than it is about fining motorists.”
======================================

I'm trying to contact David Edgar.

[CarlP]

Well, lots of people (myself included) always said he'd be found guilty of S172 whatever he did, I doubt not attending the hearing made much difference to that...

[SafeSpeed]

I've had a brief email from David Edgar:

===============================
Coming soon to a Gatso near you
http://www.notsoaccurate.com

Hi Paul,

As I was not in Court yesterday I am unaware of the outcome therefore as soon as I know the result I will post my future intentions on the above website.

Regards,

David Edgar
===============================

[CarlP]

Actually, not attending is probably not as bad as it sounds. The S172 conviction at this stage was completely inevitable. It makes far more sense to ignore this stage of proceedings, allow yourself to be found guilty, then put your case to the High Court on appeal.

If that's what he's doing, then good luck to the bloke, it'll be a very interesting case and the High Court is a far better place for it to be heard.

[SafeSpeed]

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?

[JT]

...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.

If you look in the headers you will see that it was actually routed to "safespeed.org.uk" - the apparent destination address was an alias in the same way that the source was.

[SafeSpeed]

...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.

If you look in the headers you will see that it was actually routed to "safespeed.org.uk" - the apparent destination address was an alias in the same way that the source was.

Except I thought the 'to' field controlled the routing. In fact, if it doesn't, what the hell does?

[CarlP]

I'm betting your org.uk address was in the BCC field.

[Twister]

The case was being heard in Birmingham, and this email originated from a Birmingham IP... coincidence?

[Gatsobait]

18/03/05 Having established who "The Legal Guys" are the Defendant serves notice on them with respect to claiming damages for defamation of character.

Bottom of http://www.notsoaccurate.com/Page%201.htm. Sounds like he's found out whodunnit.

[Davepeers]

The latest from David Edgar

http://www.notsoaccurate.com/Page%2020.htm
It would appear that our legal rights really don't matter when being accused of speeding. David successfully uses the Human Rights Act & Data Protection Act here to force disclosure of scamera 'evidence' arguing that failure to disclose is a breach of Article 6, Human Rights Act '88 - "Right to a fair trial" because witholding the pictures prevents the accused from using a statutory defence to section 172 (3) Road Traffic Act 88.

Needless to say the West Mids Scamerati were outraged but given the threat of a Malicious Prosecution action they caved in and provided the pictures.

This now sets an important precedent whereby you HAVE the right to see the alleged evidence held against you.

The 'House of Scamerati' is beginning to crumble.

Well done David Edgar! :clap1::clap1:

[M3RBMW]

The only thing that annoys me is that you have to pay to see the evidence.

In Victoria we have always been able to see the photo, by going to the office and paying a small fee or paying a bigger fee to have it sent to you.

Either way, why the hell should we have to pay to see the evidence against us?

Admittedly, if the photo helps to prove it was not your car you get the money refunded.

[willcove]

Except I thought the 'to' field controlled the routing. In fact, if it doesn't, what the hell does?

The routing is controlled by the envelope that you don't get to see unless you're running the incoming SMTP server. The server removes the envelope (which can contain BCC addresses) and passes the contents to your email client. Normally, the content of the To: header is copied to the Envelope-To: header - but this doesn't have to be the case. For example, the SafeSpeed Yahoo group has "safespeed@yahoogroups.com" in the To: header, but sends to each list member using BCC.

HTH,

[lkylong]

so what happened to David? No updates on his site for a month already?

[bribritisher]

so what happened to David? No updates on his site for a month already?

Yes and I have been unable to email him either, on an ongoing case.
looks like he has been silenced by the old boys club.
such good work to.

his site index page has been deleted and redirected, but you can still access the site by going to :-

http://www.notsoaccurate.com/Page%201.htm

where his last 2 updates include Telewest blocking his phone line communications and Natwest freezing his accounts.

the last contact I had with him was 8th June 2005

[Dixie]

I wouldn’t give up just yet, he had been acknowledged by the Court of Human Rights. Maybe just maybe he had to go into hiding. This wouldn’t surprise me after what he has gone through, and with his health and all that. Only a thought.

[lkylong]

I think somehow we need to get all the supporters to come together and come up with a plan and campaign to spread the news and educate the public, without unity, there's no way we can beat the government and corrupted organisations!

but then everyone could've care less and won't do a thing even though it's burning right under their ass but they wouldn't bother fighting back because they have other more important things to tend to? Guess it's a problem with this society and there's nothing that can change it?

[SafeSpeed]

I think somehow we need to get all the supporters to come together and come up with a plan and campaign to spread the news and educate the public, without unity, there's no way we can beat the government and corrupted organisations!

That's what we're doing here! And with the available resources we're doing incredibly well.

[lkylong]

sorry Paul, in case you thought I was having a go at you. I'm not

of course you're doing quite well, in fact you're doing way more than you have to, but another thing is, I think not enough people know about your site, ie. the people that knows about it is only a minority

also your site should be updated to cater for the rest of the world inc. USA and Australia to gain more publicity and supporters

of course all these cannot all be achieved by yourself, that's why we need more supporters if possible to get together, form a group/team and work together towards a common goal, I just hate to see so many other websites who acknowledges this "speed" problem, but doesn't get much recognition at all, and it's not working, we must get together and plan something, design some car stickers, hand-out brochures, look for sponsorships from car clubs etc.etc.