Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Apr 21, 2019 00:02

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 152 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: GUILTY!
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 18:09 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Just returned from a brief afternoon out at Kendal Magistrates Court, to fight my speeding ticket from 3rd January.
As I am always careful to monitor my speed and pass the cameras at Ings 6 days a week, I was sure I was not over the limit.

A request to see my photographs was a long drawn out affair, as the online system was not working, and eventually when I received them, they showed very little. They also did not include the time interval between photographs.

Image

Image

These are not scans, but the original online pictures which I could not access, and have not been lightened.
Apparently it is possible to see the points of contact with the road, and accurately measure the position of my vehicle using the back office viewing system. The time delay was given in court today as 460 milliseconds. The difference between 45 mph (below the threshold) and 46 (prosecution threshold) is 17.5 inches per second, or 8 inches.
The lines on the road are 1 metre apart.
Apparently the back office software enables the operator to click on parts of the vehicle in the two photographs, and the software then works out the distance travelled.

The calibration certificates are available here.
Look soon, as I suspect there will be some changes shortly, as these were NOT the calibration certificates brought into court!!!!!!

The magistrates were not bothered in the slightest that REDSPEED - the manufacturer of the cameras, is also the organisation for issuing the calibration certificates, even though if a camera was to FAIL it's calibration test, they may well have to refund all the fines!
Nor were they bothered that the CSCP do not keep records of maintenance visits, nor the reason for the same, yet their employee was able to state they had never gone wrong! So this was just a jaunt out for the maintenance man...
Image

and this alteration to the height of the cameras had NO effect on the calibration of the camera...
Image

Was I disappointed? Well not really - a few weeks ago, the usher TOLD me I would be found guilty even if I was innocent, and that I should consider changing my plea, and saving myself some money - as a result, I half expected for the magistrates to be completely in bed with the CSCP, after all they are not experts, and the wool is pulled over THEIR eyes as it is with nearly everyone else.
They are however complicit in allowing the CPS to introduce a completely different set of calibration certificates to the ones available online as if there was nothing wrong with this!

The court apparently has seen a lot of cases regarding the Ings cameras - and given the cost of fighting the case, and the time involved, this should tell them something, but instead they adopted the ostrich pose with their heads in the sand, and CSCP have got away with it again!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 18:28 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
I'm sorry to hear that. At least you know as well as we do that this was nothing to do with justice or safety, and everything to do with corruption, lying, highway robbery and control.

We know about Pinocchio and his yes men, and we know what a nasty spiteful deceitful little prat he is (yes, YOU who's lurking). What disappoints me about things like this is how biased the magistrates are. Kangaroo courts in the 21st century UK. Sadly this has now happened so many times that I don't think I'll ever trust magistrates again as a group (no offence to the likes of fisherman, who presumably would have made some effort to actually find out what happened here, rather than ignoring the vested interests that are there for all to see).

As for the CPS, well it wouldn't be quite so galling when they were soft on real criminals if they weren't so incredibly unreasonable and hardline towards law-abiding non-speeders. How they think they're helping society (if they do) is beyond me. Their priorities are completely about face.

A sad day for British justice (yes, another one). BTW I didn't know you had a case in progress; were you keeping it under your hat?

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 18:30 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Well that's a damned shame. There was no 'reasonable doubt' then, in any part of their evidence, I take it?

Could you drive around the cameras on the grass instead? Save the same thing happening again in future.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 18:52 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Will you be appealing?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 18:54 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Sorry to hear the bad news. I don’t blame you for not posting on the forums, especially knowing the type of people who frequent them. Was the fine and costs high? Is it not worth a letter to the national press?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:00 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
bombus wrote:
What disappoints me about things like this is how biased the magistrates are.

We certainly are.


When we find someone not guilty the CPS will tell you we were biased in favour of the defendant.

When we find someone guilty the defence will tell you we were biased in favour of the CPS.


When we find someone guilty but find enough mitigation to keep the sentence to an absoute minimum we were biased in favour of both sides. The CPS over the verdict and the defence over the sentence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:08 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Real productive


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 09:01
Posts: 1548
I'm sorry to hear that you have been royally fucked Ernest, although it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Kill, rape or maim somebody and the CPS have to do all the work and prove it was you beyond all reasonable doubt.....a simple photograph showing a vehicle bearing your numberplate is enough to get you a guilty regardless.

The wife & I have always said that we would wait until the youngest left school before we departed these once great shores for good, today we have been seriously discussing leaving before the year is up.

I personally think we need another series of riots just to let the twats know where they stand.










Gixxer now sits back and waits for Paul to receive the summons demanding his IP address, and for NCIS to furiously start adding even more to his record.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:25 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Gixxer wrote:
The wife & I have always said that we would wait until the youngest left school before we departed these once great shores for good, today we have been seriously discussing leaving before the year is up.

I personally think we need another series of riots just to let the twats know where they stand.


I hope I've left before you Gixxer, I'd love to be here when the riots start but can't see that becoming a reality any more. :(

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:36 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
Gixxer wrote:
a simple photograph showing a vehicle bearing your numberplate is enough to get you a guilty regardless.


Then why do Pepipoo have 22 pages of success stories?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=2566


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:45 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
fisherman wrote:
Gixxer wrote:
a simple photograph showing a vehicle bearing your numberplate is enough to get you a guilty regardless.


Then why do Pepipoo have 22 pages of success stories?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=2566

Gixxer said ‘enough’, not 'guaranteed'.



Hard luck Ernest, but then again we know it's nothing to do with luck; it’s actually about vested interests, enforcement for enforcement’s sake and masking over the inevitable failure of the road safety policy.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:50 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
fisherman wrote:
Gixxer wrote:
a simple photograph showing a vehicle bearing your numberplate is enough to get you a guilty regardless.


Then why do Pepipoo have 22 pages of success stories?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=2566


That doesn’t seem allot when you compare it to how many millions of motorists get prosecuted for speeding every year.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 20:43 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
I would appeal and ask for an investigation into the cps and its abuse of process. How can you defend this behavoir, Fisherman?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 20:53 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Bad luck Ern. I never trust Ings - or any scam or van - not ever. :roll:

Not that I speed. I just do not trust these people with my life or those lives I place before my own. The comment when I posted up in euphoric new fatherhood was enough (even though his colleagues took the trouble to apologise. :wink:) But it showed me what sort of personality we are really dealing with. Rather ugly really :roll:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 21:31 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
RobinXe wrote:
Will you be appealing?


My wife thinks so!! :lol:

I was fined £90 with £135 costs. The CPS chap asked where I got the superb glossy prints of the suspect certificates, so I gave him the details.
The ones shown in court were pristine paper copies!
I would like to hear Fisherman's views on this, as nobody seemed prepared to ask why, especially the magistrates or the clerk!

They also failed to follow up on ANY of the three issues regarding type approval - although to be fair, has anyone actually seen a type approval document for ANY camera? Maybe the magistrates just don't know what the significance of type approval is.

As for not trusting any camera or scam van, you don't really have a choice - I am just SO glad that when I got my first speeding ticket from a camera, I happened to be out of the country at the time, with a proven alibi. It still took FOUR months before I was (reluctantly) absolved with no apology!
It's about time people woke up to the fact... you DON'T actually need to be speeding to get a ticket.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 22:09 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
Well Ernest - look at it this way. £225 and some points is not a lot of cash compared to the amount a certain scamera partnership man earns a month although he claims he doesn't need the money.

Next time he feeds his family (or his own fat face) you can be smug in the knowledge that you paid for his upkeep for a short while. In other words, you own him.

If pinocchio means what he says then he'll send you a cheque back for the money he doesn't need. If he doesn't then he's a true parasite!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 22:32 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
smeggy wrote:
Gixxer said ‘enough’, not 'guaranteed'.

What he said was
Gixxer wrote:
a simple photograph showing a vehicle bearing your numberplate is enough to get you a guilty regardless.

The word "regardless" is the important one. The sense of the phrase seems clear to me - if there is a photo you will be found guilty no matter what defence you put forward.
That can be proved wrong by anyone who cares to spend some time in a motoring court, and thats without taking into account the ones that don't get as far as court.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 22:34 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
anton wrote:
How can you defend this behavoir, Fisherman?

I don't. But i don't attack it either.

With due respect to the OP, who seems to me to be one of the more reasonable posters here, we only have one side of the story.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 22:37 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
fisherman wrote:
What he said was
Gixxer wrote:
a simple photograph showing a vehicle bearing your numberplate is enough to get you a guilty regardless.

The word "regardless" is the important one. The sense of the phrase seems clear to me - if there is a photo you will be found guilty no matter what defence you put forward.
That can be proved wrong by anyone who cares to spend some time in a motoring court, and thats without taking into account the ones that don't get as far as court.

Had you said "if there is a photo you can be found guilty no matter what defence you put forward" then I would have agreed - that's the critical difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 22:44 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Sorry to hear the news Ernest, but like everyone else I'm not surprised.

There might be 22 pages of "success stories" over on pepipoo, but I'd be surprised if any of them are from Cumbrian courts, where the pervading attitude seems to be "if you weren't guilty you wouldn't be here".

At least it didn't cost you too much - not like my alleged 47 in a 40 for which I was stung £500 as well as running up about £1000 in costs.

And for a great example of pro-CPS bias, how about my case, where the CPS produced a photocopy of the s172 notice as evidence of driver identity. When we objected to this and asked where the original was (as only that truly satisfies the strict wording of the law) the CPS said it had been destroyed, as they only kept documents for 2 years and it had taken 30 months for this case to be heard. The DJ accepted this and said that the copy was therefore admissible as "best evidence".

So the CPS are free to knowingly and wilfuly destroy original evidence and then adduce photocopies of completely unknown provenance. Can we really imagine a defendant being granted the same leeway?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 152 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.264s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]