Safe Speed Forums

All of the above is true!!!!
You have been warned!
Big Brother has landed.

This could be true!
Check out these links!
http://www.safe2travel.co.uk/news_more. ... rrent_id=1

http://www.safe2travel.co.uk/news_more. ... rrent_id=1

No obliteration of the number plates, full face identifiable, pictures carry no protection and can be downloaded for fun by anyone with internet access and circulated world wide! All this on a publicly financed site.
Who would buy these cars?
Sounds more like revenge to me than fair play.
These are published as news reports.
Even the press has a body that oversees fair play. Who oversees these publications and what are their terms & conditions regarding their publications? Who is the editor? No copyright restrictions are displayed nor any reproduction acknowledgments shown
I think this is a dangerous precedent when a government public body takes these decisions, but I,m open to persuasion & opinions of others.
What will their P.A think of next for publicity? Public floggings of convicted motorists? Stocks? Suggestions invited
I've sent this link to safespeed for their comments.
I'll let you know

Well here's the proof that the photo can be purchased by anybody with a tenner from MEN:
http://rapidshare.com/files/142780324/P ... ograph.pdf
All the information here has been reproduced with permission. Take a look

Stop Press:
Crown Court Appeal put back for 3 weeks!
More info when available.

On reading one of those links I got to a bit that said:

"Investigating Officer PC Mark Pilkington said: “...These situations show the lengths that people are prepared to go to in order to avoid getting penalty points on their driving licences... "


...and then I read a bit further down and noticed that one of the offences was...

(wait for it...)


...36 in a 30!!!!!

It made me think that a more appropriate quote should have been:

"Investigating Officer PC Mark Pilkington said: “...These situations show the lengths that Lancashire Constabulary are prepared to go to in order to victimise and persecute the motorist for trivial, petty offences that 10 years ago would have been ignored or maybe had the miscreant pulled over and given a bit of a talking to".

Sorry lads, but it's a bit like the Victorian problem with crime where the punishments for minor, petty offences were so grossly disproportionate to the crime that people would do anything to avoid justice. What goes around, comes around I say!

And they wonder why (as ever increasing numbers of our teenagers stab each other to death in the street), the British public seems to be loosing its respect for the law and the police who enforce it?!

I wouldn't mind so much if I could see the last 10 years of increasingly zealous (and automated) speed enforcement had brought about a great reduction in road deaths and serious injuries, but if anything, the decline has SLOWED, not improved!

When is someone going to wake up and realise that the Emperor is, in fact, stark , b001ock naked?!

Or realise that deportation to one of the colonies is not an option any more

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Perhaps the person behind this singularly daft decision should be aware that "kangaroo courts" and trial by the media lead to unsound judgements and punitive compensation claims by those whose convictions are then found thus unsafe (even when as guilty as certain famous folk jailed over fibbing over libel cases in the past ) #.

( The difference between the now notorious libel cases which were later proven to have some substance and this type of "trial in the media" is quite, quite wide. The papers published much shenanigans of the two/three "politicians'" antics in lurid journalese. The politicians concerned challenged and won the case in court.. getting lots of cash in compo The papers involved appealed against the compensation which threatened to more than cripple their cash flow - and the evidence unravelled - resulting in a proper court case - of which the true gory details emerged only after the material facts were heard in a court of law and the men were found guilty of perverting the course of justice - and seeking monetary gain from their actions.)

But .. in the case of someone disputing a speeding rap - it should remain sub-judice and given cars do change hands - - as someone has pointed out - it can lead to other drivers assuming the driver of that car is the idiot who "tried it on" It could lead to some form of road rage even.. We know what some people can be like. People come in all shapes and sizes - but their personalities are complex and infinite in possibility of daft decisions ...


Now , from the "safe2travel" link - no one disputes the need for limits on many roads. The Mad Cats argue that motorway limits should at least be brought in line with the rest of Europe to 80 mph at least -



- given the move for 20 mph... lowered speed limits and a potential reciprocal penalty system currently in discussion Their argument - and I agree with them - is that if the UK wishes to have this reciprocal arrangement - then all speed limits , test requirements and the penalty pointing system has to be in complete harmony throughout - and we have far too much work to do in bringing each member state in line with each other as regards overall standards .


But the safe2 travel link exposes the flaws in an overly automated system - namely that folk can and do try to play the system.

They are perhaps tempted .. in denial.. anger.. resentment perhaps at the impersonal way a letter arrives some 14 days later

I have to say folk are NOT best pleased when WE stop them - but we'd rather them vent their spleens at us and tell us to "go catch some real criminals" than drive around in a state of raging anger over a speed camera fine, learn nothing from the sorry and woeful experience, before becoming tempted to commit a much more serious crime - and I think it is more a result of this ridiculous sense of outraged denial for many than a display of a blatatantly and inherent fraudulent or criminally deceitful character

If the bloke in the safe2travel link had been pinged at 16 mph over the lolly five times - then there is no learning curve as regards the "weak quality" of his driving or rather "observation skills" as regards lolly signs and lamposts in the absence of repeat lollies Had he been caught properly by and given a stern talking to in the first place - then I really doubt he would have got himself in the pile of poop he appears to be in. Mr Average who speeds is not necessarily some big time crook or go-for in organised crime. Oddly enough - as a nation most of us know where the boundary lines are drawn.


I would have preferred his sentence to make him do their COAST course when the two month ban expires. - at least

However, if the UK is really so serious about road safety - we do wonder why so much investment in a system which over-relies on automation. It does not release police time to the levels as claimed. It seems to cost more police time chasing around these who seek to fiddle the system .. along with all that paperwork

Improving skills and standards? I see little evidence as I drive around the UK.

Here - we just do not get instances of such folk trying to get out of speeding or other charges. We get some bad press over lurid headlines claiming we "do not catch speeders as our FPN returns are quite low."

Our "returns" as regards "collected fines for traffic and other offences are actually collected by the courts - and we prosecute more for undue care/careless than the norm for some strange reason. We keep chipping away here and have a decent-ish above national average record on overall safety levels.



Our other advantage is that the person has a bit of a problem claiming to be "their own twin brother who happens to reside outside the UK" when faced with a real poiliceman trained to spot a fibbler immediately and we can and do give proper COAST advice so as to help the person adopt a safer style of driving for the future.

But let's just say - if we have a hit/run on CCTV - we release the images to try to catch this person.

If a person is disputing a speed camera fine and given the apparent difficulty in securing the images in the first place - publishing all the details, identity and car reg plates (which change hands) before any trial unduly influences a court's decision and would lead to poor justice for us communally and socially.

By all means publish the guilty verdict and sentence AFTER the court hearing if folk are to be deterred and warned off such daft behaviour. Kangaroo courts and trials by newspapers do not deal in the black/white objectivity which the law actually requires

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I Gear's reply is what anyone would expect of a real copper.
Thanks for this. Maybe one day the powers that be will see that untrained civilians, with delusions of grandeur and power, are no replacement for well trained, experienced police officers who have no interest, financially,for ever increasing prosecutions and empire building.
Thanks for taking the time, In Gear.
Any chance you could get a transfer to Blackburn C.T.O. and sort out the mess there?

"The Performing Right Society (PRS) has accused Lancashire Police of breaking copyright laws by playing music in stations and police headquarters without a license. The PRS, which collects royalties for musicians and songwriters in the UK, has submitted a writ to the High Court calling for an injunction against Lancashire's Chief Constable Steve Finnigan and payment of damages for copyright infringement."
Read story here:
http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/ ... law-160176

No wonder the MEN can nick their copyrighted police evidence!
This Chief Constable has lost control and have no respect for the law both civil & criminal!

I've just checked out the music radar article and don't believe they would snatch & use the Lancashire Constabulary LOGO to support their article!!!! Now that's what I call rubbing their noses in it!!!!

Obviously they are certain that the police will do nothing about this as is their usual practise!

The chief Constable has undoubtedly lost control! And to think this is the guy that wanted to take over the first super sized Constabulary in England!! God help us if he had!!
Wonder if Lancashire Police Authority are concerned over this. Probably, as usual, their hands are tied!!!!!

I always understood that it was a criminal offence to reproduce any constabulary logo.
This logo copy is so good you could convince anybody if you used it on letter headed paper. One would think that with all the amount of public money spent on IT, PR, Websites, computerization and data protection that whoever is responsible for their websites would have ensured that nobody could simply right click on their info or pictures & download them so easily in good quality.

Con men must love their site as a source of authentic looking documents to fool the public!

IT GIVES A WHOLE NEW MEANING TO DATA PROTECTION!!!!!!! NOW THAT'S A LAUGH!!!!

You think the small logo in the article is good? view it in their gallery! You could deck out your car if you got this printed as a decal!!
Then scroll down to the bottom of the page & see:
"Copyright 2006 - 2008 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885"
They now claim to own the reproduction rights to Lancashire Constabulary's official emblem!!!
Does the chief constable have to NOW pay them to use it on their stationary, badges, warrant cards,vehicles etc.?
Looks like the blind leading the blind!

Trial date for the appeal has now been set for 3rd October 2008.


Just heard that that The Ministry for Transport are investigating LRSPs returns for grant claims over a period of years 2001 - 2006, in which it appears that issued FPNs worth over £15,000,000 have gone uncollected and penalty points for over 130,000 motorists were never issued!

More like shades of "The Runing Man"

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

More like " Carry on Constable", except that no constables are involved in Lancashire! Only civilian employees!

More worrying is the fact that the camera operator has been sacked, with all the PR and press fanfare, however the two employees up for failure to process court documents seem to have faded into to the ether. No press questions asked about this!!!! No statements from the IPCC!

It's 12 months since the IPCC announced that they had been removed from their position but they seem to be having difficulty getting them before a disciplinary hearing! Surely there can't be that many misconduct hearings in Lancashire?

Maybe they will disappear down the same black hole that the "Unpaid Fixed Penalty Notices" entered!!

After all Fixed Penalty Notices are Court Documents!

Latest from Lancashire Constabulary regarding trial by press!
Source: Detective Inspector Marie Jackson Lancashire Professional Standards Department.


In other words The Lancashire Police Authority & The I.P.C.C. are able to overturn the adjudication of Lord Justice Kennedy, in Taylor v SFO, without applying to a court of law or Parliament to do so. They can over rule the confidentiality of Police Evidence in The Criminal & Police Investigations Act passed by Parliament. They can dispense with the sections contained in this Act regarding misuse of police evidence,contempt of court, illegal obtaining, publication or possession of photographic evidence, or any other use of evidence,( i.e. identification of witnesses,statements made to the police prior to a courtcase,photographs of suspects,( How the mainstream press would love to be able to publish police surveillance photographs, or videos of suspected pedophiles!!!!!! before they are charged or in court!!!!).
Where on earth did these two bodies get this authority from????
Apparently the Law Lords are considered by these two bodies as redundant, as is Parliament!!!
Surely M.P.s can't allow this happen? Well apparently they have, as The Chairman of Lancashire Police Authority wrote and informed The Honourable Nigel Evans M.P. that they had taken this decision over 12 months ago and, as no objections had been raised to it,it was considered acceptable to Parliament as no Minister had come back from either The Minister of Justice or The Home Office to query this decision and it became a yardstick for Lancashire Constabulary!!!
So...... The Lancashire Police Authority over rule the Law Lords, The I.P.C.C. Authenticate the Police Authority ruling. The Police Authority notify an M.P. of their joint decisions & Parliament (Both houses) are made redundant and The Chief Constable Makes the Laws!!!
Shades of Natzi Germany!!!!!
What price Democracy & Justice? £60.00 & three penalty points!!!!!! Come on! Just pay up!
Your Country needs your money!!!
Or Should that be your COUNTY needs your money????

Here's a link that might be relevant. It's about a the leader of the County Council who failed in his duty to report allegations of fraud involving Lancashire County Council, Lancashire Constabulary and the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership, over a period of 6 years by inflating claims under the hypothecation system and costing the Treasury Millions of pounds!
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Tory-facing-m ... 4534763.jp
The returns indicate that £15,000.000 (yes! 15 million pounds!) have not been collected in Lancashire by the Partnership, over a period of 4 years and that 130,000 speeding motorists have been let off with NO FINES, or NO PENALTY POINTS on their licences!!!
It appears that the Leader of the council DECIDED not to report this to the relevant officer as required under the council's Anti-Fraud Strategy!!
It appears that the plot thickens as Lancashire County Council are main partners of LRSP and also independent speed awareness providers to Lancashire Constabulary, outside the speed camera scheme. It also appears that despite claims by the Partnership that their returns are independently audited by the outside Audit Commission, as required by mandatory Ministry for Transport regulations, this has never occurred, and that they are actually audited by Lancashire County Council internal auditors!!

When will an investigation take place into this setup???

Driving Instructor loses his appeal against"failing to name"!

Lawrence Wilson, who operates as Testmasters Driving School Lostock Hall Lancashire lost his long fought battle against Lancashire Constabulary of "failing to name" yesterday at Preston Crown Court.
After press claims, prior to any court case, that he had falsely named his pupil to be driving at 63 m.p.h in a 50 zone he made 13 more court appearances when he suddenly changed his defence to not having the vehicle in his possession but another similar vehicle both registered to Mr.S. Foster, a well established driving school owner, who had hired the vehicle to him.
He then claimed that the registered keeper was the Driver.
Yesterday,the registered keeper, Mr.S.Foster, of North Western Driving Training Centre, Preston Lancs, gave evidence that he had given a statement to the police establishing that the vehicle Mr. Wilson now claimed to have been driving was in his possession was in effect nearly 200 miles away from the alledged speeding offence at the time and its whereabouts had been investigated by police and substantiated by both documentary and witness evidence.
Mr. Wilson then went on to claim that Mr Foster and a member of his family had filled in all his documents but admitted that he had filled in the name of his pupil as the driver initially and had signed all the documents involved and they were in his handwriting. This claim had never been mentioned before neither in the original trial nor any of the previous 16 court appearances.
Crown Court Judge Russell Q.C., after hearing all the evidence, took just a very short time to deliberate and found Mr.Wilson's application not to be upheld and supported the original conviction on the 13th June 2008.

The excellent summing up of the section 172 law and it's requirements were very definitive and explicit.

However they did raise one or two questions of Lancashire Constabulary documentation that neither Judge commented on.
I expand:
In view of two Judges ( one district & one Crown Court), interpretation and adjudication, at Preston Crown Court Lancashire,

that Section 172 requires :


“Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
Duty to give
information as to
identity of driver,
etc., in certain
cases.
172..(1) This section applies.
(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except.
(i) an offence under Part V, or
(ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4),
96 or 117,
and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988
c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and
(c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of
vehicles on roads.
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to
which this section applies.
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to
the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf
of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any
information which it is in his power to give and may lead to
identification of the driver.
In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include references to
the person riding a cycle.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a)
above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court
that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have
ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of
the cycle was.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b)
above is guilty of an offence.”
Source: Road Traffic Act 1998.

And, as this was the adjudication, the contents of the wording of all the NIPs, issued by Lancashire Constabulary were brought under the microscope, where it states:


“ In accordance with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, I hereby give you notice that it is intended to take
proceedings against the driver of the above motor vehicle for the alleged offence.
The keeper of a vehicle involved in a road traffic offence is bound by law to furnish the driver's details.”


And further down::


“ Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires you to supply the details requested within 28 days of the date of this

notice.”

If the two Judges’ findings and interpretations are correct, (and I believe they are), then all issued NIPs are incorrectly
worded and possibly illegal.

You are NOT bound by law (as stated in Lancashire's issued NIPs) to give the driver’s details but are required to give information that could lead to the identity of a driver.
If this is the case how many prosecutions have taken place using this document under the guise of "NOMINATED DRIVER"? Everyone in Lancashire? In fact you are not required to NOMINATE a driver nor supply his details (right down, in Lancashire's case to supplying his driving licence number and his date of birth!!!!), but simply to provide the police with information for THEM to identify a Driver from the information that YOU supply!!!

In effect, NAMING a driver is not required,so you really cannot nominate a driver, only an investigation by the police can
lead to a prosecution when they are satisfied that THEY are correct in issuing the summons to the RIGHT person! If this is
followed then there would be no prosecutions for perverting the course of justice by simply NOMINATING another NAMED driver who would take the points!!!! The police would have decided that he was the correct driver before it reached court.

A great adjudication by two very learned Judges but I think a body blow to Lancashire Constabulary's cut price justice for maximum profit, and another nail in the Camera Partnerships coffin!
NO SUCH THING AS FAILING TO NAME! NO SUCH THING AS NOMINATE A DRIVER!
The only problem here is that it cost so much from the public purse to get before two judges who ACTUALLY listened to ALL the evidence and then correctly implemented the law so clearly.
Just a pity that they failed to notice what the NIP actually asked for, or that despite the evidence from Mr Foster about misuse of police photographic evidence they seemed to ignore the shortcomings of Lancashire Constabulary's procedures in pursuing "speeding offences" by any means without comment! Maybe something would be done behind the scenes to correct these shortcomings!

Your comments would be appreciated!

Have you floated this in Pepipoo?

No! feel to do so! The more that know about this the merrier!

I was present on Friday at Preston Crown Court and must say that yimitier, whilst presenting the facts quite, well touches only on the legalities of the case. The actual events themselves were quite enlightening and entertaining.

The first witness,(actually he was the only witness called to the stand) was Mr.Foster the registered keeper of both vehicles.

He presented a systematic failure of Blackburn CTO and Lancashire Constabulary to control any aspect of this case.

The Judge, to his credit, allowed him to explain how, as A CPS witness, Lancashire Constabulary had allowed his business to be crucified by the the use of their photographic evidence in the press before , during and after the case, without making any attempt to stop it in their zealous pursuit of this speeding offence.

His claim that he had been refused a copy of the photograph, even though he was company secretary and registered keeper, and yet had been able to purchase a very good copy, (which was far better than the black & white one that the judge produced) raised a few eyebrows.

He made a very good point to the judge that, despite both he and Mr Wilson supplying information via the required section 172 form and returning these to Lancashire CTO, Mr Ramsden had supplied his section 172 statement complete with the photographic evidence, directly to the press for publication without any action being taken against him.

His point that he concluded that he should, and probably would in the future, simply return any of the documents, relating to speeding offences in Lancashire, via the press as this appears to ensure that no action would be taken, appeared to shake the judge.

It was also reported, in a read out statement from CPS witness James Ramsden , that Mr Wilson had offered to pay Mr Ramsden £30 if he took the points raised several gasps from the public gallery. This statement was not challenged by Mr Wilson's barrister. His explanation later given to the judge that he was merely offering to pay half his fine didn't appear to impress the judge.

The cross examination of Mr Wilson by the CPS barrister quickly resulted in contradictory statements from him, and every answer seemed to have been made up on the spot.

His claims that he couldn't contact Mr Foster were contradicted by answers that he daily changed vehicles with him.

Despite having blamed his pupil as the driver, he then went on to claim Mr Foster was the driver of the speeding vehicle whilst he was conducting his two hour driving lesson with Mr Ramsden in another vehicle.

Mr Ramsden, under oath at the trial, had denied that he was on a driving lesson that day.

This was confirmed by an employee of Blackburn CTO by way of read out statement, that Mr Wilson had contacted the CTO and informed them that he was on a two hour driving lesson with James Ramsden on the 19th of OCTOBER 2006. The offence was alledged to have taken place on the 19th of NOVEMBER 2006!

This conversation was recorded by the employee as Mr Wilson seemed to be extremely agitated and the contents of the statement were taken directly from the transcript.

Again Mr Wilson's claim that he had simply made a mistake in the month cut no ice with the bench.

Again the contents of this statement were not challenged by Mr Wilson's barrister.

It is interesting, regarding yimitier's comments of the issued NIPs, in that these documents seem to be a classic example of deliberate entrapment of self incrimination or incrimination of another person as a replacement to investigation.
If this is the case they can hardly be legal; especially in relation to the judge's definition of the requirements of section 172 as being information and not driver's details.

All in all it was a fun day at Preston Crown Court and I would love to be a fly on the wall in the judges chambers after this shambles had been concluded.

However none of this will affect Mr Wilson's registration with the DSA, who supposedly regulate the conduct of registered ADIs. They appear impotent to remove any registered ADI despite the damage to the image of driving instructors that the antics of this ADI have caused.

Perhaps his offering a payment to his pupil to take the points might cause them to act; who knows?

I await with baited breath how the press report this appeal, considering their condemnation and involvement in assisting this expensive fiasco to have taken place!!