# Speeding ticket help



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Ok I got caught by a mobile camera van just before Christmas. The "Notice of Intended Prosecution" came through a week ago. However the have my name wrong that is after my first two christian names they have put the word EXAM between them and my surname. Do you think I have grounds to have the norticed null and void? :? Heres hoping. Any legal eagals know the answer to this one? I have a clean driving licence at the mo. Thanks in anticipation.


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

I am no legal eagle but I have read traffic law and its loopholes extensively as I was fired upon with NIPs.

Yes Les you can send it back with a note saying no such name in this address and let them scratch their heads on what to do. You are obviously fancying your chances, but you never know.

Rule No 1. Never answer immediately. You have 28 days to reply. Send it on the 27th day.

Rule No 2. They have 6 months from the end of the 28 days notice to prosecute you. Do whatever possible to delay a definite answer.

Rule No 3. Read read www.pepipoo.com

Good Luck.


----------



## elrao (Apr 19, 2005)

If you were driving (and it sounds like you were) and they have a photo of you driving the car then you won't have a leg to stand on.

When I had my NIP, I was asked who was driving the car, you are legally required to inform them who was driving the car at the time of the infringement, if they have spelt your name wrong or put the wrong name then I believe you are legally obliged to inform them of the correct name and address of who was driving at the time.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

elrao said:


> If you were driving (and it sounds like you were) and they have a photo of you driving the car then you won't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> When I had my NIP, I was asked who was driving the car, you are legally required to inform them who was driving the car at the time of the infringement, if they have spelt your name wrong or put the wrong name then I believe you are legally obliged to inform them of the correct name and address of who was driving at the time.


I know my legal requirements its thiers I am questioning and considering. Yes of course I will tell them they have made a mistake and that my name is not EXAM. I know its not a spelling mistake its more serious than that IMO. Thanks for that.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Thanks slinett thats useful.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

This sort of thing really pisses me off.

Somebody burgles your house, loads your brand new 42" LCD TV, the home cinema system and all your wife's jewelrey into the back of your car and taking the keys drives it away. They're spotted by the cops and are arrested - caught red-handed with all your worldly goods in the back of your pride and joy. Brilliant - the little f*cker gets just what he deserves!

But no - because he gets some fancy lawyer who pores all over the endless bureaucratic rubbish that comes with every venture into the legal system and he finds some sort of misprint or administrative discrepancy. So your boy did it, he was caught red-handed and there's absolutely no doubt of his guilt and the tw*t deserves to be banged up and _should_ be banged up for the good of the rest of society. A spelling mistake does not represent a miscarriage of justice, it does not mean the cops got the wrong guy and it certainly does not make him innocent of the crime he's committed. But he walks.

You'd be f*cking livid!

Were you speeding? Was it an offence? Are you guilty? What's the bloody difference?

I hear these arguments about how challenging such things makes the powers-that-be work harder at getting things right. But the point is, they _have_ got it right. You haven't said otherwise so I assume it was _you_, you _were_ speeding and the penalty is perfectly justified. No, challenging these things just makes the powers-that-be waste tax payers money and makes the upholding of the law that holds the fabric of our society together just harder and harder to do - and makes it possible for that burgling little toe-rag to get away with clearing out your gaff.

The problem is that we just don't equate breaking the law in a car with breaking any other kind of law. Sure, speeding is not breaking into someone's house, but then 3 points on your licence and a fine isn't a 2 year stretch either! You might not agree with speed limits, you might not like the use of speed cameras to enforce it, but it _is_ the democratically established law of the land and nobody can pick and choose which laws are valid or not as suits them. You wouldn't come here, blatantly admit you'd been caught raping your neighbour's daughter and ask for advice about how to 'beat the rap' - but time and again we see people doing it with speeding offences.

We see traffic law as nothing more than an inconvenience to our motoring fun - not legislation designed to ensure public safety and protect life. I know we are going to get all the arguments about whether or not 'speed kills', but that's not the point. Right or wrong, at the moment it *is* the law, and breaking that law is just essentially putting your own selfishness ahead of the safety of everybody else.

Yes, we might genuinely believe that we are not putting anyone in any greater danger driving at 10mph above the limit, and we are probably right in most cases. But, we know what the law is and we know what the personal risks are when we break that law. We know what the penalties are if we get caught breaking that law, yet we still choose to do it. And even then, when we get caught, some of us bleat like little kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar and try and squirm our way out of it.

So, you could challenge the wording of the notice. Or maybe write in and say 'the big kids made me do it'. *Or*, you could be grown up and take the due penalty for the offence you committed and which you knew you were committing and which you chose to commit in full knowledge of the potential consequences.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

FFS the police cant even get my name right. If the LAW says its a cock up and invalid fine I will have that if its not then its Â£60 and 3 points so whats the problem? :?


----------



## qooqiiu (Oct 12, 2007)

Mark Davies said:


> This sort of thing really pisses me off.
> 
> Somebody burgles your house, loads your brand new 42" LCD TV, the home cinema system and all your wife's jewelrey into the back of your car and taking the keys drives it away. They're spotted by the cops and are arrested - caught red-handed with all your worldly goods in the back of your pride and joy. Brilliant - the little f*cker gets just what he deserves!
> 
> ...


F*** Mark.

I`d challenge it, delay it, anything.

Good luck, hope they quash it.

MATE


----------



## ezz (Nov 22, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> This sort of thing really pisses me off.
> 
> Somebody burgles your house, loads your brand new 42" LCD TV, the home cinema system and all your wife's jewelrey into the back of your car and taking the keys drives it away. They're spotted by the cops and are arrested - caught red-handed with all your worldly goods in the back of your pride and joy. Brilliant - the little f*cker gets just what he deserves!
> 
> ...


i take it santa dident bring you what you wanted.... :-*


----------



## rogerman (Mar 7, 2006)

Take a visit to http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Hom ... s_Home.htm and have a read of the information, which is very interesting indeed. 
The important points, in my opinion, is whether the police calibrate their equipment, both before and after use for the purpose intended, by use of a patrol car with a calibrated speedo. If I got zapped by a mobile unit I would go to court over it after having very carefully researched my case.

Streetwise Publication Ltd have an excellent book, The Driver`s Survival Handbook, by Martin Thwaite, which tells you things the police don`t want you to know - and, therefore, how to win your case.


----------



## skydiver (Oct 12, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> This sort of thing really pisses me off.
> 
> Somebody burgles your house, loads your brand new 42" LCD TV, the home cinema system and all your wife's jewelrey into the back of your car and taking the keys drives it away. They're spotted by the cops and are arrested - caught red-handed with all your worldly goods in the back of your pride and joy. Brilliant - the little f*cker gets just what he deserves!
> 
> ...


Mark normally makes some very good posts regarding these matters and in this instance the body of the post makes sense.

My only question is if it is so easy for the house thief to "get off" when caught red handed why is it so difficult to dispute speeding tickets?

If you have been speeding and you know it then it is a "fair cop" I would however challenge such action if you genuinely thought you were not at fault nor speeding.

I was caught traveling at 80 in a 70 and I genuinely thought I was under the limit. I thought about challenging the action but had seconds thoughts due to the hassle of it all.

I may not have been speeding as I believe and it did cost me Â£60 and 3 points but what it has done is lead me to reassess my driving. In fact I am now about to start preparing to take the AIM test.

Dave


----------



## rogerman (Mar 7, 2006)

You will also find this site very interesting http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Hom ... he_Law.htm


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Thanks for all the HELPFUL adice guys much appreciated, Cheers I will look into those web sites.


----------



## qooqiiu (Oct 12, 2007)

rogerman said:


> The Driver`s Survival Handbook, by Martin Thwaite, which tells you things the police don`t want you to know - and, therefore, how to win your case.


I bought this book a few years ago.

Not revealing, in any way.

Just common sense.

Returned within 28days for a refund :?


----------



## acmurray (Jun 28, 2007)

Can anyone tell me what technology those cyclops vans use. Is it film based or digital, do you see a flash when you get zapped?
Also over here if you get nabbed by a copper with a hair drier he is obliged to show you the readout, if you ask to see the evidence of calibration is he obliged to produce the cert?
In Ireland there is a strong element of tax by stealth with revenue collecting being a major factor. As of January 08 private firms have the contracts for gatzos and cyclops vans in the republic and I can only imagine what efficious little bastards they are going to be when it comes to ambushing motorists like myself. While I have no time for drivers that drink or go unbelted I do have sympathy for the individual that is nabbed doing 33 in a 30 zone which happened to my Dad who is a GP and was responding to a call out from a sick patient at the time. 
My advice to Les would be to wriggle out of the ticket by any means necessary.


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

you could consider a device to help you with parking more effectively
http://www.vagcheck.com/vagcheck/vagche ... ropark.htm


----------



## 007TT (Mar 20, 2007)

You could still get done for failing to nominate and perverting the course of justice. (If you don't reply and give your right details.)


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

007TT said:


> You could still get done for failing to nominate and perverting the course of justice. (If you don't reply and give your right details.)


and he would know.... trust me! :roll: .... got a tickly throat ..ahem ... ahem.... coughficer..couggh cough !!  sorry couldnt help it!


----------



## elrao (Apr 19, 2005)

les said:


> elrao said:
> 
> 
> > If you were driving (and it sounds like you were) and they have a photo of you driving the car then you won't have a leg to stand on.
> ...


Don't really think it matters if it is the work exam or a spelling mistkae in your name, all amounts to the same thing: wrongly named driver, which would be rectified when you do as legally obliged and told them who was driving the vehicle, so I doubt you would get out of the ticket based on that mistake.

The only way you would be able to get out of it is to argue that the camera wasn't calibrated etc. etc. , go to court, take a copper off the street while they attend court and spend more tax payers money.

If you were genuinely speeding, then take it on the chin, I was genuinely caught using my mobile phone recently, I thought about trying to get out of it as they had noted a detail on my ticket incorrectly. However I decided not to waste anyone's time or money and accept it, as it was fair cop. I did the "crime" and took my punishment.

If you were not speeding and you think there is a genuine mistake, then appeal it, that is what the system is there for, not to try to get off on a technicality.


----------



## rogerman (Mar 7, 2006)

qooqiiu said:


> rogerman said:
> 
> 
> > The Driver`s Survival Handbook, by Martin Thwaite, which tells you things the police don`t want you to know - and, therefore, how to win your case.
> ...


Oh, so you`re saying you knew all about the calibration that should be undertaken before and after use? Some of it is common sense but much of it is not, especially what to write to ask the police for in order to be able to prepare your defense. If you knew it all then you were very clever. I learnt a lot and I`m no dimwit when it comes to these matters.


----------



## rogerman (Mar 7, 2006)

Elrao wrote, "......If you were not speeding and you think there is a genuine mistake, then appeal it, that is what the system is there for, not to try to get off on a technicality...."

If the law is poorly written and, more importantly, procedures for upholding the law are not strictly adhered to by the police then why shouldn`t someone try to get off on a technicality? How many times do we read of policemen getting off when caught for speeding? One law for them and another for us. Doesn`t build our confidence in them. Why not concentrate on the really dangerous drivers who drive under the influence of drink, drugs, etc., and the tailgaters?


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

Y'know, Mark is gonna get slagged off because of his response. But I can see both sides. No, I'm not Mr Perfect driver, I have 6 points for speeding offences and I would have 9 but I qualified to take a speeding course instead. Being caught for doing a few miles over the limit in a 30 or 40 zone really pisses me off and I would hate to loose my licence.

BUT, as Mark says, we all know the law, and if we don't obey it, just like a common thief, we should accept the consequences. Saying that, if you've reason to believe that something is amiss, such as the calibration of the instrument, then I would say go ahead and challenge the result.

I hate speeding fines and points and I was REALLY pissed off for getting them when I was really and truly, not driving in a manner that would endanger anyone. But that's the democratic law of this country, if you don't like it, vote for a party who's policies are more lenient to speeding drivers - I doubt if you'll find one.

Yes, I would like to see more police effort in catching thieves, robbers, yobs, hooligans, rapists, crooks, etc etc and less spent on coppers hiding behind hedges popping up with portable speeding guns. For sure. But until we bring in legislation to change it, that's the way it is, and we have to live with it I'm afraid - as I know to my own cost.


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

Good luck Les and let us know how it went. 
Challenging the law is a sign of a healthy democratic society and not a sign of a "shrugging the shoulders" society. The law has to serve the citizen and not the other way around. If the citizen feels that the law is not fair then he has a moral obligation to challenge it. (Yes I know, the French Revolution and so on). It happens in every European country and probably thats why they dont have many scameras. Democracy is not a panacea and the law or a faulty laser gun is not God. Incriminating yourself or others is against fundamental human rights. We are the democracy, not the goverment. And yes you can vote against the goverment in the next elections but a specific change in a particular law will not happen with a change of goverment. Goverments usually dont give a damn about the small things in life. Change can only happen if citizens group against a specific law. 
And yes the burglars can get away with murder because of a good lawyer, and thats life im afraid, who said it was fair anyway? In this case Les's alleged speeding is alleged until proven by a court. Good Luck.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

rogerman said:


> If the law is poorly written and, more importantly, procedures for upholding the law are not strictly adhered to by the police then why shouldn`t someone try to get off on a technicality?


Because they are in fact guilty of the offence!

What this all falls down to are 'rules of evidence'. This is not a statutory matter; it's all created by precedent - decisions in previous cases about what evidence should be admissible or not. It's intention is to decide whether certain evidence can be considered reliable and therefore whether it is safe to put it before a jury.

Unfortunately, over recent years in particular, this whole field of 'law' has expanded beyond what it was intended for - and frankly that has all been driven by motorists trying to dodge relatively trivial driving penalties. Those who are generally at greatest blame are the likes of premiership footballers caught doing 110mph in their Bentley Continental GT and facing an inconvenient ban who then employ some expensive, specialist lawyer who bases a defence not by disputing the fact that their client was driving like a tit (which they undeniably where) but instead by tring to pull the prosecution case apart on the basis of clerical errors.

Where there are procedures to follow, and where someone shows in a court those procedures have not been followed 'to the letter' courts often find their hands forced and have to give an acquittal and therefore unwillingly expanding that body of precedent. But there is a difference between being unable to show the equipment used to gather the evidence was properly calibrated (which does genuinely raise the question of whether the accused is guilty of the offence or not) and trying to get a case thrown out purely for a spelling mistake. Unfortunately however, that's where we are gradually coming to.

Even more unfortunate is that when a legal precedent is set in any court - even for trivial motoring matters - it can be exploited anywhere. So the sad fact is that as a direct result of the evasive efforts of people to whom a Â£60 fine is nothng, burglars and serious criminals _are_ escaping conviction.

We're all very quick to criticise the criminal justice system, and rightly so because it is cumbersome and ineffective, but we all too easily fail to make the connection and understand that the very reason the criminal justice system is cumbersome and ineffective is because of things like this. We duck, dodge and dive in our efforts to beat the system, damage it as a result and then, when we need that system to be there to protect us we have the nerve to complain when it lets us down. It's hypocracy.

If you genuinely think you were not speeding and there is some fault in the evidence then by all means question it - that's the whole point of the adversarial legal system. But if you were driving down the road, saw the flash in your mirrors, looked at your speedo and saw you were 10mph over the limit and thought 'F*ck!' then do as others have said - take it on the chin - because even if you think you can wriggle out of it the damage you do by doing so is far beyond what you can forsee.


----------



## rogerman (Mar 7, 2006)

Mark, a very good, reasoned, well thoughtout reply.

However, how many of us can honestly put our hands in the air and say we have never tried to dodge something, like VAT, by paying for a job cash-in-hand? Income tax by not declaring being paid for something? Etc? It is our human nature to try if we can. Bigwigs do it by having off-shore bank accounts, employing lawyers who know the rules inside out and how to overcome them, so why not the little man?

By the way, I have no axe to grind personally. Never had a speeding ticket in over 45 years of driving and I do speed at times, as WE ALL DO.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

acmurray said:


> Can anyone tell me what technology those cyclops vans use. Is it film based or digital, do you see a flash when you get zapped?
> Also over here if you get nabbed by a copper with a hair drier he is obliged to show you the readout, if you ask to see the evidence of calibration is he obliged to produce the cert?
> In Ireland there is a strong element of tax by stealth with revenue collecting being a major factor. As of January 08 private firms have the contracts for gatzos and cyclops vans in the republic and I can only imagine what efficious little bastards they are going to be when it comes to ambushing motorists like myself. While I have no time for drivers that drink or go unbelted I do have sympathy for the individual that is nabbed doing 33 in a 30 zone which happened to my Dad who is a GP and was responding to a call out from a sick patient at the time.
> My advice to Les would be to wriggle out of the ticket by any means necessary.


No flash. The camera was mounted on a tripod in the back of a van with its rear doors open. :? I would call that entrapment


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

007TT said:


> You could still get done for failing to nominate and perverting the course of justice. (If you don't reply and give your right details.)


Where in my posts have I even hinted or suggested I wont reply? :roll:


----------



## lloydie999 (Dec 15, 2007)

Firstly, sorry but you do NOT have a leg to stand on. Take it from someone who knows...... you can, if you want, tell them that EXAM is not your name but they will then request correct driver details on a WT802, you have 28 days to reply and they then have another 14 days in which to NIP (notice of intended prosecution) the correct driver and then a fresh 6 months to prosecute. If you fail to reply the punishment is the same as the one for being the driver (i.e. you get 3 points and Â£60 fine for failing to tell them who was driving)........ i am presuming the cock up was at DVLA when they registered the car to you. You should get this sorted cos it may cause you problems when you come to sell..........

Secondly, if you want to challenge the speeding ticket then feel free, best way si to request calibration documents and training certificates of the 'speed trap' user......... every once in a while they cant find them etc etc etc and quash the ticket.

Thirdly, to the poster who suggested burglars who get caught red handed get off on a technicality............this aint America, that doesnt happen over her, its all a big myth, anyone who knows of an actual case feel free to quote it but i bet no one can!

Best way to beat speed cameras is to vote this government out......... and slow down!


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

rogerman said:


> Elrao wrote, "......If you were not speeding and you think there is a genuine mistake, then appeal it, that is what the system is there for, not to try to get off on a technicality...."
> 
> If the law is poorly written and, more importantly, procedures for upholding the law are not strictly adhered to by the police then why shouldn`t someone try to get off on a technicality? How many times do we read of policemen getting off when caught for speeding? One law for them and another for us. Doesn`t build our confidence in them. Why not concentrate on the really dangerous drivers who drive under the influence of drink, drugs, etc., and the tailgaters?


Well said hear hear. This camera wasnt placed in a known dangerous location it was placed right after the seed limit changed from 60 to 30 for no other reason than to collect revenue IMO. The road is not an accident black spot at all. Dirty tricks to collect revenue dirty tricks to avoid it IMO.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

slineTT said:


> Good luck Les and let us know how it went.
> Challenging the law is a sign of a healthy democratic society and not a sign of a "shrugging the shoulders" society. The law has to serve the citizen and not the other way around. If the citizen feels that the law is not fair then he has a moral obligation to challenge it. (Yes I know, the French Revolution and so on). It happens in every European country and probably thats why they dont have many scameras. Democracy is not a panacea and the law or a faulty laser gun is not God. Incriminating yourself or others is against fundamental human rights. We are the democracy, not the goverment. And yes you can vote against the goverment in the next elections but a specific change in a particular law will not happen with a change of goverment. Goverments usually dont give a damn about the small things in life. Change can only happen if citizens group against a specific law.
> And yes the burglars can get away with murder because of a good lawyer, and thats life im afraid, who said it was fair anyway? In this case Les's alleged speeding is alleged until proven by a court. Good Luck.


Thanks sline appreciate it.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

lloydie999 said:


> Firstly, sorry but you do NOT have a leg to stand on. Take it from someone who knows...... you can, if you want, tell them that EXAM is not your name but they will then request correct driver details on a WT802, you have 28 days to reply and they then have another 14 days in which to NIP (notice of intended prosecution) the correct driver and then a fresh 6 months to prosecute. If you fail to reply the punishment is the same as the one for being the driver (i.e. you get 3 points and Â£60 fine for failing to tell them who was driving)........ i am presuming the cock up was at DVLA when they registered the car to you. You should get this sorted cos it may cause you problems when you come to sell..........
> 
> *Wrong you presume too much. My reg documant is correct.*
> 
> Best way to beat speed cameras is to vote this government out......... and slow down!




No chance with the first part you cannot be serious :lol: 
Slow down might just do it though good idea :roll:


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

les said:


> rogerman said:
> 
> 
> > Elrao wrote, "......If you were not speeding and you think there is a genuine mistake, then appeal it, that is what the system is there for, not to try to get off on a technicality...."
> ...


Les, we all know that this is what they do. Dirty tricks indeed, and revenue collection and smarty points for government/police figures. If I was you, and I knew that I was over the speed limit, I'd just pay up. Otherwise, fight it.


----------



## lloydie999 (Dec 15, 2007)

les, my argument still stands (although my initial presumption was wrong admittedly)....... a cock up with the NIP wont get you off the fine, you were speeding, when you tell them they got your name wrong you will have to give them the correct details......... and then you will pay up..... as we all do. I would, however, enquire where the wrong name came from. as i said it may bite you in the ass at some point........if you have the correct name on your V5 then the mistake is probably with the DVLA to PNC interface which is even worse cos it means that if you get pulled by the old bill there will be a name discrepancy for them to deal with at the road side (a gung ho copper amy tow your car!)......... either way, you should get in checked.......... no need to get all arsey with me im actually tryin to help!

For the record, i totally agree that the amount of time spent doing speeding motorists up the ar*e is a waste of precious police time and the traps arent always in known danger spots......... but dont knock the police for that, it really isnt their fault and im damn sure they would rather be preventing crime!

At least points for speeding wont affect your insurance (unless youve got 6 already)................


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Wak said:


> you could consider a device to help you with parking more effectively
> http://www.vagcheck.com/vagcheck/vagche ... ropark.htm


Hi Wak,

You know I have that appointment with you this month? Do you take credit cards and could you have one in stock by then?

Parking has always been a big problem for me :wink:

cheers

Rich


----------



## 007TT (Mar 20, 2007)

les said:


> 007TT said:
> 
> 
> > You could still get done for failing to nominate and perverting the course of justice. (If you don't reply and give your right details.)
> ...


I didn't say you wouldn't reply, just saying that's one possible outcome, some people choose to ignore them :wink:


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

lloydie999 said:


> Thirdly, to the poster who suggested burglars who get caught red handed get off on a technicality............this aint America, that doesnt happen over her, its all a big myth, anyone who knows of an actual case feel free to quote it but i bet no one can!


No problem at all. I've had the following in mind throughout but because the story is rather long-winded I didn't detail it in previous posts.

In 2000 I arrested a lad for burglary. He'd broken into the victim's house whilst they were away on holiday and probably over a couple of days had pretty much cleared it out. His one mistake was that during one visit he'd had a cigarette and had left the stub behind in the house. The stub was collected by the SOCO officer and sent for DNA testing.

So, a month or so later the offender is identified and I had the pleasure of going to lock him up. We found him at home and also found he had the victim's coffee table in his living room with the victim's lamp on it and the victim's mirror on the wall. Bingo!

I interviewed him and true to form, despite all the evidence against him, he made no comment. He was, of course, charged.

Some weeks later it's his court appearance. His brief tells him with his DNA at the scene and the stolen gear in his house he's banged-to-rights and he has no option but to plead guilty. However, due to delays lunch-time has come before his case can be heard. The judge adjourns for lunch and the shit-bag, knowing he's got a prison sentence coming, gets off on his toes over lunch. A warrant is issued but he's not found for nearly 2 years.

So we get him in, and this time he has a different barrister who looks through the file.

Now, here it comes.

When an exhibit like the cigarette butt is recovered it is bagged and tagged with a description of what it is, an identifying number and the exhibiting officer's signature. In this case that was done absolutely correctly and the SOCO officer had labelled it as "Cigarette butt found on hoover on table in conservatory". When the butt had been sent to the lab for analysis the technician had to fill a form in, which included the description of the item. Because the box for the description was not big enough he'd instead written "Cigarette butt found on hoover in conservatory". All the reference numbers and everything else on the paperwork were absolutely right. So what?

Well the barrister spotted this discrepancy - in theory it could suggest the stub tested was not the one found though obviously common sense tells you it's the very same one. It's not difficult to sort out normally. You just get the SOCO officer to turn up at court and identify the exhibit as the same he'd found by identifying his signature on the label and then the lab technician does the same. Except the barrister happened to know that by this time the SOCO officer was on his deathbed with cancer and couldn't get to court. He challenged it, we couldn't do anything about it and a burglar walked free . . .

. . . on a technicality.

And that sort of thing originates mostly from people challenging the paperwork on more minor matters, such as traffic offences.

Back to you lloydie999.


----------



## PDW (Jul 6, 2007)

All about getting off for Les rather than being a man and taking the punishment!!

All the points made by Mark Davies are well made and adhere to the principles of honesty and integrity - depends on your morals :?

Too many people commit the crime but are not prepared to serve the time - they cry like babies.

I am no saint but if you get caught just be honest about it ?


----------



## PDW (Jul 6, 2007)

Bit harsh that, sorry - put the red wine away .... :wink:


----------



## DeeBee (Nov 4, 2007)

Most interesting post on speeding. Is there a number of days that a NIP has to be received, from the date of the offence?


----------



## rogerman (Mar 7, 2006)

Aha, I had a sneaky feeling Mark might be a policeman. 
I find it very interesting that he has made no comments about police not following the correct procedure, as set out under section 38 of the ACPO Guidelines for when they use mobile speed monitoring equipment, especially with regard to it`s correct calibration. A point made in an earlier posting and something the police do not wish us to know. 
I am aware that this procedure has changed of late with regard to laser speed monitoring equipment.


----------



## Rosskie (Jul 31, 2007)

Has no-one seen the film Brazil?!

Its maybe an extreme example, and of course the laws got to be enforced, but it absolutely MUST be enforced accurately. Sure it doesn't make things easy for the legal system, but thats their responsibility. And using it to generate revenue isn't acceptable.

Personnaly, I dont see how in this case your gonna get off with the ticket, as if your gran had been driving, then the ticket would still have the wrong name on it, she wouldn't get off... If you follow.

On a similar note I got a police issued parking ticket the other day which is being contested because the offence code number I supposedly commited is illedgible on the actual ticket... Thats one that I better get off with.

Still, good luck with it. A Freind of mine once got a speeding ticket and wrote back to them asking for the details of the so called "accident blackspot" he'd been caught on, then never heard another word about it. I didn't know the guy that well, and it sounds far fetched, but you never know...


----------



## lloydie999 (Dec 15, 2007)

damn, spent ages typing a reply and it got deleted!

Mark, yes it does happen but to suggest it happens every time is perpetuating a myth that makes life harder for ever copper everywhere! Things like that happen because of the rules of evidence that are in place to ensure justice works (most of the time), its unfortunate SOCO was ill and billy scrote bag got off with it but that is NOT an every day occurance. I have some examples far worse than that but every time the public gets to hear about it they assume its some cock up by the police and we look bad! I have litterally thousands of cases where good work has been done by officers and billy scrote bag has gone to a tiny room for a few years (ok weeks :lol: ) but the only thing that sticks is that we catch speeders and piss off 'normal' people........... whats the point of lowering an already wrongly believed low perception of police? perhaps thats why it was 1.9% :evil: sont even get me started there!

as for everyone else............. The police have 14 days to send an NIP following an offence (or 14 days after discovering who the offender was, which is why the wrong name is no defence here!)........

Asking where the accident blackspot is will not get you off a ticket, its an offence to exceed the limit anywhere, not just on roads where 3 or more people have been killed in the last 2 years!

i love healthy debate


----------



## lloydie999 (Dec 15, 2007)

oh and thanks for the lesson in evidence recovery......... was interesting...... 7 years is a long time to hold a grudge though, have you considered counselling :? :?:


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

lloydie999 said:


> les, my argument still stands (although my initial presumption was wrong admittedly)....... a cock up with the NIP wont get you off the fine, you were speeding, when you tell them they got your name wrong you will have to give them the correct details......... and then you will pay up..... as we all do. I would, however, enquire where the wrong name came from. as i said it may bite you in the ass at some point........if you have the correct name on your V5 then the mistake is probably with the DVLA to PNC interface which is even worse cos it means that if you get pulled by the old bill there will be a name discrepancy for them to deal with at the road side (a gung ho copper amy tow your car!)......... either way, you should get in checked.......... no need to get all arsey with me im actually tryin to help!
> 
> For the record, i totally agree that the amount of time spent doing speeding motorists up the ar*e is a waste of precious police time and the traps arent always in known danger spots......... but dont knock the police for that, it really isnt their fault and im damn sure they would rather be preventing crime!
> 
> At least points for speeding wont affect your insurance (unless youve got 6 already)................


Wasnt getting arsey and were you serious? Surely not. Do you think for one moment a change in government would make any difference if so then your on the wrong tablets mate.


----------



## lloydie999 (Dec 15, 2007)

rogerman said:


> How many times do we read of policemen getting off when caught for speeding? One law for them and another for us. Doesn`t build our confidence in them.


Hows about boll**ks  i think you will find that the rules are very firmly against coppers, if they get done for a criminal offence they are almost certainly guaranteed to lose their job too, how about you? wil they stop you working if you get done for drink driving or a minor assault? no probably not............

And i guarantee you CPS are more inclined to prosecute a copper with little or no evidence when they would discontinue the same case against a civvy. My mate was taken to crown court and suspended for 3 years..........because he took 4 minutes to phone an ambulance........ thats it.......... he just wasnt quick enough! shame on him! :x


----------



## lloydie999 (Dec 15, 2007)

> Wasnt getting arsey and were you serious? Surely not. Do you think for one moment a change in government would make any difference if so then your on the wrong tablets mate.


to be honest, if you look at the stupid laws put in place since this govt got elected then maybe sacking the buggers is the way forward......... speed cameras.......... CPS......... PCSO's........no prison spaces............more paperwork for coppers........ recruitment down.........immigration..........and the list goes on!

dont wanna start a revolution but ....................


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

rogerman said:


> I find it very interesting that he has made no comments about police not following the correct procedure, as set out under section 38 of the ACPO Guidelines for when they use mobile speed monitoring equipment, especially with regard to it`s correct calibration. A point made in an earlier posting and something the police do not wish us to know.


That's because I'm a firearms officer, have never issued a speeding ticket in my entire career and know f*ck all about speed detectors.

Don't make the mistake that I'm debating about the rights and wrongs of police enforcement methods or the validity of current speed limits. My point is pure and simply about people who know damn well they have broken the law, coming onto a public forum and admitting as much, having the nerve to ask for advice about how to evade the legal penalty for their offence and then the way people line up to tell them how to do it.

And we then have the cheek to refer to ourselves the motorists as 'the law-abiding public'!


----------



## PDW (Jul 6, 2007)

People should take responsibilities for their actions. Break the speed limit, get caught, be realistic - you have broken the law of the land and stop making excuses.

Law Enforcement Officers are not exempt, so neither are you.

Too many pathetic excuses on here from people who are happy to take chances. It's like the penalty evasion forum ...


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well to be fair you have to draw the line somewhere. Take yellow ones... for double yellow lines to be valid they must be continuous and end in a bar at both ends. Any break, due to a roadwork repair patch for example, makes the whole stretch of yellow lines invalid.

Now you might say that it's obvious that you still shouldn't park on them but the law says you can - because the lines are invalid.

Look at another way - you find a parking space in a row of parked cars with no yellow lines. But when you come back to your car, all the other parked cars have gone, revealing yellow lines  , and there's your car parked on a road repair patch with a ticket on it! :evil:

In that example you would have been "guilty" for parking in an restricted area but clearly you didn't know and correctly you would be found "not guilty" if you took it to court with the evidence of the discontinuity in lines.

And the point is that technicalities are there for a reason - the law can't and should not be vague - otherwise at the other extreme you could get done even if there was only one foot of yellow line remaining when most of the street had been repaired!

You've got to draw the line somewhere and that should be the letter and correct interpretation of the law. You could say it is a public duty to challenge mistakes as ultimately that will make the law stronger and fairer.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

John you make a reasonable point, but let's take your yellow lines example.

Someone sees a set of double yellows and knows that is somewhere they shouldn't be parking - however, they see that 100yds down the road the closing bar is missing so he decides to park there anyway because he knows that technically the parking restriction cannot be enforced. He's still parking somewhere he knows he shouldn't be and still selfishly ignoring the restrictions that must be there for a reason - there for the collective benefit.

Now that is quite different to your other example of someone who unwittingly parks in a spot where the lines have been obliterated by road repairs and honestly thought they were parked legally.

The difference is guilty knowledge.

The problem we have is that we have started with someone challenging the latter case in court and rightly winning, but then the principle of faulty markings has been abused and stretched and stretched on the basis of precedent to the point where the latter case also wins. What the law needs - and no longer has - is a 'common sense' clause.

A court should be able to say _in certain cases _that someone really ought to have known they were breaking the law regardless of the discrepancies, so they are still guilty. Unfortunately that's not the case any more.

What we are left with is cases of people who know they are guilty, are patently guilty, but are still at times able to evade a penalty. I cannot see how that can be desirable, because ultimately in an imperfect world our laws simply become unenforcable and worthless. I work with the law every day and I tell you we are getting closer and closer to that situation year on year.

It's the same process that has led to those truly ridiculous compensation claim decisions that we see coming from US courts. That's where we are currently heading.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

O/T

Many years ago I got nicked for "parking in such a way likely to cause an obstruction" whilst spectating the Wyedean Rally. I knew I should park there but there was a long line of parked cars and I parked in the middle. When I came back some 15 minutes or so later there was only one car there and a WPC writing out the ticket. Despite "sweet talking" she insisted she "had started so she would finish" the ticket.

2 days later I take my docs into my local cop-shop and get interogated on what speed I was doing. After about 10 mins of repeating the story to everyone from the desk-officer to the station Sargent, I walk away smiling, the stupid WPC (who was a special rather than full time) had tried to knick me for parking on a speeding ticket. Even my local coppers had a good laugh at her expense. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

:lol: Obviously guilty pay up :wink:


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

"The difference is guilty knowledge. "

Is it now?? Hmmm and I was under the impression ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law or am I wrong?


----------



## rogerman (Mar 7, 2006)

Mark wrote "...Someone sees a set of double yellows and knows that is somewhere they shouldn't be parking - however, they see that 100yds down the road the closing bar is missing so he decides to park there anyway because he knows that technically the parking restriction cannot be enforced. He's still parking somewhere he knows he shouldn't be and still selfishly ignoring the restrictions that must be there for a reason - there for the collective benefit. .."

Yellow lines are suposedly installed for safety reasons. Why, therefore, is it deemed satisfactory for a blue badge holder to be able to park there and not someone without a blue badge? The safety factor has not been reduced because a blue badge has been displayed.
Note the last sentence in Mark`s quote especially, "ignoring the restrictions that must be there for a reason" So this reason doesn`t apply to all?
I know the arguments about disabled people too, as my wife was a blue badge holder when she was alive.
I`ve seen such badge holders park in totally unsafe conditions on yellow lines - double ones at that!


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

rogerman said:


> Why, therefore, is it deemed satisfactory for a blue badge holder to be able to park there and not someone without a blue badge?


That's a completely different argument and one I'm in complete agreement with. Frankly disabled drivers are too often highly inconsiderate about where they park, stopping just about anywhere they please regardless of the chaos they cause. I also object to the idea of clamping cars parked on double yellows - if a car isn't supposed to be there what is the sense of preventing it being moved? Here we are breaking into the arguments regarding de-regulation and private enforcement of traffic law - something which I am dead-set against. It doesn't work in parking and I'd be strongly opposed to the introduction of private operators of speed cameras, because discretion and sense clearly goes out of the window and it most certainly does become a money making machine. But that's a different matter altogether.

Again, this was never my point and we are getting side-tracked.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> rogerman said:
> 
> 
> > Again, this was never my point and we are getting side-tracked.


In fact your partly responsible for side tracking my thread. If you wish to take the moral high ground do so in your own thread. If you go back to my origional question you will see you have turned it into some sort of moral crusade. I asked for advice not a lecture on your thoughts, the law and morals. Thanks.

Just to remind you.

"Ok I got caught by a mobile camera van just before Christmas. The "Notice of Intended Prosecution" came through a week ago. However the have my name wrong that is after my first two christian names they have put the word EXAM between them and my surname. Do you think I have grounds to have the noticed null and void? Heres hoping. Any legal eagals know the answer to this one? I have a clean driving licence at the mo. Thanks in anticipation."


----------



## skydiver (Oct 12, 2006)

Les,

Were you actually speeding mate? If so by how much? Honestly....

Answer these two questions yourself and then decide if it is worth lying and wriggling your way out of it.

This thread has attracted a lot of interest and discussion, exactly what forums are for. It has also polarized opinion as can be clearly seen.

Is it really worth the hassle disputing this? Only you can answer that after answering the first two questions.

Good luck either way

Dave


----------



## Roadhog (May 4, 2007)

skydiver said:


> Les,
> 
> Were you actually speeding mate? If so by how much? Honestly....
> 
> ...


 Think that just about sums it up,good luck Les whichever way.

HappyTTing.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Interesting thread. Can common thieving and burglary be compared with speeding?

On the one hand I believe that most right minded citizens would declare that one of these offences goes against all that is genuinely right and proper but can this be said of the arbitrary speed limits set on our roads? Thought not, which is why people speed all the time and don't thieve and burgle all the time. In other words I believe that average Joe Public doesn't have much respect for the speed limits set because he doesn't believe them to be credible and when caught speeding doesn't really think he has done much wrong which generates the desire to 'avoid' any penalty ............. and generates a great deal of sympathy from his fellow man!!

Secondly, why do we have these speed limits? One would think that it would be to reduce death and destruction on our roads - do the statistics back this up now we have over 4000 fixed cameras and a dose of mobile cameras on our roads and how many million speeding tickets issued via these machines each year?

So if the public generally believe the speed limits not to be credible and that speed cameras are not really reducing death and destruction despite millions of tickets being issued each year then the inescapable conclusion is that people will believe that they are indeed just a revenue raising scam. Therefore, is it any wonder that they want to try and avoid the penalty as they no longer see it as a just punishment for a true crime, rather a stealth tax ................. and a potentially expensive one at that.

Finally, just what do the authorities think they will gain from 'criminalising' the vast majority of drivers and thus a very significant proportion of the whole community for only financial gain? Is there not a risk that the general public, when the vast majority have finally been prosecuted, become slightly immune to the stigma of having a record for, in its eyes, no real good reason and is that a good thing? And just what is the expected affect on these people's attitude towards the authorities and the police in particular?

So, if average Joe Public believes the speed limits to be unjust then it is only right and proper that he contests all prosecutions by whatever means possible until such time that credible, rather than arbitrary, speed limits are put in place. When they are then I would contend that, just like most do not go around thieving and burgling, then most will not go around speeding. And when people are caught in excess of credible speed limits then the sympathy will not be with them to the extent that it is now.


----------



## steveh (Jan 14, 2004)

Well said Garvin. You've hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## skydiver (Oct 12, 2006)

garvin said:


> Interesting thread. Can common thieving and burglary be compared with speeding?
> 
> On the one hand I believe that most right minded citizens would declare that one of these offences goes against all that is genuinely right and proper but can this be said of the arbitrary speed limits set on our roads? Thought not, which is why people speed all the time and don't thieve and burgle all the time. In other words I believe that average Joe Public doesn't have much respect for the speed limits set because he doesn't believe them to be credible and when caught speeding doesn't really think he has done much wrong which generates the desire to 'avoid' any penalty ............. and generates a great deal of sympathy from his fellow man!!
> 
> ...


How would the speed limits be set? Who would decide if they are arbitrary or credible?

If every member of the public decided to challenge speed limits or any other rule set out by law it would be one crazy place.

Of course there is a genuine debate to be had about the 70 limit on motorway. A limit set long before the advent of all the modern safety features of cars.

The point is how far do we take this?

Dave


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

A very reasoned and articulate argument Garvin.

I agree wholeheartedly with your views and so, it would seem, do the insurance companies.

At one time a speeding ticket would mean increased premiums, but the odd 40 in a 30 is generally disregarded as a mere misdemeanor and not punished by an insurance loading.

My Dad is 78 and has 9 points on his licence - all in the last year. He's pissed off with the government.

I've had 6 points in the last year and both offences were within one week and both on the same camera. Prior to that my licence had been clean, so I'm pissed off with them too.

The speed limits are outdated and unrealistic. The penalties are nothing but stealth taxes to fill government coffers.

No wonder we all do what we can to get off. The government seems to do all they can to stuff us.

And with all due respect to the police, they're merely the puppets wielding the stick.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Yes you have a very good point that speed limits are an arbitrary contrivance. They don't vary with weather, congestion, daylight, vehicle ability or driver ability.

If you argue that a lower "safe" limit has to be set to cover most situations, then you accept by definition, that it is a contrivance and further that it is "safe" to exceed them in some circumstances and unsafe to keep to them in others.

But then, you can argue that the law has got to draw the line somewhere. To some extent it does however vary in penalty with harsher punishment for greater exceedings.

Then again the limits where set such a long time ago in the time of drum brakes, cross plys, hard unforgiving dashboards and no seat belts :roll:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

John-H said:


> Yes you have a very good point that speed limits are an arbitrary contrivance. They don't vary with weather, congestion, daylight, vehicle ability or driver ability.
> 
> If you argue that a lower "safe" limit has to be set to cover most situations, then you accept by definition, that it is a contrivance and further that it is "safe" to exceed them in some circumstances and unsafe to keep to them in others.
> 
> ...


Agreed.

And some allowance must be given for common sense. If people cannot be allowed some judgement about the speed to travel given prevailing conditions then how are they to learn what's good, or bad, for any set of circumstances on the road?

Do we breed a nation of 'What the f**k? It said 70 an' I'm doin' 70 ain't I?' oiks?

Even if it's foggy with minimal visibilty?

Cheers

rich


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Some very sensible debate arising.

Now again, don't make the mistake that I'm a police officer here to defend traffic law, current speed limits or speed camera enforcement. I'm not. My point is about a supportive attitude to law-breaking.

So, we have different attitudes to traffic law because we feel it is unjustified. The 'public believe limits not to be credible' and that 'they are just a revenue raising scam'. To be fair, I have yet to see any evidence either way that proves whether our current speed limits save lives or not. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. Yes, the limits are absolutely arbitrary in respect that they do not take account of prevailing conditions, and I have been trained to drive perfectly safely well in excess of speed limits, so it obviously can be done. I don't have any moral objection to people driving over 70mph in the right conditions, but it simply wouldn't be possible to operate a system with anything other than an absolute limit. Yes the increased use of cameras and the loss of police officer discretion as a result is lamentable, but then the huge number of officers needed to do the same job just isn't affordable. It's a difficult problem and one I expect not one of us could claim to an expert in.

It is a complex subject with many aspects. Yes, there is a debate about whether the law should be changed. But it still isn't the point.

I know lots of burglars and also very many burglary victims. When I'm stood in someone's house that has been completely trashed with everything of value taken they almost always ask, "How can they do this to someone?". I know the answer to that because I know the people who do it, and I've asked them.

They come into your house and steal your gear _because they can_. In their environment, in the society in which they exist, there is a completely different set of life-values. It's survival of the fittest. They see what you've got, they know how to take it - so they do. If you can't stop them taking it that's your fault and you deserve to lose your stuff. It's as simple as that.

To them laws that prevent them simply making their own way in life are just as irrelevant and unjustified as speeding laws are to you. After all, making your own way is just the natural order of things, isn't it? So, does that make it okay for them to burgle your house? Would you be supportive to them if they were asking for advice on how to beat the rap?

So, quite simply, does personally finding a law unjsutified or unacceptable make it okay to break it?

Of course the difference is that there is far more popular support for changing speed limits than there is for abolishing the Theft Act - though clearly not enough democratic support to have ever actually managed to get the law changed yet. And until that happens the point is simple - *the Law is still the Law*.

If someone gets done for speeding by all means we can be sympathetic, say 'tough luck mate' and produce supportive grumbles. By all means we can continue to campaign to get speed limits changed and cameras taken down. But in the meantime we know what the law is and if we are caught breaking it, and know we were breaking it, then we have no moral standing to do anything other than simply take the penalty.

I simply cannot accept that anything that allows patently guilty people to avoid conviction is in any way a 'good thing' for a democratic society. Try saying that to all the thousands of rape victims for whom it has proved to be impossible to get convictions against the offender. All this talk about 'challenging the processes in order to make them more robust' is just so much guff to try and justify a personal desire to evade a just penalty and avoid the personal consequences of personal choices. We try and justify it with examples of how the evidence has been flawed and say these challenges are necessary to prevent the innocent being convicted - but that's _utterly irrelevant_ in cases like this where people are turning up admitting openly that they *did* break the law!

If Les had come here and said he'd got a ticket from a camera but wasn't sure whether he'd been speeding or not and did anybody have any suggestions of what he should do then that would be a completely different matter. My job is not convicting someone (anyone!) at all costs. It's about finding justice - and in a world were I'm presented with probably more false accusations than genuine ones my job is finding the truth, and I'm as inclined to try and prove someone innocent as I am to prove them guilty. In that respect I'm usually very happy to provide advice on defending an accusation - if people believe themselves to be innocent.

But frankly - whether we agree with the current law or not (being either a speeding motorist or a burglar) - I think gleefully stepping forward and assisting someone declaring themselves guilty of breaking the law to avoid their just penalty simply stinks.

And apart from that, it's actually a criminal offence.


----------



## skydiver (Oct 12, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> Some very sensible debate arising.
> 
> Now again, don't make the mistake that I'm a police officer here to defend traffic law, current speed limits or speed camera enforcement. I'm not. My point is about a supportive attitude to law-breaking.
> 
> ...


Well Said


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> And apart from that, it's actually a criminal offence.


Mark I agree with much of what you say and yes, *the law is the law*.

But does that make the law right and just?

I mean how can speeding seriously be considered a 'criminal offence' and lumped in with rape, murder or even burglary? I think it a little unfair that people caught travelling at a rate slightly higher than that decreed by the government, be labelled 'criminals'. More often than not they're drivers that have been held up by traffic, roadworks, accidents or any number of external forces and are simply trying to make that time up to fulfil their own obligations. I'm sure the majority don't premeditate and think 'Right I'm going to break the law today by travelling at 50 when I should only be doing 40.'

It's simply not the same as a burglar who may 'case a joint' or a rapist who may stalk a potential victim. We're simply law-abiding citizens trying to go about our daily business. The majority have paid their road tax, have insurance, passed a test to prove their ability to drive and maintain their cars to a level at least deemed safe for the road by the government.

We're not hooligans out to buck the system, we're individuals who believe or are prepared to say that the law is an ass. In certain instances it most certainly is. If I drive at 90 on an open, clear motorway in dry, well lit conditions, by your reckoning I'm a criminal (if convicted).

However if I choose to smoke a joint, get as high as a kite and wander into the path of traffic, is that deemed to be okay? More often than not the driver might get done for driving without due care and attention. And what about the guy who catches a burglar in his property and takes action to apprehend him with a baseball bat? Is he now a 'criminal' too?

I'm sorry Mark you can't segment and categorise everything in life. There has to be an element of common sense. Real justice should be allowed to prevail when it is plain that the law has acted stupidly.

Having said all that I do feel that had I been hurtling down a busy high street on a Saturday afternoon, then I deserve more than just a fine and three points for breaking the speed limit.

It should be horses for courses.

Cheers

rich


----------



## RK07 (Jul 31, 2007)

rustyintegrale said:


> Mark Davies said:
> 
> 
> > And apart from that, it's actually a criminal offence.
> ...


And maybe so. But until such time that the government (who are elected as part of a democratic process) change it then thats the way it is. Personally I'd prefer to live here and live with the consequences of travelling above the speed limit should I choose to do so.

The one thing that bugs me is how much injustice there is in the world and how little this matter is in terms of significance - with consideration to world affairs (Kenya for example) - that a grown man cannot accept responsibility when he has done wrong :?

By the way, those who feels Mark is unfair by comparing rape, theft and speeding, I would challenge you to tell someone that their loved one has been killed or injured by a speeding car or that speed was a factor. Just because you may be able to drive safely a speed limit doesn't help the person who may come into your path and be hit at a speed that is more likely to kill them. Yes it may be their fault that they travelled into your path but do they deserve to die just because you want to go a bit faster?

I'm not perfect. I do sometimes travel above the speed limit. But I am a man, and a grown up one at that. With this in mind I know what I would do in your situation - cough up and correct your name on the form so the next ticket they send is correct...


----------



## Colinthecop (Jan 2, 2008)

lloydie999 said:


> Thirdly, to the poster who suggested burglars who get caught red handed get off on a technicality............this aint America, that doesnt happen over her, its all a big myth, anyone who knows of an actual case feel free to quote it but i bet no one can!





lloydie999 said:


> Mark, yes it does happen but to suggest it happens every time is perpetuating a myth that makes life harder for ever copper everywhere!


 [smiley=stop.gif]

So which one is it.....?

Does it not happen, or does it happen but we should keep quiet....?

[smiley=stupid.gif]


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

rustyintegrale said:


> I mean how can speeding seriously be considered a 'criminal offence' and lumped in with rape, murder or even burglary? I think it a little unfair that people caught travelling at a rate slightly higher than that decreed by the government, be labelled 'criminals'.


Ah, but they are not! Speeding is not a criminal offence - you don't get a record for it. The system of fines and points for traffic offences is nothing more than a regulatory framework for the licencing of driving. In the general scheme of things it's utterly trivial. Half the problem is that some people react to the prospect of a speeding 'conviction' as if it's going to have the impact of a conviction for burglary - when quite frankly it doesn't even come close!

A first speeding conviction is probably going to cost you Â£60 and puts 3 points on your licence which these days (given it doesn't effect your insurance anymore) is a purely notional and abstract matter unless you commit more offences. For pity's sake, whether you agree with the law or not, it's hardly a draconian penalty, is it? Yet, in order to avoid such a minor sanction (and with a rather misplaced notion of 'keeping a clean name') people are quite prepared to break the law and become criminals!

That is what I meant when I said 'it is a criminal offence' - not the speeding, but the attempt to pervert the course of justice - and those people who have provided advice on how to evade the penalty on this and similar threads (in the knowledge that they are advising someone who admits they committed the offence) are guilty of it. And I ask the question, if people really don't feel there is anything wrong with speeding why are they so damn desperate to keep their licences clean when faced with the prospect of an endorsement? Or really, do we all know we have done wrong and don't want to be labelled with it? Is there a stigma?

That question aside, you'll see that at no point in this thread have I moralised about the rights and wrongs of speeding. My views on that subject are probably no different to anybody else who has contributed to the debate.

It's not the issue of speeding - it's not about the rights and wrongs of the current law. It's pure and simply about the tolerance and encouragement of dishonesty, and whether you agree with the law in question or not, dishonesty is still dishonesty. I find that a very sad indictment on society in general and on some sectors of the motoring public in particular.

Quite frankly I do little traffic stuff because I just hate trying to deal with some of the people involved. A simple matter of completing some paperwork becomes an absolute nightmare because of the way the 'law abiding motorist' wriggles and squirms just to avoid having to deal with you, hoping that eventually you will just go away. Of course we can't, and trivial little issues that should have been dealt with inside an hour can take months to get out of the way. It's pathetic.

Ironically dealing with genuine criminals is invariably much easier - you know where you stand with them, they know the score too and they don't piss you about as much. Many, when they are caught, will hold their hands up and plead guilty. So, in a very real sense, compared with some 'law abiding motorists', some criminals are far more honest. Now that is sad.


----------



## Lock_Stock (May 22, 2007)

Mark Davies said:


> Some very sensible debate arising.
> 
> Now again, don't make the mistake that I'm a police officer here to defend traffic law, current speed limits or speed camera enforcement. I'm not. My point is about a supportive attitude to law-breaking.
> 
> ...


A well made argument. But I strongly disagree with some of your points.

It is as simple as this. 'Innocent until proven guilty' It is the Police responsibility to gather evidence. It is the COURTS, Majistrates, Judges, Jurys responsibility to apportion guilt NOT the Police.

I'm sure your frustration, and attitude is not uncommon amongst Police Officers, and in many ways it is frustration I share, but I would not want to change things to the detrement of our freedoms and rights.

What are the figures at the moment, 1 in 20 wrongful convictions. How many people locked up after 'admitting' guilt later to be found innocent?

Our laws are made to Protect the innocent, not convict the guilty. If there is a chain of evidence that is broken and a 'guilty' man goes free then the system has worked, becuase it has insured that the same loophole hasn't been used to send an innocent man to jail because the arresting officer was just trying to get 'Justice'.

You may feel that it is better that we occasionally send an innocent man to jail as long as we get the criminal most of the time. I would never agree with this argument. I would also argue that this is 100% relevant when talking about people 'who admit guilt then try to get out of it'. I truely believe that it is the full responsibility of our justice system, including the police, to get things right. If this sets precedent that leads to someone else going free.... well so be it. Maybe you would prefer a society where the Police make summary judgment based on 'common sense'. I would not. In the example you give, lets face it, the issue had nothing to do with the chain of evidence or the loophole, it was because the police were ineffectual, the prisoner was allowed to do a bunk and no doubt insufficient man power made it very difficult for the Police to recapture him.

I would suggest, stop complaining about people who try to 'wriggle out' of convictions and start campaining for more Police to allow you to have suffucient time to complete the necessary paperwork accurately.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> It's not the issue of speeding - it's not about the rights and wrongs of the current law. It's pure and simply about the tolerance and encouragement of dishonesty. I find that a very sad indictment on society in general and on some sectors of the motoring public in particular.


Yes I'd agree with that.

However part of me can't help thinking that there's an element of revenge in people wanting to 'get off' speeding tickets.

If the speed cameras weren't so blatantly cash cows, if the traffic police weren't quite so predatory, and if the whole speed limit system wasn't quite so outdated, then maybe people would be more willing to accept the punishment when it was dished out.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> They come into your house and steal your gear _because they can_. In their environment, in the society in which they exist, there is a completely different set of life-values. It's survival of the fittest. They see what you've got, they know how to take it - so they do. If you can't stop them taking it that's your fault and you deserve to lose your stuff. It's as simple as that.
> 
> To them laws that prevent them simply making their own way in life are just as irrelevant and unjustified as speeding laws are to you.


I'm afraid I just don't believe this to be true. Thieves and burglars know what they are doing is seriously wrong and expect to get 'banged up' if caught and prosecuted. They may not like the sentence handed down but I don't hear any outcry from them, or the general public, for the law to be changed to allow such activities, that they have actually done no wrong or to have the punishments for such crimes reduced. However, I do hear a lot of the general public complaining that the speed limits etc should be changed and that the associated punishments handed out are unjust.

Therefore, the comparison is not valid and thieves and burglars do not see laws as irrelevant and unjustified as speeding laws appear to a good proportion of the population.

Good laws are those that are seen as just and proper by those they are applied to and are obeyed by the vast majority. Bad laws are those that are seen otherwise and cause more than a small minority to disregard them and break them - millions of speeding tickets per annum, and that's only those who are caught, lead me to believe that it is more than a small minority of the population who disregard and disobey this particular set of laws.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

rustyintegrale said:


> However part of me can't help thinking that there's an element of *revenge* in people wanting to 'get off' speeding tickets.


I'd say that hits the nail on the head firmly and squarely, but should we ask the question whether there is a right and a wrong way to do it?

I'm all for positive action - I've been on marches and protests - but _nothing_ that is intrinsically dishonest or even stretches to breaking the law can (in my mind) be justifiable. It's a simple principle - two wrongs do not make a right.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> It's not the issue of speeding - it's not about the rights and wrongs of the current law. It's pure and simply about the tolerance and encouragement of dishonesty, and whether you agree with the law in question or not, dishonesty is still dishonesty. I find that a very sad indictment on society in general and on some sectors of the motoring public in particular.


This thread is not about dishonesty. It's about a bad set of laws which people feel aggrieved about. Now you may wish people to hold their hands up to a law they feel is arbitrary and unjust and make the claim that the law is the law whether you like it or not. Well you just can't have it both ways - the 'law' is that the paperwork needs to be filled out properly and if not then the prosecution can fail. So if a challenge is successful on this basis then it is lawful and you cannot pick and choose the bits of the law that just suits you. If you don't like the 'pernickety' aspect of getting the paperwork correct then, as per my previous e-mails, you are quite within your rights to complain and kick up a stink until such time as the law is changed - not that it will be because I predict the vast majority will be against you - that's democracy by the way!! So, one could make a case that is actually you that is trying to pervert the course of justice by encouraging someone away from their rights under law.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

garvin said:


> I'm afraid I just don't believe this to be true. Thieves and burglars know what they are doing is seriously wrong and expect to get 'banged up' if caught and prosecuted. . . .


On what do you base that disbelief? Do you deal with these people on a daily basis? Do you know them? Perhaps you do - I don't know - but I do and _my_ experience of them is exactly as I have described.

It doesn't further the debate really so I'll try and be brief. These people do see their criminality as a way of life. Yes, they know it is against the law, but that is quite different from feeling what they are doing is 'wrong' or 'unjustifiable'. Take New Orleans after the floods. People looted and stole food because they had to, in order to survive. It was still against the law, but did they think what they did was wrong? I doubt it. Lifestyle criminals are no different. They think it is their only option to survive. We might not agree with them, and of course they probably are wrong but only due to a lack of imagination and social ability - but that *is* what they think.

I use it as an example to illustrate a point - that just because a law doesn't suit you it doesn't make it right to break it. Of course we see with my New Orleans example that even with an offence that you might think clear-cut like theft there are still grey areas, but frankly, I don't think laws on speeding quite fit into the same 'life or death' bracket.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

garvin said:


> . . the 'law' is that the paperwork needs to be filled out properly and if not then the prosecution can fail . . .


Well no, it isn't. There isn't a Pedantic Paperwork Act. At no time has legislation been enacted that says a law is no longer valid if the admin surrounding a prosecution isn't absolutely perfect. No lawyer in history has ever stood up in court and said, "My client freely admits that he has committed this offence but we contest that he cannot be convicted because of discrepancies in the process".

If you tell your lawyer that you did commit the offence he will (or The Law Society says _should_) advise you to plead guilty. A lawyer attempting to defend a client whom he knows to be guilty is committing an offence. In such a case defending purely on the basis of a technicality is not a valid legal defence. The Law still says that if you are guilty of an offence you are guilty - regardless of any errors in the paperwork. A challenge to the process is only valid if it is believed that those errors in process indicate the evidence against the accused (who pleads his innocence) is flawed. It's all about properly proving guilt - not whether you are guilty or not. The mere presence of an error does not make you innocent in the eyes of the law.

Of course it does go on, but that's all part of the game. Criminals do not sit in a consultation room with their brief and say, "I did it, but can you get me off?". They don't because then their brief will tell them either they plead guilty or they can no longer represent them. No, the criminals tell their briefs they've been fitted-up, or they weren't there . . . or anything really. Of course, the briefs aren't necessarily going to believe that, but it's a convenient lie that they can choose to overlook in the interest of providing some representation for their client. It's the oil that keeps the adversarial legal process turning. And of course, many lawyers in a job . . .

People who know they are guilty but abuse this process to evade penalty cannot claim any kind of legal or moral highground. It is _not_ lawful, as you suggest. It is _not_ a legitimate part of the legal process. It is - as I have described it - an *abuse*.

Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty and that is why we are in the position where people can challenge a case on the process - where they can question whether they have been *proven* guilty (as opposed to whether they are in fact guilty). But of course that all goes out of the window the instant someone admits they _are _guilty - which I think is more or less what Les did in his very first post on this thread.

That's what my point comes down to.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> garvin said:
> 
> 
> > . . the 'law' is that the paperwork needs to be filled out properly and if not then the prosecution can fail . . .
> ...


Which is why the word 'law' is in apostophe's and I used the term "can fail" rather than will fail. I never stated at anytime that this made the accused any more or less guilty. The fact is that if the paperwork is not correct then prosecutions can, and do, fail ............... you even admit that was the reason why your example case failed ........ incorrect paperwork led to a reasonable doubt and the evidence was thrown out because the witnesses could not attend court.

Now in this case I think les is perfectly within his rights to contest that the NIP is not his as the name has been corrupted and, therefore, there is doubt as to whether the rest of the data on the NIP is correct. If the database is corrupted then how does anyone know that they have got the right vehicle etc., etc. Now if the process manages to correct the problem and bring a successful prosecution then so be it. But if, by contesting it, the proper evidence cannot be brought to bear and the case is dropped then that must be in accordance with the law, as was the case of your burglar. You obviously don't agree with the result of the case against your burglar, or by inference the law in that case, and would have been happy to see him banged up (as we probably all would) because you believe his aquital to be unjust. Les doesn't agree with the possible outcome of the pending prosecution against him and and would be happy to see it go away because he probably sees it as unjust. So you share a common view really and perhaps you're more like les than you would care to admit.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

garvin said:


> Mark Davies said:
> 
> 
> > garvin said:
> ...


Blimey, it's good to see some quality posts on here. 

That's a very interesting point of view and largely I'd agree with it. 'Getting off' on a technicality is nothing about law it's about a bit of luck. I admit to trying myself on one occasion. I was as guilty as hell but it's always satisfying to take the system on and win.

Sadly I didn't and I took the punishment on the chin...

Bloody hurt too! 

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Lock_Stock said:


> What are the figures at the moment, 1 in 20 wrongful convictions. How many people locked up after 'admitting' guilt later to be found innocent?


Quite frankly you are a miles from the truth - a fine example of hugely mistaken public perception as opposed to the facts. Instances of innocent people being convicted are probably one in tens of thousands - the suggestion of 1 in 20 is patently ridiculous! And the idea of someone being coerced to admit guilt when in fact innocent is a thing firmly in the past of 30 years ago.



Lock_Stock said:


> If there is a chain of evidence that is broken and a 'guilty' man goes free then the system has worked, becuase it has insured that the same loophole hasn't been used to send an innocent man to jail because the arresting officer was just trying to get 'Justice'.


In theory quite right - which is entirely the principle in which laws of evidence have been generated by precedent. Though it's wrong to describe it as 'the system has worked'. Quite clearly, where a guilty person is unpunished, the system hasn't 'worked' - in fact it has failed quite miserably. However, what it is in fact, is an acceptable price we pay to avoid the conviction of the innocent.

So, do people misinterpret that and see it as their right to contest such issues and justify it as their public duty within the legal framework? So you'd suggest, but that's just rubbish. Let's be honest, there's no such noble cause involved at all - nobody is thinking of doing anything other than getting off with it!



Lock_Stock said:


> You may feel that it is better that we occasionally send an innocent man to jail as long as we get the criminal most of the time.


No, I absolutely do not and I've no idea where you think you've got that idea. Throughout this debate I have been talking specifically about people who _are_ guilty, and _admit_ they are guilty, trying to evade their penalty.

It's a common misconception amongst the public, and criminals frankly, that we the police are in some way desperate to see people convicted and are distraught if we lose a case. I'm sorry, but we're not. We gather whatever evidence is available, we put it to the court and, as has been said, it's their job to decide the case - not ours. I've seen people I've known to be guilty walk free from court - in particular the lad who kicked the shit out of me and broke my back - but I don't lose any sleep about it. That's just the way it is.

You go on to make a case that is effectively just a defence of the adversarial legal system and seemingly making the mistaken assumption that I and all other police officers don't agree with it. You are quite wrong about that. However, it is an imperfect system and with more and more guilty people walking free year on year (because it is getting harder and harder to convict them) that price for not convicting the innocent is beginning to get unreasonably high.

You mention the example of the burglary case that we lost, and Garvin does also, talking about 'incorrect paperwork giving rise to reasonable doubt'. But quite clearly in that case, the doubt was not _reasonable_ at all. As I say, the lad _would_ have been convicted even so, because it was a trivial matter very easily sorted - except in the extraordinary circumstances that one of the people involved couldn't attend court. Quite simply a burglar walked free for no other reason than because a witness was ill. That has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing a miscarriage of justice.

That situation was patently ridiculous in the view of everybody concerned. Absolutely nobody was in any doubt that the lad was guilty, however the court found its hands tied by precedent. A barrister, just earning his money and playing his part in the system, insists on pressing a fine and miniscule point and the court can't do anything but acquit the defendant. It's very similar to a US court having to order a supermarket to pay compensation to a woman who was injured tripping over a child running around the store - when the child in question was her very own! They know it is as daft as we do, but the lawyer in question just argues the point of law to the extreme and forces the decision.

Each day - each decision forced by a lawyer to acquit his client and further expanding that body of precedent - gets us slowly closer and closer to the extreme where it becomes impossible to convict anybody unless a case is absolutely perfect. Do we get to the point that you can't enforce double yellow lines unless you can prove that the exact pigmentation in the paint used conforms with a prescribed standard - after all, are they genuine 'yellow' lines? Just how far do we really want to push the principles?

It is not a desirable state of affairs, however you choose to dress it up.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

garvin said:


> Now in this case I think les is perfectly within his rights to contest that the NIP . . .


My point is not whether Les has the right to contest the NIP. Of course he should have the _right_ - that's all part of our adversarial legal system of which I play a part and which I uphold.

My point is whether, morally speaking, he *should* contest it (given that he apparently admits his guilt) and whether, morally speaking, the rest of us *should* be supporting him in his efforts. Especially as in doing so we are committing the criminal offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> garvin said:
> 
> 
> > Now in this case I think les is perfectly within his rights to contest that the NIP . . .


My point is not whether Les has the right to contest the NIP. Of course he should have the _right_ - that's all part of our adversarial legal system of which I play a part and which I uphold.

My point is whether, morally speaking, he *should* contest it (given that he apparently admits his guilt)

I have admitted to nothing officer not here not on the NIP.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

les said:


> I have admitted to nothing officer not here not on the NIP.


Well no you haven't expressly admitted it, but I did specifically ask you some time ago whether you were in fact speeding and you've made no mention at all as yet that there was ever any question that you were not. If there had ever been any doubt about it I'm quite certain you would have said so before now!

But frankly Les, I couldn't give a shit if you were speeding. I've *never *issued a speeding ticket in my entire career (indeed, neither have the vast majority of police officers). This idea that we are obsessed with it and spend all our time persecuting the 'innocent motorist' is absolute falicy. Less than 5% of police time is spent on traffic matters and that figure is steadily decreasing. My force now has less than 100 traffic officers in an establishment of over 7500 - so not exactly a priority! The general public just have the idea that it is all we do because for most it is the only aspect of police work that they tend to have direct contact with - it seems they have insufficient imagination to grasp the idea that we just might be doing other stuff that they don't see for themselves.

As I've said, I've no objection to the speeding per se; it's the petty dishonesty in trying to evade an extremely minor lawful penalty that annoys me. And it's just a load of bollocks to suggest it's all part of some noble crusade to improve the legal system - it's all about people with a sense of frustration and injustice at being singled out for committing an offence that they see literally hundreds of other people getting away with every single day - and simply wanting to get out of it if they see any way that they can.

Speeding tickets might be going up, and the revenues from them might be escalating - but the fact is our enforcement of traffic law is still extremely liberal. Literally millions of people break the law every day yet the number of people actually sanctioned is miniscule in comparison!

We all speed to some extent at some time - most of us quite regularly, even daily. However, getting caught for it is, for the majority of us, a very rare occurance. The actual rates are nowhere near as high as this, but just for arguments sake let's take it to an upper extreme and suggest that on average you might get done once every 3 years (so even if we suggest you only break a speed limit just once in a day, you're only being prosecuted for 1 in over 1000 offences!). You're hardly being hammered, are you? And when you are caught, what then? A Â£60 fine and a 3 point endorsement that doesn't make the least bit of practical difference and will have dropped off your licence by the time your next one comes round. It's hardly harsh, is it?

Now some of you (and I'm not talking specifically to Les here) will be getting more than 3 points every 3 years. But the fact is, I've not had any for over 15 years, and that's doing about 30k a year - and I freely admit I probably do break speed limits every day. And my experience is probably far closer to the norm than those with loads of points - so if I and the rest of us are regularly speeding but not getting caught, then why are you? The fact is, if you are regularly picking up points it is probably because you are speeding to excess, not driving anywhere near carefully enough (because if you are going too fast to spot that camera in time then you're going to fast for lots of other reasons) and generally taking the piss. You deserve the points and if you persist to the point that you've picked up 12 in 3 years then frankly you've no right to be on the road. (Though commercial drivers put under undue pressure to make deadlines by their employers do have my sympathy).

If you are driving reasonably you have very little to worry about. A Â£60 fine every 3 years is not going to break the bank and is nothing compared with your overall motoring costs - indeed, wholly insignificant. And this is what I've been getting to - this is why the wriggling and squirming to avoid the penalties really annoys me. It is because, in the scheme of things, a speeding ticket is absolutely, *utterly trivial*, and the amount of fuss and bleating and in extreme cases, criminal activity, that goes on over it is completely out of all proportion.

At this very moment there is a couple from the Manchester area - both formerly solicitors - who are serving 12 month prison sentences with their careers in absolute tatters because they fabricated evidence to suggest they were away on holiday when one of them picked up a ticket from a speeding camera. All that just to try and avoid a Â£60 fine? It's fucking senseless!


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> At this very moment there is a couple from the Manchester area - both formerly solicitors - who are serving 12 month prison sentences with their careers in absolute tatters because they fabricated evidence to suggest they were away on holiday when one of them picked up a ticket from a speeding camera. All that just to try and avoid a Â£60 fine? It's fucking senseless!


Now you really have gone too far. Absolutely nowhere in this thread has anyone suggested fabricating evidence to avoid the prosecution and, IMHO, the vast majority of the people here would deplore such an approach. The debate, thus far, has centred on whether there is a defence within the law.

You have a very moralistic view on this issue that, to me, is driven by frustration rather than logic and has some serious flaws:-

Firstly, you seem to think it OK to use the 'letter of the law' to prosecute people but it to be unfair if those same people use the 'letter of the law' to defend themselves. This is not only an inconsistent view but, actually, quite a dangerous one when you think about it and the possible consequences.

Secondly, you think it's all OK because the punishment is trivial in comparison to other crimes. Well, tell that to the, albeit maybe small, number of people who drive pretty reasonably but have been prosecuted several times within the three year window and have now lost their licence (not a trivial inconvenience to my mind) and possibly their job. How can you possibly justify that overall scenario is a just punishment for possibly marginally exceeding the speed limit on four occasions within three years and is trivial in comparison to other crimes?

Thirdly, you seem to admit that speeding is, actually sort of OK, yet on the other hand believe that it is OK to enforce its illegality because the punishment is, in your words, 'trvial'. So what happens when the Zealots in the police force get their way (and we all know who they are ............. and one has just been prosecuted for speeding ................ utter bloody hippocrite who, IMO, really should have lost his job) and the punishments get increased so they are not 'trivial'. Will your moralstic approach then come under pressure ........... because if it does, then it is fundamentally flawed.

Fourthly, as les has stated, he has admitted nothing, yet you are quite happy to label him as guilty on the thinnest of supposition. A very worrying trait for anyone, yet alone a police officer.

Fifthly, you mount a defence on the part of the police that the vast majority haven't issued speeding tickets. Of course not, you've left it to the, so called 'safety partnerships' (a most inappropriate name if ever there was) and the fixed dumb, have no discretion, cameras. But the police wholeheartedly support these so I believe it to be appropriate that the police take the flack until such time as they turn their back on them.

Finally, if you take such a high moralistic approach then I do expect you to take the next small step ................... the very next time you find yourself speeding then you should turn yourself in, after all 'you've done the crime so you should do the time' because, after all is said and done, the punishment is 'trivial'.


----------



## skydiver (Oct 12, 2006)

I think this has gone too far now.....

In essence what Mark is saying is that he has no problem with people who speed, morally or legally. Its the blatant attempts by certain individuals who will try to evade any form of prosecution when guilty.

That to me seems fair.

Now Les, you may not have admitted guilt on any part throughout the thread and you should not need to, thats a basic human right.

However, if you were actually under the speed limit and genuinely felt that you were in the process of being prosecuted for something you did not actually do I doubt very much you would be on an internet forum asking advice on whether or not the addition of "EXAM" between your christian and Surname would render the ticket null and void.

Maybe I am wrong but thats the way I see it........

Dave


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Garvin, I had originally posted a very detailed response to your last, but on second thoughts I see you really only want to manipulate my arguments beyond recognition, or just completely ignore them, in order to score cheap points.

Where reasoned debate degenerates through prejudist standpoints to just picking a fight there really is little point.

I've stated my case which I think most people who have bothered to give it proper consideration do understand, even if they do not necessarily agree with it. Time to leave it at that I think.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> Garvin, I had originally posted a very detailed response to your last, but on second thoughts I see you really only want to manipulate my arguments beyond recognition, or just completely ignore them, in order to score cheap points.
> 
> Where reasoned debate degenerates through prejudist standpoints to just picking a fight there really is little point.
> 
> I've stated my case which I think most people who have bothered to give it proper consideration do understand, even if they do not necessarily agree with it. Time to leave it at that I think.


I did read the post you have now deleted. I'm not surprised, I think I too, on re-reading it, would have deleted such a rambling rant if I had posted it.

I'm afraid I see the intial comparison made with burglars as irrelevant, the bandying about of "perverting the course of justice" statements as completely unnecessary (as no-one in this thread has come anywhere near to suggesting such a thing) and finally the decent to comparison with those who fabricate evidence to escape justice as completely OTT.

I have dealt with your views and admitedly challenged them in what I consider an objective way (no 'manipulation', I just called it as I saw your written views) - you clearly don't see it that way through the red mist (accusations of manipulation, picking fights, prejudice and points scoring etc) and is, of course, your prerogative. I do think this thread, including the interchanges between us, has aired some different views and perspectives. Clearly you have your views and I have mine and, as you say, debate seems to be at an end and I'm sure the forum members do understand your position just as, hopefully, they understand mine and can make their own minds up where they themselves stand on this type of issue.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

garvin said:


> I'm afraid I see the intial comparison made with burglars as irrelevant, the bandying about of "perverting the course of justice" statements as completely unnecessary (as no-one in this thread has come anywhere near to suggesting such a thing) and finally the decent to comparison with those who fabricate evidence to escape justice as completely OTT.


As you've insisted on labouring the points rather than _just_ let the debate rest I'll finish by dealing with these few matters.

I introduced burglars as an illustration, inviting people to consider whether there is really any moral difference between breaking one law or another, as it seems apparent people's attitude to speed restrictions is quite different to that regarding other law. Not only is it relevant - it's at the very heart of the issue! You don't understand that?

Talk of 'perverting the course of justice' is also central to the debate, because by assisting someone you know to be guilty of an offence to evade prosecution you commit that very offence - which is _exactly_ what Les appeared to be inviting people to do and is _exactly _what gave rise to my objections. It's also _exactly_ the same offence committed by the two solicitors who fabricated their holiday, though they chose to do it in a different way. You don't understand that?

And this is where the debate has become pointless, when quite clearly you have failed to understand anything that I'm saying, or more likely simply refused to listen to it (because it's not all that complicated, after all) if you insist that the matters at the very heart of my argument are irrelevant to it!


----------



## tod (Jun 9, 2007)

Mark Davies said:


> And this is where the debate has become pointless, when quite clearly you have failed to understand anything that I'm saying, or more likely simply refused to listen to it (because it's not all that complicated, after all) if you insist that the matters at the very heart of my argument are irrelevant to it!


Mark, well done, after reading through this thread it is nice to know that common sense does still exist, excellent posts


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Les, did you speed or did you not speed? If you did speed then pay up and take the points


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

A3DFU said:


> Les, did you speed or did you not speed? If you did speed then pay up and take the points


Sound advice Dani :wink:


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

les said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> > Les, did you speed or did you not speed? If you did speed then pay up and take the points
> ...


I just knew we'd agree 8)


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

I just people would read what I wrote instead of reading what they thought I wrote along with giving unwelcome advice to questions I didnt ask :roll:


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

:wink: :lol:


----------

