Another major criminal in the courts

[mercfunder]

Daily wail, but anyway...another major criminal convicted for a heinous crime, then they wonder why motorists are fed up with their lot.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Dr...

[RWD cossie wil]

Idiots, plain & simple.

[Gareth79]

Did they quote the Glendinning case?

[4Q]

But surely he was acting in the Police's favour, getting people to slow down and all...

[Vipers]

Why dont the police do something to help the motorists, like pulling those with defective lights, they could pull dozens daily.

Oh I forgot, that doesn't make enough revenue does it.

The fine beggers belief.

[Rofly Lollers]

This raises an interesting question. Does this mean that it is now illegal to mention to someone that there is a police presence at a location?

For example if you saw police using stop and search laws and happen to mention to someone walking in their direction, would it then be illegal if that person avoids the police?

Is it illegal for me to text someone to warn them of a scamera van on a bridge?

[Variomatic]

The gist of Glendenning is that it can only be obstruction if there's evidence that any of the drivers warned either were speeding or were likely to speed because if they weren't then there's nothing to obstruct the police in detecting.

Clearly, you can't produce credible evidence that someone "was likely to speed" because no-one can predict the future, so that leaves the question about whether any of the warned motorists were speeding. Surely, if the Police have evidence of that, then (logically) they haven't been obstructed in collecting that evidence. So no obstruction has occurred!

I for one will continue to exercise my duty as a good citizen to warn people to slow down if they seem to be driving too fast for the conditions - one of those conditions being the presence or otherwise of speed traps

[voicey]

So when I press the button on my TomTom to say I've seen a mobile speed trap and the info is communicated to TomTom and then instantly distributed to all TomTom Live and Road Angel Connected users am I breaking the law?!

[saaby93]

Is this the right place - typical NSL dual carriageway?
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&a...
What's wrong with enforcing it?

[Boosted LS1]

^ I think it goes to the courts coffers and is intended as compensation for people who are subjected to real crime like burglary, assault etc.

[GestapoWatch]

Wail-ery aside this is absolutely pathetic and a typical example of 'turning a blind eye' to logic 'coz the law is the law'. Why isn't that blinkered, blithering approach always applied then? Why do some cases get thrown out as not in the public interest?!

I despise idiotic and ridiculous outcomes such as this and I despise the plebs in power who seem able to defend it all with a straight face.

Stupid wig-wearing, out of touch !!

[clarkey328is]

saaby93 said:

Is this the right place - typical NSL dual carriageway?
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&a...
What's wrong with enforcing it?

Nothing wrong with enforcing it, but the purpose of a speed trap is to encourage drivers to slow down, and the purpose of the man flashing his lights was to get other drivers to slow down. Different technique, same result, but no money, ergo: Angry policemen.

[saaby93]

On contrary.
How pleased do you think the prosecution are about receiving a measly £250 costs?
The fellow obviously broke the law and the wig wearer is well in touch
But who really paid for all of this?

[clarkey328is]

saaby93 said:

On contrary.
How pleased do you think the prosecution are about receiving a measly £250 costs?
The fellow obviously broke the law and the wig wearer is well in touch
But who really paid for all of this?

Probably not very pleased at all, but I wouldn't be that pleased if I was fined 440 pounds for warning other motorists of a hazard, either.
Obviously the Defendant picked up some of the costs, but I can't help but think the taxpayer ultimately footed most of the bill (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I know it's easy to jump to this conclusion).
I don't believe that a law was broken. If the purpose of safety cameras is to slow motorists down, then the Defendant was certainly not obstructing them.

[deeen]

saaby93 said:

On contrary.
How pleased do you think the prosecution are about receiving a measly £250 costs?
The fellow obviously broke the law and the wig wearer is well in touch
But who really paid for all of this?

But he wasn't breaking the law, was he? Unless an officer had already formed the opinion that a car was speeding, then this chap flashed and caused the "offending" car to slow down?

[oldsoak]

saaby93 said:

Is this the right place - typical NSL dual carriageway?
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&a...
What's wrong with enforcing it?

Nothing at all..IF you mean by 'enforcing' you are encouraging people to travel within the posted limits as the defendant in the cited case could be said to be doing...The police however were using another meaning of the word 'enforcement' where it changes slightly and becomes a whole new word...entrapment.
Once upon a time, the police were more than happy to see vehicles slow down, nowadays with all the pressure to 'make the figures' it seems they would rather catch someone speeding rather than prevent them from speeding.
They also seem prone to throwing baby out with the bathwater when someone else does the 'prevention' part of their job for them.

[saaby93]

I thought there was a law about warning of a speed trap?

[KrazyIvan]

Daily Wail said:

He ended up £440 out of pocket after being fined £175, ordered to pay £250 costs and a £15 victims’ surcharge.

Am I missing something, £15 victims surcharge.....excatly who is the victim in this case?

[clarkey328is]

saaby93 said:

I thought there was a law about warning of a speed trap?

That says a lot about the true purpose of speed cameras then. Although they are, in fact, not a revenue generator at all when you factor in police salaries, CPS salaries, jury compensation and other associated costs. They are just a massive and ineffective waste of everybody's time and money.

[oldsoak]

saaby93 said:

I thought there was a law about warning of a speed trap?

Not specifically that's why this guy was charged with 'Obstructing a Police officer in the execution of his duty'...logic tells us that if there were such a specific offence as you seem to think there is...that would have been the implement of the defendants demise and not what he was charged/found guilty of...no?