Mum got an NIP, 40 in a 30 but the letter is LATE

[Snowboy]

Yes.
They have created a system that means it’s possible to find out who committed crimes, and made it illegal for people to try and hide the facts about who committed crimes.

The bds!

[Moogle]

Or like, in this very instance it doesn't matter if THEY have screwed up and genuinely sent the letter late and broken their very own laws, it doesn't matter because you can't win. Do you not see how their system is completely and utterly open to falsification (this is the wrong word but I'm really not literate enough to think of it this second).... for them?

Got it yet?

[Snowboy]

I totally understand what you are saying, I just totally disagree with you.

Breaking a law such as speeding (or robbing the gym) is a crime.
Sending a letter 6 days late is a procedural screw up.

I would rather concentrate on the crime rather than the procedure.

I fully understand that the law doesn’t always work this way, but I always find it amusing when a judge dismisses a defence that’s based on nothing but a procedural technicality.

I’m reminded of a case where the police reports said 2AM on the 4th of July.
The entire defence was it was actually 2AM on the 5th of July because it was after midnight.
The Judge just accepted that everyone knew what date it occurred even it was written incorrectly so it didn’t matter.

[Moogle]

Snowboy said:

I totally understand what you are saying, I just totally disagree with you.

Breaking a law such as speeding (or robbing the gym) is a crime.
Sending a letter 6 days late is a procedural screw up.

I would rather concentrate on the crime rather than the procedure.

I fully understand that the law doesn’t always work this way, but I always find it amusing when a judge dismisses a defence that’s based on nothing but a procedural technicality.

I’m reminded of a case where the police reports said 2AM on the 4th of July.
The entire defence was it was actually 2AM on the 5th of July because it was after midnight.
The Judge just accepted that everyone knew what date it occurred even it was written incorrectly so it didn’t matter.

Okay so, what if there was no actual law that said they had to send NIP within a certain date? Shouldn't matter right because GUILTY IS GUILTY!

Who was driving your car two months ago at 6pm on Thursday March the 1st?

Okay, YOU might be able to genuinely answer that question, I have five people insured on my car, my mum has five people insured on her car, both cars are identical in *every* regard except the number plate, heck I'm not even in the country right now and I genuinely don't know who is driving MY car at any point although I have expressly given permission for all 4 other people to drive it.

What it's genuinely impossible for me to remember/find out two months ago who was driving it? What if all 4 other drivers refuse to tell me who was driving it?

Do you still believe it is right that I be prosecuted on principle even though I'm not even in the same country *JUST* because they've engineered at system for traffic offences that means they don't HAVE to prove *beyond reasonable doubt* who actually caused the offence?

If they don't HAVE to send it within a specified time, should I be forced to?

What happens if ALL evidence is based purely on a Police Officer's opinion and he entirely chose to falsify it because he didn't get a morning blow job that day?

You're so blinded and brain washed by the system that you actually defend something so broken to the point that you cannot even conceive the idea that maybe, just maybe, there are other genuinely possibilities for being innocent or that simply, they've got it wrong?

It may not have happened to you but it has happened to me. Yeah yeah I know, they all say they are innocent but what if, I could actually prove I was innocent and that a Police Officer lied but oh... They've designed another system whereby NO EVIDENCE is required and worse THERE IS NO APPEAL.....

Still sound like you live in a civilised society where you believe you actually have rights? Because it sure doesn't seem like it to me...

[Zeeky]

Moogle said:

... nor do I care for the fact that the system has been fudged enough to get the court of human rights to agree with them, no matter how you cut it, it IS against human rights and it doesn't have a place in civilised society, just because it has become, doesn't mean to say it's right or... are you 'one of those' again ...

Would it be a breach of human rights for the authorities to require drivers to declare themselves as the driver of a particular vehicle prior to bringing it onto the public highway?. Effectively you would need a permit to travel by car.

Why shouldn't the authorities ensure they know who is driving a vehicle and that this person is insured, licenced etc prior to being issued with a permit to travel? Ignoring the administrative difficulties of this do you object in principle to the authorities having a right to vet people before travel so that they know they are legal?

[Devil2575]

fluffnik said:

The whole SCP racket and the entirely pernicious S172 on which they depend are entirely incompatible with a free and just society; they should be purged without mercy.

Oh dear...

Do you know how crazy you sound

[Devil2575]

Snowboy said:

Aren’t there a few clauses about ‘reasonableness’ and ‘justice must be served’.

Is a letter arriving after 20 days instead of 14 unreasonable?
All else being equal, has the 6 days delay changed her guild or innocence?
Have any factors changed that make the 6 day delay have an unintended further impact?
If there is a case to answer based on speeding should it be dismissed due to a 6 day delay in the mail?

My opinions are.
I would suggest that 3 weeks instead of 2 weeks is not an unreasonable delay.
If the mother would have accepted the NIP had it arrived within 14 days then it’s reasonable to say she should accept it after 20 days.

The short delay causes no additional benefit or loss to any party.
It’s not like she got a new job in the 6 day gap that required a clean licence!?

I base this on a situation where I have returned legal financial documents several weeks late and all fines and penalties were waived because (to quote a man from the inland review) ‘it’s only a bit late, it’s not a big problem’.
I say that excusing a bit of a delay in sending mail is excusable for all parties.

This.

[davetibbs]

OK - theoretical question.

A driver receives a summons for prosecution for failure to supply driver's details, and it's the first correspondence he has received. A NIP may have been sent to him but lost in the post, or maybe one was never sent in the first place.

It is up to him to prove he didn't receive the NIP. How does he do this?

[SS2.]

davetibbs said:

OK - theoretical question.

A driver receives a summons for prosecution for failure to supply driver's details, and it's the first correspondence he has received. A NIP may have been sent to him but lost in the post, or maybe one was never sent in the first place.

It is up to him to prove he didn't receive the NIP. How does he do this?

By giving verbal evidence to that effect in court. Other supporting evidence may include the Royal Mail's published figures on lost items per year, a history of mail going missing at that address, etc.

If the court finds both defendant and evidence credible, then they may choose to find not guilty.

[Snowboy]

Moogle said:

Okay so, what if there was no actual law that said they had to send NIP within a certain date? Shouldn't matter right because GUILTY IS GUILTY!

Who was driving your car two months ago at 6pm on Thursday March the 1st?

Now you’re taking it to the other extreme.

We’re talking about 6 days.

Do I know who was driving one of my card 14 days ago? Yes.
Do I know who was driving one of my case 20 days ago? Yes.

6 days delay is not, in my opinion, a reason to throw out the case.
2 months would be enough of a reason to throw it out.



With regards to the question about the letter getting lost in the post.
I know, from experience with the TV licensing people on a flat I used to rent, that if you do not respond to mail that eventually the police will show up at your parents house with a warrant for your arrest for missing a court date.
If you are polite they will not arrest you, but will tell you to call the TV people immediately.
It’s then a few days of frustrating phonecalls after which everything is resolved amicably.

[SS2.]

Snowboy said:

6 days delay is not, in my opinion, a reason to throw out the case.

It is, according to the relevant legislation..

[Deva Link]

Moogle said:

Okay so, what if there was no actual law that said they had to send NIP within a certain date? Shouldn't matter right because GUILTY IS GUILTY!

Who was driving your car two months ago at 6pm on Thursday March the 1st?

Okay, YOU might be able to genuinely answer that question, I have five people insured on my car, my mum has five people insured on her car, both cars are identical in *every* regard except the number plate, heck I'm not even in the country right now and I genuinely don't know who is driving MY car at any point although I have expressly given permission for all 4 other people to drive it.

What it's genuinely impossible for me to remember/find out two months ago who was driving it? What if all 4 other drivers refuse to tell me who was driving it?

Sorry to do a “think of the children’ thing, but what if the car was alleged to have run over a small child. Say it was someone else’s car but your small child - would you still think it’s OK for everyone to just shrug and say ‘dunno’?

You’re supposed to know who’s driving your car. We have the 14 day NIP rule but that really only works if the RK was driving. For company car drivers it could already be several weeks before they get to hear about it.

[Devil2575]

When you are of the view, as Moogle clearly is, that people should not get tickets for speeding then you will find every reason/justification you can to object to the system.

The 6 days over is merely a tool he can use to get at a system he clearly already resented.

[Snowboy]

SS2. said:

Snowboy said:

6 days delay is not, in my opinion, a reason to throw out the case.

It is, according to the relevant legislation..

Yes I know.

My opinion of how things should be, and the way the law sees things do not always see eye to eye.
I do always try and make a point of saying when I’m posting opinion, fact or anecdote though.

[SS2.]

Snowboy said:

My opinion of how things should be, and the way the law sees things do not always see eye to eye.
I do always try and make a point of saying when I’m posting opinion, fact or anecdote though.

Yup, I fully appreciate that, but the powers that be have decided that 14 days is the cut off point and, for this and any other cases under discussion, 14 is the magic number..

But be it 7, 14, 200 - my opinion, FWIW, is that if they wish to prosecute (and convict) us under the laws of this land, then they should do so according to the laws of this land.

[WhereamI]

SS2. said:

Snowboy said:

My opinion of how things should be, and the way the law sees things do not always see eye to eye.
I do always try and make a point of saying when I’m posting opinion, fact or anecdote though.

Yup, I fully appreciate that, but the powers that be have decided that 14 days is the cut off point and, for this and any other cases under discussion, 14 is the magic number..

But be it 7, 14, 200 - my opinion, FWIW, is that if they wish to prosecute (and convict) us under the laws of this land, then they should do so according to the laws of this land.

And that is what they do. If there is evidence that the NIP was not received in 14 days then the driver will be not be convicted.

[blueg33]

Slightly off topic but this quote in the local paper amused me

Gloucestershire Echo said:

Residents are campaigning for speed limit to be reduced from 50mph to 40mph after a motorcyclist was killed. Spokesperson xxx for the residents said ""As soon as some motorists get in to fourth or fifth gear, they get the welly down and don't give a monkeys about the speed limit – they are going too fast."

Why can't he see his own contradiction? Why would someone ignore a 50mph limit but not a 40mph?

[R0G]

blueg33 said:

Slightly off topic but this quote in the local paper amused me

Gloucestershire Echo said:

Residents are campaigning for speed limit to be reduced from 50mph to 40mph after a motorcyclist was killed. Spokesperson xxx for the residents said ""As soon as some motorists get in to fourth or fifth gear, they get the welly down and don't give a monkeys about the speed limit – they are going too fast."

Why can't he see his own contradiction? Why would someone ignore a 50mph limit but not a 40mph?

Same thing about to happen in Leicester on many estates ....
Apparently there are too many young men blasting around the estates in the 30 limits so they are going to make them 20 limits ..... Hmmmmm ...... that'll stop them then ...... NOT

[vonhosen]

Moogle said:

vonhosen said:

Sec 172 & the NIP are different things. Human rights courts have looked at Sec 172 & they don't agree with you. You don't have to tell them who robbed the gym, you have to tell them who was at the gym. They have to provide evidence of any robbing going on. Going gym isn't regulated, driving a car is. I've had lots of Sec 172's, I've named myself as the driver where I was, but that doesn't mean I was admitting an offence or guilty of it. It was still up to them to prove.

Re NIP, If she can rebutt the presumption of service to that satisfaction of the CPS/court then it's going no further, if she can't (to their satisfaction, not anyone else here) then that's a different matter.

No, you're missing mine and several other people's point. The semantics of it all is completely and utterly irrelevant in regards to mine and the other people's view who can think for themselves.

I don't care for the fact they are two different things, nor do I care for the fact that the system has been fudged enough to get the court of human rights to agree with them, no matter how you cut it, it IS against human rights and it doesn't have a place in civilised society, just because it has become, doesn't mean to say it's right or... are you 'one of those' again

Well at least we agree it's a fact they are different things. However you state as fact it is against human rights, but I (& the courts) disagree with you & I don't disagree just because the courts say so. Just because you say it's wrong, doesn't mean it is wrong or... are you 'one of those' again

Moogle said:

Sure 'in theory' you aren't telling them who robbed the gym they need to prove otherwise however, it's splitting hairs because as far as they are concerned they have already proved *someone* was robbing the gym, they're just making you tell them who and *purely* based on that and with NO FURTHER EVIDENCE they'll prosecute. Does that not sound even the slightest bit crazy to you? If not again, you scare me.

They've proven nothing at that stage. The test of proof is court & then only beyond reasonable doubt. They suspect & require you to fulfill your statutory obligation. An obligation that is not an admission of guilt. As I said, I've named myself as driver by completing Sec 172 requirements. It doesn't mean I was admitting the suspected offence or was guilty of it, the test of that is court. I'm just saying I was driving the car of that reg on that date/time etc.

Moogle said:

Without that knowledge and without them having implemented a system where by they can legally FORCE you to tell them, they wouldn't have enough to implicate anyone, it would never stand up in court, that's WHY they have created this system.

The whole use of cars is heavily regulated. You aren't legally allowed to drive without complying with hundreds of regulations (never mind Sec 172). Think of it as a contract & 172 is part of that contract. If you don't like the contract you don't have to drive & then you won't be subject to it.

Moogle said:

Do you not see that this entire thing has been engineered so that the house always wins?

It doesn't, see the me & Sec 172s post above.

Moogle said:

What other businesses work that way and use that term, there for purely making money out of people with no actual other purpose?

I disagree. With it, not stopping doesn't mean you can evade all regulation, without not stopping means you could.

Moogle said:

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

I just disagree with your position.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 18th May 16:23

[GregE240]

Well, as far as I see it, your Mum did the right thing, she has responded to the S172, as she has to, and has sent an accompanying letter stating that she received the letter late.

Then what happens next is up to your Mum, that is, whether she has either the time or the inclination to fight it. Most of us don't for the reasons previously mentioned. I'm not condoning it, it sucks, and makes a mockery out of some of the foundations that law is made and enforced. No wonder people crown the bloody things with tyres and set fire to them, they're a cancer on modern society and serve no purpose than to make people's insurance more expensive, as far as I can see.

Its a modern badge of honour these days. 3 points is like an opinion - everyone's got one