Letting other drivers know of approaching Scamera vans
Discussion
GC8 said:
That is rather different to the case in point. No possible doubt and rather foolish of the pensioner in question. I presume that the placard said something like 'speed trap' as opposed to something less damning such as 'please slow down'?
Glendinning is a case in point, he denied it & the CPS went all the way through the appeals process.It shows
a) The CPS will go all the way to appeal with it.
b) They'll do that without admissions.
c) The courts don't need admissions to be satisfied there is an intent to obstruct.
GC8 said:
He may well have denied it, but the denial wasnt plausbile. Flashing an oncoming driver and providing a plausible explanation with no admittal of guilt is hardly the same, which leads me back to my opening remark.
Good afternoon.
Which leads us back to the court are happy they can sort the wheat from the chaff (where there is an explanation or not).Good afternoon.
What you believe to be plausible, they may or may not. No doubt Glendinning believed his was, or he wouldn't have given it.
vonhosen said:
GC8 said:
He may well have denied it, but the denial wasnt plausbile. Flashing an oncoming driver and providing a plausible explanation with no admittal of guilt is hardly the same, which leads me back to my opening remark.
Good afternoon.
Which leads us back to the court are happy they can sort the wheat from the chaff (where there is an explanation or not).Good afternoon.
What you believe to be plausible, they may or may not. No doubt Glendinning believed his was, or he wouldn't have given it.
In as much as when I see the usual cops&robbers shows on TV following the police around the UK, even though they can catch the crims before, during or after a crime is committed, that the simple suspicion of their acts often doesn't land a conviction?
AA999 said:
Why does this sentiment not play out with other crimes?
In as much as when I see the usual cops&robbers shows on TV following the police around the UK, even though they can catch the crims before, during or after a crime is committed, that the simple suspicion of their acts often doesn't land a conviction?
I watched a recent one where a driver smashed into the rear of a car which was stopped whilst paying the toll at the M6 plaza. There was no attempt to brake as shown on CCTV. Another two people were in a car which was stopped as reported involved in shop lifting. They has all the tools for going quipped and a number of new items with no receipts. They also had a record of shop lifting. The CPS wouldn't run with prosecutions in either case. In as much as when I see the usual cops&robbers shows on TV following the police around the UK, even though they can catch the crims before, during or after a crime is committed, that the simple suspicion of their acts often doesn't land a conviction?
AA999 said:
vonhosen said:
GC8 said:
He may well have denied it, but the denial wasnt plausbile. Flashing an oncoming driver and providing a plausible explanation with no admittal of guilt is hardly the same, which leads me back to my opening remark.
Good afternoon.
Which leads us back to the court are happy they can sort the wheat from the chaff (where there is an explanation or not).Good afternoon.
What you believe to be plausible, they may or may not. No doubt Glendinning believed his was, or he wouldn't have given it.
In as much as when I see the usual cops&robbers shows on TV following the police around the UK, even though they can catch the crims before, during or after a crime is committed, that the simple suspicion of their acts often doesn't land a conviction?
There are plenty of not guilty pleas, some story spun to try & explain away the observed (etc) actions that is not believed by the court & results in a conviction.
vonhosen said:
Glendinning is a case in point, he denied it & the CPS went all the way through the appeals process.
It shows
a) The CPS will go all the way to appeal with it.
b) They'll do that without admissions.
c) The courts don't need admissions to be satisfied there is an intent to obstruct.
It shows to me (rightly or wrongly), that the CPS are a bunch of proper fIt shows
a) The CPS will go all the way to appeal with it.
b) They'll do that without admissions.
c) The courts don't need admissions to be satisfied there is an intent to obstruct.
kwits. When it comes to minor motering offences, it will use everything, and I mean everything in its power to screw the minor digressor, (including jail term for idiots who lie about it - yes I know PCOJ is another offence - but most would say not in the public interest).However, come to serious offences, you know, rape, child abuse, it, well, just doesnt seem interested, unless its a celeb it can blast accross the paper, some which were not guilty...
The CPS just dont seem to be accountable to the public it should be serving, and interest it is supposed to be acting in.
Trax said:
It shows to me (rightly or wrongly), that the CPS are a bunch of proper fkwits. When it comes to minor motering offences, it will use everything, and I mean everything in its power to screw the minor digressor, (including jail term for idiots who lie about it - yes I know PCOJ is another offence - but most would say not in the public interest).
However, come to serious offences, you know, rape, child abuse, it, well, just doesnt seem interested, unless its a celeb it can blast accross the paper, some which were not guilty...
The CPS just dont seem to be accountable to the public it should be serving, and interest it is supposed to be acting in.
Go on then, tell us how it is not in the public interest.kwits. When it comes to minor motering offences, it will use everything, and I mean everything in its power to screw the minor digressor, (including jail term for idiots who lie about it - yes I know PCOJ is another offence - but most would say not in the public interest).However, come to serious offences, you know, rape, child abuse, it, well, just doesnt seem interested, unless its a celeb it can blast accross the paper, some which were not guilty...
The CPS just dont seem to be accountable to the public it should be serving, and interest it is supposed to be acting in.
tapereel said:
Trax said:
It shows to me (rightly or wrongly), that the CPS are a bunch of proper fkwits. When it comes to minor motering offences, it will use everything, and I mean everything in its power to screw the minor digressor, (including jail term for idiots who lie about it - yes I know PCOJ is another offence - but most would say not in the public interest).
However, come to serious offences, you know, rape, child abuse, it, well, just doesnt seem interested, unless its a celeb it can blast accross the paper, some which were not guilty...
The CPS just dont seem to be accountable to the public it should be serving, and interest it is supposed to be acting in.
Go on then, tell us how it is not in the public interest.kwits. When it comes to minor motering offences, it will use everything, and I mean everything in its power to screw the minor digressor, (including jail term for idiots who lie about it - yes I know PCOJ is another offence - but most would say not in the public interest).However, come to serious offences, you know, rape, child abuse, it, well, just doesnt seem interested, unless its a celeb it can blast accross the paper, some which were not guilty...
The CPS just dont seem to be accountable to the public it should be serving, and interest it is supposed to be acting in.
Glad to report this was happening yesterday due to another fleecing / 'targets to meet' carefully selected scam van spot.Fourteen flashes I counted, including a gesture from a motorbike.Given I was only there for the briefest of moments, I can only assume there were possibly hundreds more flashing heroes before and after I passed through.
Every single flash filled my heart with a little more joy.Well done to all those involved.It's nice to see so many crime fighters doing their bit.
Every single flash filled my heart with a little more joy.Well done to all those involved.It's nice to see so many crime fighters doing their bit.
Let's enjoy some more common sense..
Elmwood Place, a tiny village of 2,200, collected nearly $1.8 million from tickets in eight months. But Allen sued for the ticketed motorists, calling it an illegal money grab, and Judge Robert Ruehlman ruled in March 2013 that the cameras violated due process.
Ruehlman ordered the village to remove the cameras and pay back the ticket fees.
Ruehlman called the use of speed cameras “a scam motorists can’t win” and “a game of three-card monte,” rejecting the village’s claim they were installed to promote safety.
“You are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty." said Maag. "With cameras, you are guilty until proven innocent"
Elmwood Place, a tiny village of 2,200, collected nearly $1.8 million from tickets in eight months. But Allen sued for the ticketed motorists, calling it an illegal money grab, and Judge Robert Ruehlman ruled in March 2013 that the cameras violated due process.
Ruehlman ordered the village to remove the cameras and pay back the ticket fees.
Ruehlman called the use of speed cameras “a scam motorists can’t win” and “a game of three-card monte,” rejecting the village’s claim they were installed to promote safety.
“You are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty." said Maag. "With cameras, you are guilty until proven innocent"
No comments re: the above? What does it say about a system when a judge says they are all about the money?
"Optotraffic (the USA's leading provider of solutions for the Automated Speed Enforcement industry) the company that operated the cameras, had a financial stake in their use. Citations from the cameras generated about $1.5 million, of which $900,000 went to the village and $500,000 was paid to Optotraffic"
Optotraffic over there, Teletraffic over here...all playing the same game.
"In Ohio, there are at least 16 local governments that use some kind of speed or red-light camera. State Rep. Dale Mallory has introduced House Bill 69 to prohibit them"
"Optotraffic (the USA's leading provider of solutions for the Automated Speed Enforcement industry) the company that operated the cameras, had a financial stake in their use. Citations from the cameras generated about $1.5 million, of which $900,000 went to the village and $500,000 was paid to Optotraffic"
Optotraffic over there, Teletraffic over here...all playing the same game.
"In Ohio, there are at least 16 local governments that use some kind of speed or red-light camera. State Rep. Dale Mallory has introduced House Bill 69 to prohibit them"
How are people being caught flashing anyway? I drove past a couple of road traffic police officers yesterday (with the white flat caps) with a radar gun at the side of road. I noticed people flashing drivers coming towards them once they had passed them. Unless they had another officer further down the road purely there to catch people flashing...
Edited by Thermobaric on Tuesday 18th August 12:39
Thermobaric said:
How are people being caught flashing anyway? I drove past a couple of road traffic police officers yesterday (with the white flat caps) with a radar gun at the side of road. I noticed people flashing drivers coming towards them once they had passed them. Unless they had another officer further down the road purely there to catch people flashing...
Generally, they aren't caught, much to the chagrin of Vonhosen, tapereel and the speed enforcement industry. Edited by Thermobaric on Tuesday 18th August 12:39
The cases that have gone to court, as far as I know, are where a motorist has done something really daft to attract attention to the fact that he's warning others. So was then made an example of.
outnumbered said:
The cases that have gone to court, as far as I know, are where a motorist has done something really daft to attract attention to the fact that he's warning others.
Such as flashing headlights leading to a conviction for Obstructing a Police Officer?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Dr...
rewc said:
Such as flashing headlights leading to a conviction for Obstructing a Police Officer?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Dr...
But generally I doubt there is much risk of being a) caught or b) prosecuted for discreetly warning other motorists of the hazard they're approaching, despite these few high profile cases.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff