Driver Jailed for using Jammer
Discussion
jm doc said:
The foundations of the justice system are not being rocked by this offence, but by the response. Failing to learn from mistakes is a central feature of failing systems. Is your eager support representative of the views of the legal profession?
The foundations of the justice system wouldn't be rocked by a little bit of perjury. Is it OK to lie on oath about speeding? What about shoplifting, assault, murder? I have no eager support for the matter, I simply don't view it as the great injustice which you appear to. It seems you have no issue with PCOJ in relation to speeding, does this apply to other offences? At what stage would you think it was unacceptable? You clearly think people should be able to take certain steps to avoid getting caught speeding which is fair enough. The courts disagree. Cat
I don't think that people don't care about offences such as speeding and the like, personally I don't have a problem with anyone getting a ticket for 31 in a 30 as long as all other crimes have been solved. IMO to use resources like this to put this bloke away is madness when there are unsolved murders and the like out there.
Yes I know the police have different departments, but its the people that dish out the money that should say what resources go where, either get out of your BMW and solve a murder or find another job, quite simple in my world.
Yes I know the police have different departments, but its the people that dish out the money that should say what resources go where, either get out of your BMW and solve a murder or find another job, quite simple in my world.
mph1977 said:
johnao said:
Why are you still avoiding answering my question?
Ok, I'll give you a clue. The answer is either yes, or no. Come on don't be shy.
to prove the point that attempting to divert the course of justice will be rewarded with punishment at least as severe if not more so than manning the flip up and taking it like a man .Ok, I'll give you a clue. The answer is either yes, or no. Come on don't be shy.
johnao said:
mph1977 said:
johnao said:
Why are you still avoiding answering my question?
Ok, I'll give you a clue. The answer is either yes, or no. Come on don't be shy.
to prove the point that attempting to divert the course of justice will be rewarded with punishment at least as severe if not more so than manning the flip up and taking it like a man .Ok, I'll give you a clue. The answer is either yes, or no. Come on don't be shy.
you asked me aobut PCOJ and I answered , that fact the answer is not of the form you thought you wantred , does not demonstrate anything.
as for no grammatical or logical sense , again i think you are attempting to either cloud the waters or it;s pure ad hominem attack.
On what basis do you presume i am unskilled in discussion ? or have no working knowledge of the law / I am unable to do simple research ... ( please be careful here as you r assertions here will implicate a Number of other individuals and organisations who may consider your assertions libellous - where i am happy to consider you that you are just a nasty bully who becomes threatening when when you don;t get your way.
jm doc said:
Further it could be argued that the "act" of slowing down when you see a camera van is illegal on this basis. CPS wishful think blindly followed by the ignorant.
No it couldn't. The irony of using the word "ignorance"...jm doc said:
The foundations of the justice system are not being rocked by this offence, but by the response. Failing to learn from mistakes is a central feature of failing systems. Is your eager support representative of the views of the legal profession?
What mistake was failed to be learned from? That only appears to apply to the man with the jammer. Remember he received a caution for the same offence. They tried the lowest level of disposal but he continued to offend.
mph1977 said:
what are you on about ?
you asked me aobut PCOJ and I answered , that fact the answer is not of the form you thought you wantred , does not demonstrate anything.
as for no grammatical or logical sense , again i think you are attempting to either cloud the waters or it;s pure ad hominem attack.
On what basis do you presume i am unskilled in discussion ? or have no working knowledge of the law / I am unable to do simple research ... ( please be careful here as you r assertions here will implicate a Number of other individuals and organisations who may consider your assertions libellous - where i am happy to consider you that you are just a nasty bully who becomes threatening when when you don;t get your way.
Ok, enough said. It appears that you are confused as to the actual question that I asked and, I suspect, have no intention of answering the question; I now accept that I shan't be getting an answer. That's not a problem, it's your prerogative not to answer. you asked me aobut PCOJ and I answered , that fact the answer is not of the form you thought you wantred , does not demonstrate anything.
as for no grammatical or logical sense , again i think you are attempting to either cloud the waters or it;s pure ad hominem attack.
On what basis do you presume i am unskilled in discussion ? or have no working knowledge of the law / I am unable to do simple research ... ( please be careful here as you r assertions here will implicate a Number of other individuals and organisations who may consider your assertions libellous - where i am happy to consider you that you are just a nasty bully who becomes threatening when when you don;t get your way.
But, let's be clear:
1. I have only ever asked you to give me an answer to one specific question. The answer to that question was either yes or no.
2. I've never asked you about PCOJ. If you thought that I was asking you about PCOJ that would explain what appeared to be an incoherent answer to my original question. You were giving an answer to a question that I had never been raised.
3. My response was not an Ad Hominem attack. I was attacking, if you want to use that word, what appeared to me to be the incoherence of the response to my question, not the individual who made it. A better example of an Ad Hominem attack would be your words, not mine, when you wrote... you obviously don;t understand what Dunning- Kruger effect is ...
4. I have never presumed that you are... "unskilled in discussion or have no working knowledge of the law or unable to do simple research". Whatever gave you that idea?
5. I have never made any assertions. You are the only one who has made assertions; 99.9% or something, if I recall correctly?. Please let me know who are these "number of other individuals and organisations" which you spuriously suggest that I may have indirectly libeled.
6. You wrote: "you are just a nasty bully who becomes threatening when when you don;t get your way... Now, that's a bit rich. I've never threatened anyone on this forum. However, I have to say that what I've just quoted from you is more properly libelous; not like my supposed feeble attempt.
PS: rest assured I shan't take it any further. You won't be hearing from my solicitor in the morning.
Now, back to laser jamming devices, perverting the course of justice and other more interesting things...
johnao said:
<snip>
5. I have never made any assertions. You are the only one who has made assertions; 99.9% or something, if I recall correctly?. Please let me know who are these "number of other individuals and organisations" which you spuriously suggest that I may have indirectly libeled.
6. You wrote: "you are just a nasty bully who becomes threatening when when you don;t get your way... Now, that's a bit rich. I've never threatened anyone on this forum. However, I have to say that what I've just quoted from you is more properly libelous; not like my supposed feeble attempt.
PS: rest assured I shan't take it any further. You won't be hearing from my solicitor in the morning.
Now, back to laser jamming devices, perverting the course of justice and other more interesting things...
in 6 your misquoting in an attempt to paint me as a bully would show you up. 5. I have never made any assertions. You are the only one who has made assertions; 99.9% or something, if I recall correctly?. Please let me know who are these "number of other individuals and organisations" which you spuriously suggest that I may have indirectly libeled.
6. You wrote: "you are just a nasty bully who becomes threatening when when you don;t get your way... Now, that's a bit rich. I've never threatened anyone on this forum. However, I have to say that what I've just quoted from you is more properly libelous; not like my supposed feeble attempt.
PS: rest assured I shan't take it any further. You won't be hearing from my solicitor in the morning.
Now, back to laser jamming devices, perverting the course of justice and other more interesting things...
the full quote of course being " i am happy to consider you are just a nasty bully who becomes threatening when when you don;t get your way..." no libel there that's an opinion ...
La Liga said:
jm doc said:
Further it could be argued that the "act" of slowing down when you see a camera van is illegal on this basis. CPS wishful think blindly followed by the ignorant.
No it couldn't. The irony of using the word "ignorance"...La Liga said:
hat mistake was failed to be learned from? That only appears to apply to the man with the jammer.
Remember he received a caution for the same offence. They tried the lowest level of disposal but he continued to offend.
Yes and they could have fined him this time, or they could have given him community service, or even a suspended sentence, but no, they had to jail him. And looking at the link just posted, it's apparent that it's worse to try and obstruct the law than try and kill the law, lol. You're a bunch of jokers aren't you....Remember he received a caution for the same offence. They tried the lowest level of disposal but he continued to offend.
jm doc said:
Yes indeed, the irony of ignorance. I wrote that it could be argued, which indeed it can, as it is a deliberate act to avoid prosecution. I did not assert this as fact
It could be argued that the earth is flat. If we're going to discuss meaningless hypothetical arguments, let's go all out. jm doc said:
Yes and they could have fined him this time, or they could have given him community service, or even a suspended sentence, but no, they had to jail him. And looking at the link just posted, it's apparent that it's worse to try and obstruct the law than try and kill the law, lol. You're a bunch of jokers aren't you....
I don't think you've read my earlier posts. You weren't talking about sentencing, you were saying the CPS were ignorant for pursuing offences like these.
He was obviously thrown into prison as a message to others not to f
k with the revenue stream that speeding provides. Its just a show of force to keep people submissive. Look at simple speeding cases, they wheel out some "expert" on several thousand a day that you will have to pay if you lose the case as a scare tactic Do they do the same if someone denies shoplifting on a technicality, of course not, they're not interested.
k with the revenue stream that speeding provides. Its just a show of force to keep people submissive. Look at simple speeding cases, they wheel out some "expert" on several thousand a day that you will have to pay if you lose the case as a scare tactic Do they do the same if someone denies shoplifting on a technicality, of course not, they're not interested.Devil2575 said:
stuart313 said:
He was obviously thrown into prison as a message to others not to fk with the revenue stream that speeding provides. Its just a show of force to keep people submissive.
This is just made up. You don't know any of this.k with the revenue stream that speeding provides. Its just a show of force to keep people submissive. tapereel said:
Devil2575 said:
stuart313 said:
He was obviously thrown into prison as a message to others not to fk with the revenue stream that speeding provides. Its just a show of force to keep people submissive.
This is just made up. You don't know any of this.k with the revenue stream that speeding provides. Its just a show of force to keep people submissive. The
it is also a very long stretch of the imagination to suggest the judge would be in any way knowledgeable of the finances of speed enforcent, would care about that and even if he did know to act as if he was part of such a plot that would require him to send someone to jail to protect as stuart313 suggests, quite bonkers.You really don't think certain people get together out of the public eye and discuss certain things or are told what to do by other influential types, or paid off etc. etc.More made up stuff.
You've made up a story to support your view of the world.
stuart313 said:
tapereel said:
Devil2575 said:
stuart313 said:
He was obviously thrown into prison as a message to others not to fk with the revenue stream that speeding provides. Its just a show of force to keep people submissive.
This is just made up. You don't know any of this.k with the revenue stream that speeding provides. Its just a show of force to keep people submissive. You've made up a story to support your view of the world.
Devil2575 said:
The
it is also a very long stretch of the imagination to suggest the judge would be in any way knowledgeable of the finances of speed enforcent, would care about that and even if he did know to act as if he was part of such a plot that would require him to send someone to jail to protect as stuart313 suggests, quite bonkers.You really don't think certain people get together out of the public eye and discuss certain things or are told what to do by other influential types, or paid off etc. etc.More made up stuff.
You've made up a story to support your view of the world.
His view of the world is from the tree he is up.stuart313 said:
tapereel said:
Devil2575 said:
stuart313 said:
He was obviously thrown into prison as a message to others not to fk with the revenue stream that speeding provides. Its just a show of force to keep people submissive.
This is just made up. You don't know any of this.k with the revenue stream that speeding provides. Its just a show of force to keep people submissive. You've made up a story to support your view of the world.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff