Good money maker today
Discussion
Ahimoth said:
LoonR1 said:
Excellent. Tell your brother to post the NIP amnd the offer of an SAC then.
My brother definitely shagged Taylor Swift earlier this year.
I've texted him, but he doesn't have the letter any more.My brother definitely shagged Taylor Swift earlier this year.
The saga continues.
My brother's changed phones and hasn't got the photos anymore either.
Ahimoth said:
Ah well.
I have absolutely no reason to lie, and saw the letter, as I'm sure everyone says. Shame I wasn't aware there was such a controversy. He's having a look, hopefully he's still got it.
Same here. When you post yours, I'll post the hardcore photos he had of him and Taylor in flagrante I have absolutely no reason to lie, and saw the letter, as I'm sure everyone says. Shame I wasn't aware there was such a controversy. He's having a look, hopefully he's still got it.
Ahimoth said:
It's interesting, he's the only person I know personally that it has happened to. Why are we so damned certain it doesn't happen?
Again, you don't have to even slightly believe me, I've had a sherry after all, but I did see the letter, he did do the course.
Because many claim it happened to them, or to someone they know, yet nobody has ever shown any proof at all. Again, you don't have to even slightly believe me, I've had a sherry after all, but I did see the letter, he did do the course.
Bigfoot, unicorns, mermaids, yetis, the Loch Ness Monster are all things that have more evidence of existing than being done for 34 mph in a 30 limit.
That's perfectly understandable, although it would seem to me that the 'controversy' about this is not so widespread as you think. No-one but me in my family was in any way aware of it, they were not at all surprised by the figures in the letter.
So we'd assume that a letter should have appeared by now, but there may be perfectly good reasons why it hasn't. For instance, my brother is quite anti-forum/personal info on the net and would likely have an issue with me posting it, without it being seriously redacted. He's far from alone in that attitude either in my experience.
It's an interesting issue, and without having seen it myself I would be and was tremendously cynical about the claims too. However - aside from the absence of evidence, do we have anything definitive that would suggest that it couldn't happen?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...
[quote]The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has issued speed enforcement policy guidance, which suggests that enforcement will normally occur when a driver exceeds the speed limit by a particular margin. This is normally 10 per cent over the speed limit plus 2 mph. It also sets guidelines for when it would not be appropriate to issue a fixed penalty notice but to issue a summons instead (see below). Note that these are guidelines and that a police officer has discretion to act outside of them providing he acts fairly, consistently and proportionately.
[/quote]
So, unless it's a harder line than is implied there, I don't read that as being impossible that a letter over 34 in a 30 could happen.
So we'd assume that a letter should have appeared by now, but there may be perfectly good reasons why it hasn't. For instance, my brother is quite anti-forum/personal info on the net and would likely have an issue with me posting it, without it being seriously redacted. He's far from alone in that attitude either in my experience.
It's an interesting issue, and without having seen it myself I would be and was tremendously cynical about the claims too. However - aside from the absence of evidence, do we have anything definitive that would suggest that it couldn't happen?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...
[quote]The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has issued speed enforcement policy guidance, which suggests that enforcement will normally occur when a driver exceeds the speed limit by a particular margin. This is normally 10 per cent over the speed limit plus 2 mph. It also sets guidelines for when it would not be appropriate to issue a fixed penalty notice but to issue a summons instead (see below). Note that these are guidelines and that a police officer has discretion to act outside of them providing he acts fairly, consistently and proportionately.
[/quote]
So, unless it's a harder line than is implied there, I don't read that as being impossible that a letter over 34 in a 30 could happen.
It's not impossible that the Loch Ness monster or flying saucers exist either. Like 34 in a 30 NIPs, many claim to have seen them, but to-date no-one has been able to prove it. This is particularly surprising given that more people than ever before now carry the means to take high quality photos with them at all times. The op's excuse for not posting the NIP is just lame.
It is surprising that no-one has posted one up. You have no cause to believe me, so I'm not going to get upset about not being believed, I've seen the course of internet forum arguments like this a few too many times to expect anyone to move without the letter, and possibly not then either.
I've stuck another thread up on a non-motoring forum asking if people are generally aware of the idea that people don't get NIP's for anything less than the above suggested guidelines. I suspect the few that might or might not being getting these generally aren't all that surprised.
I've stuck another thread up on a non-motoring forum asking if people are generally aware of the idea that people don't get NIP's for anything less than the above suggested guidelines. I suspect the few that might or might not being getting these generally aren't all that surprised.
9mm said:
It's not impossible that the Loch Ness monster or flying saucers exist either. Like 34 in a 30 NIPs, many claim to have seen them, but to-date no-one has been able to prove it. This is particularly surprising given that more people than ever before now carry the means to take high quality photos with them at all times. The op's excuse for not posting the NIP is just lame.
100% this. Not forgetting the resident forum expert who is an expert in motoring matters has yet to see one of these mythical 34mph NIPs.
Edited by LoonR1 on Sunday 8th March 09:22
I thought (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that the reason that these guidelines exist is that the cameras cannot be reloaded quickly enough and would run out of film within minutes due to the sheer numbers just over the 30 limit.
With the new digital cameras that do not require film replenishing, this will not be an issue.
Does anyone see the guidelines changing as a result? Currently I don't think these cameras are deployed in 30 limits but I could be wrong.
With the new digital cameras that do not require film replenishing, this will not be an issue.
Does anyone see the guidelines changing as a result? Currently I don't think these cameras are deployed in 30 limits but I could be wrong.
Finlandia said:
JagXJR said:
I thought (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that the reason that these guidelines exist is that the cameras cannot be reloaded quickly enough and would run out of film within minutes due to the sheer numbers just over the 30 limit.
With the new digital cameras that do not require film replenishing, this will not be an issue.
Does anyone see the guidelines changing as a result? Currently I don't think these cameras are deployed in 30 limits but I could be wrong.
I thought it's more to do with the speedo not reading correct, all it takes is a different tyre size and there can be several mph difference. Especially older cars are have very unreliable speedos, even if they are calibrated to With the new digital cameras that do not require film replenishing, this will not be an issue.
Does anyone see the guidelines changing as a result? Currently I don't think these cameras are deployed in 30 limits but I could be wrong.
LoonR1 said:
Over read. They can over read but not under read.
singlecoil said:
It might surprise you, but it doesn't surprise me.
I understand.The thread I referenced posting on the other place has prompted a guy I've known for 7 or 8 years to say that an elderly aunt of his was done for 34 in a 30 recently. Again, no letter. But no reason I can see for him to lie.
Another chap, who I don't know, claims to have worked for an insurance company inputting speeding convictions and did plenty of 34 in 30s. But I can't even slightly vouch for his claim, not that this would be worth a thing without the evidence.
Seeing my brother in a bit, will raise it with him.
btw - in terms of argument over evidence, I'd suspect a philosopher might regard this and the Loch Ness monster scenarios as being rather different. Absence of evidence, evidence of absence and the likelihood of evidence being found in this two cases is a little different.
Edited by Ahimoth on Sunday 8th March 10:43
RobinOakapple said:
TBH I would have thought someone would have had a go at photoshopping something by now.
TBH, if you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd have seen just that.I've said it before: it would be very public-spirited of a PHer with evidence (e.g. the OP) to show it. Simply because it goes against all other evidence. Then the rest of us can fully weigh all of the risks of slightly exceeding the 30mph limit. It seems odd that some PHers who (claim to) have had such NIPs aren't being helpful.
(Some here are more vociferous with their doubts, but the message is the same.)
EskimoArapaho said:
RobinOakapple said:
TBH I would have thought someone would have had a go at photoshopping something by now.
TBH, if you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd have seen just that.
Never mind, yes I have read the thread, you are obviously referring to the joke posting, I meant a real attempt at a genuine looking 34 in 30 NIP.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff