Two within 12 minutes!!

[craigjm]

Gavia said:

You're stretching it now. I have never suggested that PCoJ is an issue, I have stated that discussing it on here is not going to lead to a prosecution as a result of that discussion.

That was my challenge for you to provide case law on pistonheads discussing a topic.

That's not what you actually said now was it. Im sure if you dig deep enough you can find a PCoJ case being discovered through internet chatter but that isnt the point. As soon as the act is done of taking the course instead of his wife/ GF he has committed an offence that could come to light even years later.

[Gavia]

craigjm said:

Gavia said:

You're stretching it now. I have never suggested that PCoJ is an issue, I have stated that discussing it on here is not going to lead to a prosecution as a result of that discussion.

That was my challenge for you to provide case law on pistonheads discussing a topic.

That's not what you actually said now was it. Im sure if you dig deep enough you can find a PCoJ case being discovered through internet chatter but that isnt the point. As soon as the act is done of taking the course instead of his wife/ GF he has committed an offence that could come to light even years later.

Yep, it's pretty well exactly what I said, quoted below

Gavia said:

Tom_C76 said:

And get pulled up for PCOJ if this thread ever comes to light

Which will definitely happen as the over funded, resource rich police have people scouring every corner of the Internet for any hint of wrongdoing being discussed by a load of pseudonyms.

[craigjm]

Gavia said:

That was my challenge for you to provide case law on pistonheads discussing a topic.

Gavia said:

Yep, it's pretty well exactly what I said

Gavia said:

scouring every corner of the Internet for any hint of wrongdoing being discussed by a load of pseudonyms.

Of course it was... silly me.... there is a perfectly clear statement of pistonheads discussing a topic from that sentence Although how something can be pretty well exactly is beyond my realms of clear also.

[anonymous-user]

Staff car park at the sac course.

[Gavia]

craigjm said:

Gavia said:

That was my challenge for you to provide case law on pistonheads discussing a topic.

Gavia said:

Yep, it's pretty well exactly what I said

Gavia said:

scouring every corner of the Internet for any hint of wrongdoing being discussed by a load of pseudonyms.

Of course it was... silly me.... there is a perfectly clear statement of pistonheads discussing a topic from that sentence Although how something can be pretty well exactly is beyond my realms of clear also.

Even with your highlights, I still can't see any case law from pistonheads discussing a topic. I can see pistonheads discussing a precedent that's been set, I can see case law being set, but I can't see any of it being as a result of pistonheads.

Edited by Gavia on Wednesday 22 February 23:21

[The Red Baron]

Thanks to all for your comments.

The Mrs. will have to suck it up and accept she'll probably do a course and also get 3 points and a fine.

Even if I wanted to I couldn't claim to have been driving on one of the occasion to do a day of 'His and Her' awareness, as I did a course within the last three years.

[mp3manager]

It's amazing that women have the ability to retrieve something you said in a conversation 5 years ago from their long-term memory, but at the same time fail to remember something that's important from a few minutes ago.

[Mill Wheel]

randlemarcus said:

MorganP104 said:

Gavia said:

Which will definitely happen as the over funded, resource rich police have people scouring every corner of the Internet for any hint of wrongdoing being discussed by a load of pseudonyms.

Yeah, but the OP is going to be REALLY easy to spot...

The sneaky Focker.

INDEED.
They have pitmansboots, or whatever he is calling himself this week... although he does seem to be on a sabbatical at the moment, helping prosecute Ben Kitto for PtCoJ by using a parking sensor to thwart a speed gun!
He has form for frequenting this forum and then reporting details back to the relevant police forces.

[Loyly]

Gavia said:

Which will definitely happen as the over funded, resource rich police have people scouring every corner of the Internet for any hint of wrongdoing being discussed by a load of pseudonyms.

Unless the OP's wife is particularly ugly, the photographic evidence taken by the speed camera will probably make it clear that the OP was not the driver for either offence.

[Gavia]

Loyly said:

Unless the OP's wife is particularly ugly, the photographic evidence taken by the speed camera will probably make it clear that the OP was not the driver for either offence.

It could be that they were rear facing cameras. In that case you could argue that she's butt ugly

OP - I'm joking, I'm sure your wife is lovely.

[KungFuPanda]

Raygun said:

Staff car park at the sac course.

Speed awareness course course?

[TooMany2cvs]

KungFuPanda said:

Raygun said:

Staff car park at the sac course.

Speed awareness course course?

THAT's how aware they are afterwards...

[jshell]

Gavia said:

Which will definitely happen as the over funded, resource rich police have people scouring every corner of the Internet for any hint of wrongdoing being discussed by a load of pseudonyms.

There were a number of people on here a couple of years ago had been presented, in court, with chat-site posts they had made previously about their driving and driving intentions! ISTR 10penceshort had made a comment about that happening in his awful situation.

[Gavia]

jshell said:

There were a number of people on here a couple of years ago had been presented, in court, with chat-site posts they had made previously about their driving and driving intentions! ISTR 10penceshort had made a comment about that happening in his awful situation.

How were they connected? My name isn't Gavia, it's a tribute to a lovely mountain pass. It must be a serious incident for the police to want to do it and also the fact they need to do it, suggests they don't have much evidence.

In any event, none of that is case law, it's simply evidence.

[jshell]

Gavia said:

jshell said:

There were a number of people on here a couple of years ago had been presented, in court, with chat-site posts they had made previously about their driving and driving intentions! ISTR 10penceshort had made a comment about that happening in his awful situation.

How were they connected? My name isn't Gavia, it's a tribute to a lovely mountain pass. It must be a serious incident for the police to want to do it and also the fact they need to do it, suggests they don't have much evidence.

In any event, none of that is case law, it's simply evidence.

It was serious, and you're correct in that it was evidence and not case law. Look up the thread - very sobering read.

[Gavia]

jshell said:

It was serious, and you're correct in that it was evidence and not case law. Look up the thread - very sobering read.

No idea how to look things up on here, as the search function seems a bit rubbish.

If it was serious, why did they need info from a forum especially, if the writer was called something that isn't his real name?

[BlackLabel]

creampuff said:

Can you not say that it was the same journey, didn't slow down other than a handbrake turn further up the road from the camera and a continuous offence?

Chris Tarrant tried to use this defence (minus the handbrake turn bit).

"In 2010 Chris Tarrant was caught speeding. Twice. On the same road. And in a period spanning just 21 minutes. His lawyer Nick Freeman, aka Mr Loophole, had argued that the two offences should count as one.

Tarrant was filmed twice by the same camera but - unlike Driver A - on alternate sides of the road and on two separate journeys. Freeman stated that the difference in driving direction should not be taken into account. To the judge he argued that had Tarrant been "going in the same direction you would probably have been of the view it was the same occasion." District Judge Peter Crabtree did not accept this and Tarrant was fined over £1600 and given six points on his driving license."

http://blog.justis.com/the-friday-poser-continuous...

[jshell]

Gavia said:

jshell said:

It was serious, and you're correct in that it was evidence and not case law. Look up the thread - very sobering read.

No idea how to look things up on here, as the search function seems a bit rubbish.

If it was serious, why did they need info from a forum especially, if the writer was called something that isn't his real name?

Many, many profiles on here and other sites provide real names, some pics and web sites for owned businesses.

[CaptainMorgan]

creampuff said:

Can you not say that it was the same journey, didn't slow down other than a handbrake turn further up the road from the camera and a continuous offence?

[Gavia]

jshell said:

Many, many profiles on here and other sites provide real names, some pics and web sites for owned businesses.

I'm sure they do, but I still can't see plod in today's austere world having the resource to scour the internet just in case Johnny Crash posted on there under a pseudonym.