RE: Meredydd Hughes on the legal offensive

[Heebeegeetee]

CommanderJameson said:

vonhosen said:

Heebeegeetee said:

Only those two people know the truth, there is no evidence, no witnesses.

How do you know he didn't do it ?

[devil's_advocate]How do you know he did?[/devil's_advocate]

My layman's take is that one would have expected that in the face of insufficient evidence, the jury would have been directed to acquit; the fact that they weren't and didn't tends to imply that, as usual with anecdotes, there's more to this story than is presented here.

Apparently courts have been directed to give more credence to a childs evidence, because historically it has always been more difficult for a child to be believed against the word of an adult.

To be honest, from the chaps point of view, it was perfectly straight forward. A girl had made an allegation against him. There was no evidence at all, none of grooming, none of any previous incident, not one person spoke against the chap, and so on. The case went before a jury, there is always the problem of "no smoke without fire", the jury had a straight forward choice of believing the girl or the chap and they chose the girl. There was more to the case from the girls perspective, but its not really relevant to what I'm trying to say.

I've only brought this up because of VH's comments on being proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and of higher costs being awarded if a not guilty plea is entered and the defendant is found guilty. I fully understand the logistics of all this, and I fully understand that if they could, every defendant would enter a not guilty plea if it didn't 'cost' them more to do so.

Nevertheless, if you allow 'discounts' and higher punishments for a not guilty plea etc, whichever way you look at it you are interfereing in the course of justice. Furthermore you are continuing to restrict access to those who aren't wealthy.

Also, the problem with the jury system, is that there are many cases imo whereby a different jury on a different day might give a different judgement, and I find myself uncomfortable with the statement proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I have another friend who had an interesting time in court, on a charge of kerb crawling. (Honestly, not all my friends are pervs . I got to the age of 47 not knowing anyone who had been to court, and then two came along at once).

Matey was in a queue of traffic when he was approached by a girl. She leant against his passenger window and he was daft enough to lower the window and talk to her, as a way of passing the time. The police then pounced, it was a set up (the girl was a genuine working girl though). She made up a story of having had a relationship with matey, 'cos she needs to have the police on her side as best she can in her profession.

So matey goes to court. He's too much of a tightwad to engage a solicitor and uses the duty solicitor. Then he finds out he can lose his driving licence for 12 months if found guilty of kerb crawling. So he decides to plead guilty because he has no intention of standing in a court of law whereby the outcome can rob him of his livelihood, house etc. he decides a guilty plea is the easiest option.

All well and good, but on walking away from the court a journalist from the local paper takes his picture and matey appears on the front page of the evening issue. (This is all true btw).

So matey now has to tell his wife, his friends and his employer. The worst of it, the one and only truly innocent party in all this, his wife, has to tell her employer, face her work colleagues etc and ask if her employer still wants her to work for them or not. So suddenly mateys easy option turns out to be a big mistake. But because he's pleaded guilty, its extremely difficult and very expensive to change his mind.

Again my point is, imo to be able to remove a driving licence for an offence unrelated to his ability to drive, is an example of interfering in the judicial process. It can encourage people to plead guilty when they're not, because they have little faith in the judicial process, people like matey have no knowledge of the judicial process, they have to pay for it, they are a fish out of water etc.

And I also think Meredydd Hughes is interfering with the course of justice.

[hahithestevieboy]

I think that many on this site share a common viewpoint, particularly in relation to speeding. We all think that the current system is wrong. Those that wish to study an actual alternative to the current system (the current system is used almost all over the world) should look up "the montana paradox". It will be interesting reading for all of you (if you have not already read it) and probably galvanize your opinion on so called speeding. However, the alternative was deemed to be unenforceable. Also, one should note how the "Montana paradox" was stopped in its tracks by minority special interest groups. Further look at where UK speeding law originates. It goes back much further than you may imagine and the reasons for it's introduction were as perplexing then as they are today with many hidden agendas beneath the age old "speed kills" safety message.

The current setup with SCP's are highly dubious. If the courts clerk is part of the SCP then this goes against one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of the english justice system (namely that of natural justice) whereby no man should be the judge of his own case. If the CPS and the police are also part of the partnership then the situation is even worse. It seems that only the higher courts are independent from the SCP and this makes it interesting that there are such a high proportion of acquittals compared to lower courts. Further infringements are the S172? whereby the right of silence is removed and the lack of disclosure of relevant evidence by the CPS (these both seem to breach so called human rights legislation in europe). The threat of disproportionate prosecution resources seems to amount almost to the threat of (mental) torture to discourage defense. Let us not forget that a similar approach has been tried before (the serious fraud squad) and it didn't work wasting huge public resources.

In my humble opinion it all amounts to an attempt to enable the government (or police / councils / scps) to prosecute without fear or possibility of defeat. This will lead to a summary justice system that is intrinsically unfair and unjust. If it works, it will spread.

[fluffnik]

FishFace said:

odyssey2200 said:

fluffnik said:

So stop prosecuting shite made up motoring "offences".

Like speeding.

why didn't anyone else think of that blindingly obvious peice of logic?

Good one Fluff

Too extreme.

Nope. Removing limits is simple, easily understood and, where tried, has no adverse safety implications.

FishFace said:

I'd rather have a much better look at road safety. Like some of the stuff Havoc mentions.

Yes, we need to look at road safety and reverse nonsenses such as deliberately limiting sightlines, reducing carriageway widths and the like.

We do not need extra complications wrapped around the flawed and fundamentally irrelevant metric of numerical speed values.

[vonhosen]

hahithestevieboy said:

I think that many on this site share a common viewpoint, particularly in relation to speeding. We all think that the current system is wrong. Those that wish to study an actual alternative to the current system (the current system is used almost all over the world) should look up "the montana paradox". It will be interesting reading for all of you (if you have not already read it) and probably galvanize your opinion on so called speeding. However, the alternative was deemed to be unenforceable. Also, one should note how the "Montana paradox" was stopped in its tracks by minority special interest groups. Further look at where UK speeding law originates. It goes back much further than you may imagine and the reasons for it's introduction were as perplexing then as they are today with many hidden agendas beneath the age old "speed kills" safety message.

Is that the paradox that in December 1995 the highways National speed limit in Montana was repealed & replaced by a reasonable & prudent policy ?
(Drivers choosing safe speed for the circumstances without upper limits.)

Following it:-
In 1996 the number of fatal collisions on highways increased.
In 1997 they increased again.
In 1998 they went down from 1997 levels, but were still above 1995 levels.

Due to a legal challenge in 1998 there was a period of 5 months in 1999 where there was both, no National speed limit, or reasonable & prudent policy. For the other 7 months of the year however the National speed limit was re-introduced.
In 1999 the number was 3 lower than 1995.

This all despite there being an 88% increase in the use of seatbelts during the period of no National speed limit.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 29th May 22:41

[fluffnik]

hahithestevieboy said:

In my humble opinion it all amounts to an attempt to enable the government (or police / councils / scps) to prosecute without fear or possibility of defeat. This will lead to a summary justice system that is intrinsically unfair and unjust. If it works, it will spread.

We need to purge the current sorry mess and start again.

General election in two years tops...

[hahithestevieboy]

vonhosen said:

hahithestevieboy said:

I think that many on this site share a common viewpoint, particularly in relation to speeding. We all think that the current system is wrong. Those that wish to study an actual alternative to the current system (the current system is used almost all over the world) should look up "the montana paradox". It will be interesting reading for all of you (if you have not already read it) and probably galvanize your opinion on so called speeding. However, the alternative was deemed to be unenforceable. Also, one should note how the "Montana paradox" was stopped in its tracks by minority special interest groups. Further look at where UK speeding law originates. It goes back much further than you may imagine and the reasons for it's introduction were as perplexing then as they are today with many hidden agendas beneath the age old "speed kills" safety message.

Is that the paradox that in December 1995 the highways National speed limit in Montana was repealed & replaced by a reasonable & prudent policy ?
(Drivers choosing safe speed for the circumstances without upper limits.)

Following it:-
In 1996 the number of fatal collisions on highways increased.
In 1997 they increased again.
In 1998 they went down from 1997 levels, but were still above 1995 levels.

Due to a legal challenge in 1998 there was a period of 5 months in 1999 where there was both, no National speed limit, or reasonable & prudent policy. For the other 7 months of the year however the National speed limit was re-introduced.
In 1999 the number was 3 lower than 1995.

This all despite there being an 88% increase in the use of seatbelts during the period of no National speed limit.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 29th May 22:41

That is the case that i was talking about von. You obviously know the case better than I. It was a system that has not been adequately tested over a long period of time. Driving in the USA is by all accounts much different to the UK. It would be interesting but probably impossible to gain further and more widespread data on whether or not it was really that imprudent and whether or not it would work (after a period of adjustment for drivers) in the UK. Germany has a different system than us and it seems to work for them. Why not us perhaps?

I think many on this forum don't agree with the current system and that is their biggest problem, and please correct me if i'm wrong, but at least on some level, neither do you. The reason i say this is that you (and please again correct me if i'm wrong) have previously indicated that you have your own personal "tolerance" (although you have never revealed what that tolerance is) to speeding offenses before you will report someone despite the offense being absolute. (I am not attacking you or your professionalism and dedication to your job by the way von)

What say you about the natural justice element of my previous post?

[horsepower]

With the increasing use of ANPR cameras there is also increasing likely hood that a criminal will clone your number plate and as a result you will be hard put to establish your innocence for alleged motoring offences or your involvement in more serious crimes.

We have created a secondary ID which can be fitted (self adhesive Anti-Tamper labels) close to but not on your naumber plate. The position of the tag and its unique number can be used to dispute any false registration plates which show up on ANPR evidence.
The labels are supplied by the police funded IMMOBILISE system and are registered by us on their database so that patrol cars etc can quickly check out a vehicle.
All profits from the sales are used as donations to help the work of the welfare charity Canterbury Horse Rescue (Reg no 1101452)

The kits cost just £9.95 and there are no annual costs.
Click on www.canterburyhorserescue.org to see the work of the charity.

To buy send cheque to
Canterbury Horse Rescue, Boundgate Farm, Shottenden Road, Badlesmere, Kent ME13 0JX
01233 740 730 or 07752 005 308

[bluepolarbear]

vonhosen said:

Is that the paradox that in December 1995 the highways National speed limit in Montana was repealed & replaced by a reasonable & prudent policy ?
(Drivers choosing safe speed for the circumstances without upper limits.)

Following it:-
In 1996 the number of fatal collisions on highways increased.
In 1997 they increased again.
In 1998 they went down from 1997 levels, but were still above 1995 levels.

Due to a legal challenge in 1998 there was a period of 5 months in 1999 where there was both, no National speed limit, or reasonable & prudent policy. For the other 7 months of the year however the National speed limit was re-introduced.
In 1999 the number was 3 lower than 1995.

This all despite there being an 88% increase in the use of seatbelts during the period of no National speed limit.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 29th May 22:41

That's the one Von. Of course if you are going to quote figures you need to quote them all to show the complete picture. As well as seat belt usage up, traffic volumes were up 12 to 18% over the six year trail period. During the last twelve months of the "no speed limits" fatals were their lowest for the whole 7 year trial period (101). The first 12 months of the re-introduced speed limit fatals increased to their highest recorded levels (143). This was made up of 100% increase in interstate fatals and ~15% on primaries.

The low of 99 was due to low accident rates during the "no speed limit" period. THe monthly breakdown shows this well

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
3 5 5 2 5 8 5 5 12 6 10 6

"No Speed limits" ended at the end of May.

2002 shows a 20 year high in fatal accidents.

Further during the period of no speed limits the % of fatals involving multiple vehicles fell year on year. They immediately jumped following the re-introduction of speed limits. The hypothesis being that higher speed differentials lead to better lane discipline / use of mirrors which in turn reduced accident rates.

Devils in the detail eh Von?

[mybrainhurts]

bluepolarbear said:

vonhosen said:

Sour grapes

The whole truth...

Well done, that man. You saved me a long search...

[mybrainhurts]

bluepolarbear said:

vonhosen said:

Is that the paradox that in December 1995 the highways National speed limit in Montana was repealed & replaced by a reasonable & prudent policy ?
(Drivers choosing safe speed for the circumstances without upper limits.)

Following it:-
In 1996 the number of fatal collisions on highways increased.
In 1997 they increased again.
In 1998 they went down from 1997 levels, but were still above 1995 levels.

Due to a legal challenge in 1998 there was a period of 5 months in 1999 where there was both, no National speed limit, or reasonable & prudent policy. For the other 7 months of the year however the National speed limit was re-introduced.
In 1999 the number was 3 lower than 1995.

This all despite there being an 88% increase in the use of seatbelts during the period of no National speed limit.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 29th May 22:41

That's the one Von. Of course if you are going to quote figures you need to quote them all to show the complete picture. As well as seat belt usage up, traffic volumes were up 12 to 18% over the six year trail period. During the last twelve months of the "no speed limits" fatals were their lowest for the whole 7 year trial period (101). The first 12 months of the re-introduced speed limit fatals increased to their highest recorded levels (143). This was made up of 100% increase in interstate fatals and ~15% on primaries.

The low of 99 was due to low accident rates during the "no speed limit" period. THe monthly breakdown shows this well

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
3 5 5 2 5 8 5 5 12 6 10 6

"No Speed limits" ended at the end of May.

2002 shows a 20 year high in fatal accidents.

Further during the period of no speed limits the % of fatals involving multiple vehicles fell year on year. They immediately jumped following the re-introduction of speed limits. The hypothesis being that higher speed differentials lead to better lane discipline / use of mirrors which in turn reduced accident rates.

Devils in the detail eh Von?

Question to vh...

Were you deploying spin there, or were you unaware of the detail, having been fed spin from above...?

[bluepolarbear]

To be clear I'm not having a dig at VH here. VH quoted valid stats for the period and scope he was interested as I did for a different cut of the cake. This is the problem with stats. The fatals DO raise during the period of the "no speed" trial, dropping dramatical at the end of the period, and raising again following the re-introduction of speed limits.

My own view is that you can't read too much into the stats and to me the stats look to show normal variance. At best I would say they show that having speed limits or not having them has no noticable effect on fatals.

The number of multiple car fatals shows a stronger correlation and the proposed hypothesis makes sense. However as stated early the roads, their construction, the cars, the weather etc etc are all different in the US and how much you can transpose those onto the UK is also open for debate.