RE: Meredydd Hughes on the legal offensive
Discussion
When some drunken crack head decided to smash up my car, did the police come? I called 8 times and eventually they came 12 hours later ... and had the audacity to tell me not to swear at them on the phone.
And...
My house is just on the border in South Yorkshire, Merydddddddddddddddd's district. In the past 4 years there have been at least 4 accidents directly outside, not one caused by excessive speed (or over the speed limit ... as they are 2 distinct enitities as we all know).
I would just like to tell the police to f*ck off. I have lost all respect after what happened with my car, and just feel intimidated and used as a revenue stream.
And we get more of it come June...
And...
My house is just on the border in South Yorkshire, Merydddddddddddddddd's district. In the past 4 years there have been at least 4 accidents directly outside, not one caused by excessive speed (or over the speed limit ... as they are 2 distinct enitities as we all know).
I would just like to tell the police to f*ck off. I have lost all respect after what happened with my car, and just feel intimidated and used as a revenue stream.
And we get more of it come June...
FishFace said:
The revenue generated is pittance in the economic pot. A few million in terms of the annual treasury? Get real guys. False argument.
It might not be much money in the great scheme of things but it does provide a dose of unskilled jobs for many otherwise unemployable sociopaths.I'd far sooner thow them all on the dole, even though it would cost me more.
I challenged a FPN for exceeding 30. The sign was completely obstructed, as were the street lights.
The Gordon Ramseys even sent me a photo of an unobstructed 30mph sign. I went to inspect the sign - there was fresh soil around the sign. It had been installed 2 months after my offence.
They still would not give up, despite seeing all the photos I had presented to them.
A day before the Court hearing they discontinued prioceedings.
In the UK you are deemed guilty,no matter what. Don't confuse the issue with facts and logic as far as the CPS & the Teddy Plod Boys go.
The Gordon Ramseys even sent me a photo of an unobstructed 30mph sign. I went to inspect the sign - there was fresh soil around the sign. It had been installed 2 months after my offence.
They still would not give up, despite seeing all the photos I had presented to them.
A day before the Court hearing they discontinued prioceedings.
In the UK you are deemed guilty,no matter what. Don't confuse the issue with facts and logic as far as the CPS & the Teddy Plod Boys go.
I am all for a robust defence.
It is the responsibility of the police to gather the evidence of the offence - proving OR disproving it - and then for the Criminal Protection Society to prosecute the offence in court.
If they are not doing their job properly, then an acquital will follow if the CPS are unable to PROVE the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
I suppose that it boils down to people being happy to admit their guilt and accept the fine and points, rather than saying "Okay, prove your case by presenting the evidence at court, and I'll drive reasonable doubt through the middle of it".
It is a pity that this resource isn't being targetted to improve conviction rates for domestic violence.
It is the responsibility of the police to gather the evidence of the offence - proving OR disproving it - and then for the Criminal Protection Society to prosecute the offence in court.
If they are not doing their job properly, then an acquital will follow if the CPS are unable to PROVE the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
I suppose that it boils down to people being happy to admit their guilt and accept the fine and points, rather than saying "Okay, prove your case by presenting the evidence at court, and I'll drive reasonable doubt through the middle of it".
It is a pity that this resource isn't being targetted to improve conviction rates for domestic violence.
PPPPPP said:
A day before the Court hearing they discontinued prioceedings.
I hear this quite a bit. The only reason I can think of is that they probably don't pick up the file until the day before the case reaches court and then realise that it's flawed and cancel. I doubt that it's because they want to take it to the wire.
Skywalker said:
If they are not doing their job properly, then an acquital will follow if the CPS are unable to PROVE the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
But how often have mags convicted, on the guidance of the Clerk of the Court (part of the SCP?!?), only for the conviction to be overturned at appeal/next step on a point of law or point of fact.Ergo the mags either aren't doing their jobs properly (as it's the same defence team), or they're being misled by biased Clerks.
Until the courts are withdrawn from the 'partnerships' and the close relationships between Clerks and CPS are withdrawn, then I for one won't have any confidence in the ability of 1 or 3 lay-people to judge me.
Skywalker said:
It is a pity that this resource isn't being targeted to improve conviction rates for domestic violence.
Indeed. Which would most 'reasonable men' consider more important to society?!?Flat in Fifth said:
all to support the prosecution by vascar/speed pilot of a motorist where a) the recorded speed was faster than the vehicle could actually achieve and b) the reporting officer from his claimed vantage point not only could not see the timing marks, but also he couldn't even see the actual section of road in question. !!!???!!!
I trust that officer was dismissed and tried for perjury?havoc said:
Skywalker said:
If they are not doing their job properly, then an acquital will follow if the CPS are unable to PROVE the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
But how often have mags convicted, on the guidance of the Clerk of the Court (part of the SCP?!?), only for the conviction to be overturned at appeal/next step on a point of law or point of fact.Ergo the mags either aren't doing their jobs properly (as it's the same defence team), or they're being misled by biased Clerks.
Until the courts are withdrawn from the 'partnerships' and the close relationships between Clerks and CPS are withdrawn, then I for one won't have any confidence in the ability of 1 or 3 lay-people to judge me.
Skywalker said:
It is a pity that this resource isn't being targeted to improve conviction rates for domestic violence.
Indeed. Which would most 'reasonable men' consider more important to society?!?FishFace said:
The revenue generated is pittance in the economic pot. A few million in terms of the annual treasury? Get real guys. False argument.
You really have no ideal do you.Putting aside that the fines raised are actually for in excess of a few million you are completely forgetting you are talking about an industry. There a numerous companies making speed measurement devices, and many more making speed detection devices. They companies make money, they pay advertising companies and employ staff. The staff get paid, which means they are not on the dole, they pay tax, they also spend money in the areas they live, further supporting others in their employment.
This is a whole industry and one which is worth hundreds of millions to UK plc. The fines are one very small part of the overall finanical benefit.
So correct me if im wrong? but as i see it this just reshuffles the entire uk judicial system somewhat.
You go to court to throw up your case and have evidence in your favour, this happens all the time doesnt it?
If your accussed of robbing, raping or something else will there be the equivalent of acpo then?
The police win all the time .
You go to court to throw up your case and have evidence in your favour, this happens all the time doesnt it?
If your accussed of robbing, raping or something else will there be the equivalent of acpo then?
The police win all the time .
herewego said:
This part of the article is missing:
Drivers who challenge speed camera fines will face a new team of expert witnesses dedicated to the task of rebutting spurious arguments put forward by so-called loophole lawyers.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has created the team, called Road Safety Support, to help forces struggling to cope with the rising number of drivers contesting tickets by citing legal technicalities. Thousands of drivers have had tickets cancelled after arguing that police failed to comply with certain aspects of the law when enforcing speed limits.
Many have claimed that cameras have not been properly calibrated to record speed accurately. Others have argued that speed limit signs have been obscured or that mobile cameras have given false readings.
Police often fail to contest such cases and cancel the ticket, either because they lack the resources to prove in court that the claims are false or because they do not want to risk losing the case and establishing a precedent.
See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art...
I thought this was you having a laugh until I looked at the link. This is outrageous!Drivers who challenge speed camera fines will face a new team of expert witnesses dedicated to the task of rebutting spurious arguments put forward by so-called loophole lawyers.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has created the team, called Road Safety Support, to help forces struggling to cope with the rising number of drivers contesting tickets by citing legal technicalities. Thousands of drivers have had tickets cancelled after arguing that police failed to comply with certain aspects of the law when enforcing speed limits.
Many have claimed that cameras have not been properly calibrated to record speed accurately. Others have argued that speed limit signs have been obscured or that mobile cameras have given false readings.
Police often fail to contest such cases and cancel the ticket, either because they lack the resources to prove in court that the claims are false or because they do not want to risk losing the case and establishing a precedent.
See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art...
I love the idea that all we do is raise "spurious" difficulties and that the CPS normally backs down. Ha! The CPS doesn't back down even when a shedload of valid argument is provided to it. Perhaps the only difference then will be that it will cost more.
Unless.... this new crack squad will actually assess each case and decide whether the prosecution case is valid or not. In this case, it could actually bring a lot of benefit. OTOH if it's just a load of bully boys driving through every case whether valid or not, then surely they should expect to start losing and "setting precedents"? Unless the CPS and courts are so totally in bed together that every case is automatically guilty? But that's not likely is it....
Peter Ward said:
herewego said:
This part of the article is missing:
Drivers who challenge speed camera fines will face a new team of expert witnesses dedicated to the task of rebutting spurious arguments put forward by so-called loophole lawyers.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has created the team, called Road Safety Support, to help forces struggling to cope with the rising number of drivers contesting tickets by citing legal technicalities. Thousands of drivers have had tickets cancelled after arguing that police failed to comply with certain aspects of the law when enforcing speed limits.
Many have claimed that cameras have not been properly calibrated to record speed accurately. Others have argued that speed limit signs have been obscured or that mobile cameras have given false readings.
Police often fail to contest such cases and cancel the ticket, either because they lack the resources to prove in court that the claims are false or because they do not want to risk losing the case and establishing a precedent.
See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art...
I thought this was you having a laugh until I looked at the link. This is outrageous!Drivers who challenge speed camera fines will face a new team of expert witnesses dedicated to the task of rebutting spurious arguments put forward by so-called loophole lawyers.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has created the team, called Road Safety Support, to help forces struggling to cope with the rising number of drivers contesting tickets by citing legal technicalities. Thousands of drivers have had tickets cancelled after arguing that police failed to comply with certain aspects of the law when enforcing speed limits.
Many have claimed that cameras have not been properly calibrated to record speed accurately. Others have argued that speed limit signs have been obscured or that mobile cameras have given false readings.
Police often fail to contest such cases and cancel the ticket, either because they lack the resources to prove in court that the claims are false or because they do not want to risk losing the case and establishing a precedent.
See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art...
I love the idea that all we do is raise "spurious" difficulties and that the CPS normally backs down. Ha! The CPS doesn't back down even when a shedload of valid argument is provided to it. Perhaps the only difference then will be that it will cost more.
Unless.... this new crack squad will actually assess each case and decide whether the prosecution case is valid or not. In this case, it could actually bring a lot of benefit. OTOH if it's just a load of bully boys driving through every case whether valid or not, then surely they should expect to start losing and "setting precedents"? Unless the CPS and courts are so totally in bed together that every case is automatically guilty? But that's not likely is it....
Considering that the same ACPO wrote the Code of Practice which in every case (including mine) I have seen has been not complied with, I would certainly welcome ACPO looking at every disputed case TO ACTUALLY SEE IF THEIR OWN CODE IS BEING FOLLOWED AND THEY CAN TRUST WHAT THE OPERATOR HAS PROVIDED AS EVIDENCE.
Indeed, when (not if) they find that the operator or the device has been defective they can send out apologies to those accused... but until I see a flying pig, they might see the case as undefendable, quietly drop it and make sure the operator is retrained - thus saving people like myself and Peter, and the taxpayer needless cost.
Alternatively, they might just exist to provide a specialist team to support local CPS briefs to make sure laser cases are won.
We will see.
traffman said:
So correct me if im wrong? but as i see it this just reshuffles the entire uk judicial system somewhat.
You go to court to throw up your case and have evidence in your favour, this happens all the time doesnt it?
If your accussed of robbing, raping or something else will there be the equivalent of acpo then?
The police win all the time .
They most certainly do not. A rather sizeable proportion of those charged are acquitted at court.You go to court to throw up your case and have evidence in your favour, this happens all the time doesnt it?
If your accussed of robbing, raping or something else will there be the equivalent of acpo then?
The police win all the time .
vonhosen said:
traffman said:
So correct me if im wrong? but as i see it this just reshuffles the entire uk judicial system somewhat.
You go to court to throw up your case and have evidence in your favour, this happens all the time doesnt it?
If your accussed of robbing, raping or something else will there be the equivalent of acpo then?
The police win all the time .
They most certainly do not. A rather sizeable proportion of those charged are acquitted at court.You go to court to throw up your case and have evidence in your favour, this happens all the time doesnt it?
If your accussed of robbing, raping or something else will there be the equivalent of acpo then?
The police win all the time .
But still a tiny portion compared to those who are intimidated into not defending their beliefs they are innocent or who cannot or do not want to be put through a year of costly argument with the CPS *just to release the evidence held against them*.
I estimate that less than ten percent of those who are innocent of speeding through invalid or poor evidence are able to get to court AND are aquitted. That means that 90% feel the injustice, and quite rightly blame the system which has falsely criminalised them and the police who provide the evidence, the CPS for frustrating the system and now ACPO to be the go-between and make sure the 'speeding industry' remains sound.
This has got so abstracted from saving lives that it is never even thought of any more.
Personally I don't like the tone of the statement.
I think it rather threatening
What it really says is " I don't care if you are innocent, if you dare to question the word of the BIB I will make your life a misery, so don't even try it, or else!"
Who the hell does he think he is?
His job is to detect and identify those guilty of a crime and it is the CPS job to decide if it goes to court.
If Francis and O'Halloran come down on the side of the Human Rights Act and finds that all the process to date has been flawed and illegal he is going to look rather foolish.
It is a human right to question a charge and to have the chance to defend yourself in court
Arrogant GIT!
I think it rather threatening
What it really says is " I don't care if you are innocent, if you dare to question the word of the BIB I will make your life a misery, so don't even try it, or else!"
Who the hell does he think he is?
His job is to detect and identify those guilty of a crime and it is the CPS job to decide if it goes to court.
If Francis and O'Halloran come down on the side of the Human Rights Act and finds that all the process to date has been flawed and illegal he is going to look rather foolish.
It is a human right to question a charge and to have the chance to defend yourself in court
Arrogant GIT!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff