Power Supply Units to GATSO cameras - update
Discussion
pitmansboots said:
Nobody that deals in these matters has ever heard of him or his case. Who have you been dealing with ramtec?
Have you got your membership of the Engineering Council sorted out yet?
I know at the Montgomery hearing you explained to the judge it was an oversight - but surely in later cases you then knew that your membership had lapsed? It's about time you got your own story sorted out before you go implying ramtec is guilty of deception!
Mill Wheel said:
pitmansboots said:
Nobody that deals in these matters has ever heard of him or his case. Who have you been dealing with ramtec?
Have you got your membership of the Engineering Council sorted out yet?I know at the Montgomery hearing you explained to the judge it was an oversight - but surely in later cases you then knew that your membership had lapsed? It's about time you got your own story sorted out before you go implying ramtec is guilty of deception!
Boom boom!! nice one Mr Derek!!!!
saaby93 said:
Mill Wheel said:
I know ....
I'm confused about Puff the dragon Pitmansboots and grumpygeezerAbout why the same poster would have need to log in with different identities?
Or is it whether Puff the tragic/Pitsmansboots et al are paid up members of the Engineering Council or not?
In Carlisle when challenged, the explanation was that the subs somehow had not been paid... for FOUR years!
But somehow, despite now knowing that his membership had lapsed - for whatever excuse, a further court case saw the claim of membership repeated.
FINALLY there was an admission to the court that the claim of membership was in fact a mistake, and it HAD lapsed.
I'm beginning to think that the Engineering Council are embarrassed by his antics and lies, and don't actually want him back!
Mill Wheel said:
saaby93 said:
Mill Wheel said:
I know ....
I'm confused about Puff the dragon Pitmansboots and grumpygeezerAbout why the same poster would have need to log in with different identities?
Or is it whether Puff the tragic/Pitsmansboots et al are paid up members of the Engineering Council or not?
In Carlisle when challenged, the explanation was that the subs somehow had not been paid... for FOUR years!
But somehow, despite now knowing that his membership had lapsed - for whatever excuse, a further court case saw the claim of membership repeated.
FINALLY there was an admission to the court that the claim of membership was in fact a mistake, and it HAD lapsed.
I'm beginning to think that the Engineering Council are embarrassed by his antics and lies, and don't actually want him back!
] to demonstrate their competence and adherence to the Code of Conduct?Streaky
streaky said:
Might is not be that the Engineering Council would require the lapsed member [there are a couple of puns there, but I'm not going to draw attention to them ] to demonstrate their competence and adherence to the Code of Conduct?
Streaky
Well, I'd have thought lying about your credentials isn't a great way to endear ones self to such a body!] to demonstrate their competence and adherence to the Code of Conduct?Streaky
We shall have to wait and see!
Anyone who tries to base his expert witness testimony on a clump of grass shown in a video nearly two years after an alleged offence is clutching at straws, desperate to prove himself right!
I think the vital point missed here is that it matters not who does your report providing they are qualified to comment but on what basis the report is put together. Established case law says that the report must not be a general criticism of cameras rather it must be specific to the device in question. If you had requested access to the camera to allow that report to be prepared to make it relate to the one that caught you you may have stood a chance in arguing your case. You cannot go behind established case law no matter how much you or your experts think they may know about electrical equipment. Neither can you go into court as your own expert as well may have been pointed out to you. An expert has an independent duty to the court and that can never be fulfilled by someone defending their case. The CPS may be over worked but they know the law and they saw right through this smoke and mirror rubbish of yours. I suspect if you wrote to them as much as you've written on here they would have told you this from the start. I suspect you just didn't want to risk loosing face in taking this to Appeal. Good job you didn't 'cos I'm sure you'd have been fined a good deal more than the £60 you were. If you want to play with the law just make sure you take your time to read up on established case law, it's all in there. Conspiracy? Don't make me laugh! They were just better at it than you were.....
It's all water off a ducks back to Puff the Tragic/Pitsmansboots - he is used to being insulted.
However, he won't accept that somebody from the National Physics Laboratory knows more about calibration than him - after all the NPL works in the REAL world where calibration tools need to be calibrated and recorded as well as the equipment on test, not the fairyland calibration regime created by the Home Office for the SCPs to live in!
However, he won't accept that somebody from the National Physics Laboratory knows more about calibration than him - after all the NPL works in the REAL world where calibration tools need to be calibrated and recorded as well as the equipment on test, not the fairyland calibration regime created by the Home Office for the SCPs to live in!
ramtec said:
In the interests of openness and transparency, I wonder if Puff / Boots would care to declare his interest in this case?
We should have a "tail between the legs" smiley for Puff / Boots!
He usually keeps well clear after invitations like that - or signs up with a new user ID!
Mill Wheel said:
ramtec said:
In the interests of openness and transparency, I wonder if Puff / Boots would care to declare his interest in this case?
We should have a "tail between the legs" smiley for Puff / Boots!
He usually keeps well clear after invitations like that - or signs up with a new user ID!
Dick Whittington? Puff in Boots?
groan
However it's interesting that he goes to enough trouble to cover his IP tracks
F i F said:
Mill Wheel said:
ramtec said:
In the interests of openness and transparency, I wonder if Puff / Boots would care to declare his interest in this case?
We should have a "tail between the legs" smiley for Puff / Boots!
He usually keeps well clear after invitations like that - or signs up with a new user ID!
Dick Whittington? Puff in Boots?
groan
Streaky
streaky said:
F i F said:
Mill Wheel said:
ramtec said:
In the interests of openness and transparency, I wonder if Puff / Boots would care to declare his interest in this case?
We should have a "tail between the legs" smiley for Puff / Boots!
He usually keeps well clear after invitations like that - or signs up with a new user ID!
Dick Whittington? Puff in Boots?
groan
Streaky
Well a member of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership once said that we had never seen Steve Callaghan in a dress... implying that HE had!
And him a former Lieutenant in the Navy... it's ALL falling into place!
He used to run a company called PLANE SAILING - and according to his now defunct LINKEDIN profile it had a turnover of over a million pounds.
They must have been Lebanese pounds or something, because the registered accounts show that the turnover was nowhere NEAR £1 million, and there is a CCJ against him!
I had one of those from when my biggest customer went into receivership owing me a good deal of money - and one of my suppliers reneged on a payment plan, and took me to court.
But at least I paid it off, and am still trading!
Sorry ramtec - I got carried away dissing the cretin who cast doubt on the validity of your case despite his own obvious shortcomings!! Blame Streaky for leading me astray!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff