Power Supply Units to GATSO cameras - update
Discussion
doug1e1972 said:
i have just wasted what seems like all day reading all the pages of this thread.
at the start of it i was all with the op but as it went on i found myself more and more convinced that the op was only out to try to make a name for himself. now im not a smart man, i have a touch of dyslexia but as i would see it, had the op really thought that he could win,he would have appealed, yes i understand that the op already had a agenda at the start to 'prove' the legal system is weighted in favour of big business/government,but the general public already knows that anyway and i really dont see anything in this thread that would go beyond that perception. the right of appeal may or may not have won,but at least the ordinary motorist/person would have seen that the op was at least trying to fight this all the way to the top and honestly trying every way to change a 'corrupt' system. to stop at the bottom rung smacks of the op being more interested in a quick bump of cheap and somewhat tacky free publicity. i do generally hope that i have the wrong end of the stick here, but stopping were he stopped proves nothing new and will not change anything.
im sorry if i have got this wrong and i would be happy to apologize if i have taken this wrong, i really would have liked the op to follow through to the end,but as it seems to me,cheap tacky and half cocked documentaries about the corrupt,1 sided legal system are already out there and have done nothing to change the system.
We don't know if he has stopped yet though. After all he has stated he has a lot of barristers supporting his crusade.at the start of it i was all with the op but as it went on i found myself more and more convinced that the op was only out to try to make a name for himself. now im not a smart man, i have a touch of dyslexia but as i would see it, had the op really thought that he could win,he would have appealed, yes i understand that the op already had a agenda at the start to 'prove' the legal system is weighted in favour of big business/government,but the general public already knows that anyway and i really dont see anything in this thread that would go beyond that perception. the right of appeal may or may not have won,but at least the ordinary motorist/person would have seen that the op was at least trying to fight this all the way to the top and honestly trying every way to change a 'corrupt' system. to stop at the bottom rung smacks of the op being more interested in a quick bump of cheap and somewhat tacky free publicity. i do generally hope that i have the wrong end of the stick here, but stopping were he stopped proves nothing new and will not change anything.
im sorry if i have got this wrong and i would be happy to apologize if i have taken this wrong, i really would have liked the op to follow through to the end,but as it seems to me,cheap tacky and half cocked documentaries about the corrupt,1 sided legal system are already out there and have done nothing to change the system.
doug1e1972 said:
i have a touch of dyslexia
Stop using it as an excuse.well i really do hope that the op hasnt let it run its course legal wise because i would,like everyone in here i think,like the op to stick it to the man as such,and if he does appeal the decision then he has my fullest support. but again,and hopefully i am mistaken in saying this,by the end of the thread it was beginning to,in my mind look like a cheap stunt.
now i didnt mean for it to look like i was using my dyslexia as any sort of excuse,but i do have some difficulty sometimes in reading and putting down in a logical way what i make of things that i read,i tend to have to read things a few times and tbh this thread has a lot of technical things in it that although i may not totaly understand i think i have the general jist of. not a excuse just me saying how i see things. i meant no malice in what i posted,and i do apoligize if i posted my reply in such a way that it seemed to be totaly against the op,it wasn't meant to seem that way.
14-7 said:
doug1e1972 said:
i have a touch of dyslexia
Stop using it as an excuse.It is most commonly demonstrated in reading and particularly when reading aloud (where naturally it is more noticable to the observer). The ability to write coherently is much less affected.
It does not generally affect the ability to punctuate or use correct grammar to the extent often exhibited by "dyslexia sufferers" on here. Such errors are more properly attributable to ineffective teaching or to other cognitive or learning disabilities.
Streaky
Source: the Headmaster of a school for dyslexics, who holds several qualifications in the subject.
maybe so but there is many differing forms of dyslexia. I have been properly tested in a educational setting(collage) when i was doing a 2 year study course to get the required qualifications to get me into a university, and try to get the required qualifications to get into the job i wanted to do. I make no apology for trying to better myself and again,i do not use dyslexia as a excuse. yes i am hopeless at grammer and punctuation,but i do have good logic and maths skills that more than make up for it. now please dont try to patronize(prob the wrong word there) me by saying i am using it as a excuse for 'ineffective teaching' but it is possible that i do have other cognitive or learning disabilities.indeed learning disabilites run along my fathers side of the family with a a few of my cousins having to go to 'special schools' as they were known back in the days.
i am a 38 year old man who knows and understands that i do have a few problems with grammer and writing in general,but i can read what is writen down just fine given time. i may not be the most poetic of writers but i do think that i can make myself understood to most people with my spelling etc.
ps i also tend to ramble a bit.
i am a 38 year old man who knows and understands that i do have a few problems with grammer and writing in general,but i can read what is writen down just fine given time. i may not be the most poetic of writers but i do think that i can make myself understood to most people with my spelling etc.
ps i also tend to ramble a bit.
streaky said:
Dyslexia tends to affect sounding words aloud, reading words in the written order, understanding the meaning of certain words, word selection, spelling ('dysorthographia'), and insertion/omission of letters/words when reading and writing.
It is most commonly demonstrated in reading and particularly when reading aloud (where naturally it is more noticable to the observer). The ability to write coherently is much less affected.
It does not generally affect the ability to punctuate or use correct grammar to the extent often exhibited by "dyslexia sufferers" on here. Such errors are more properly attributable to ineffective teaching or to other cognitive or learning disabilities.
Streaky
So what you're effectively saying is that unless the above is taken into consideration when teaching, someone who suffers from dyslexia may have a harder time learning the things that their condition does not affect?It is most commonly demonstrated in reading and particularly when reading aloud (where naturally it is more noticable to the observer). The ability to write coherently is much less affected.
It does not generally affect the ability to punctuate or use correct grammar to the extent often exhibited by "dyslexia sufferers" on here. Such errors are more properly attributable to ineffective teaching or to other cognitive or learning disabilities.
Streaky
Source: the Headmaster of a school for dyslexics, who holds several qualifications in the subject.
Jesus
Source: me, who noted similar learning problems in otherwise "normal" deaf children.
Breadvan73 said:
Dougie, the time for an appeal in this case expired about two years ago.
ahhh ok sorry i dont really know the ins and outs of the legal system that well(i should my wife is a solicitor) but she is in the conveyancing side of things. is there any chance that this matter will go any farther up the line at all? can it be taken any farther or is it dead in the water?im sorry that im asking so may probably daft questions but i am trying to get a idea if this is something that would be relevant to any other defence. i will add that no i have got a totally clean driving licence at the minute and no outstanding speeding tickets are due to come through my door(i hope) but its good for future reference should it happen.
ok thank you for the answers,so it seems then that the goal was to get the material to make a documentary really.
anyone who uses it as a excuse to do nothing and not try to improve is,in my eyes just being lazy to make a effort,but it does help if you get a early diagnosis and the early help and support.it does get harder as you get older if you let it run your live to break outta the rut and try to get help.
Breadvan73 said:
Dyslexia, if not handled correctly, can indeed impair learning. I am a director of a small dyslexia charity, and we see results such as an increase in reading age of five years or more following a few months of specialised teaching.
indeed that is correct, i was not diagnosed as having dyslexia when i went to school in my youth,but i had good teachers up until 3rd form (11 a's in my 3rd form exams) then i moved school were the new school made me do a test and i flunked it due to time and pressure. i was put into the lowest class and told to make my way upto the higher class from there. bad teaching from then hendered me a touch but i still managed to pass my maths and physics exams with a good grade but flunked in english,geography,history and chemisty. dyslexia can be a barrier if you let it but with good teaching you can and should be just as able if not more so in some respects than anyone else.(generaly dyslexia sufferanyone who uses it as a excuse to do nothing and not try to improve is,in my eyes just being lazy to make a effort,but it does help if you get a early diagnosis and the early help and support.it does get harder as you get older if you let it run your live to break outta the rut and try to get help.
14-7 said:
Stop using it as an excuse.
For what it's worth I add my sympathy for a person who tried his best but stopped short of the appeal process.Without having gone through the corruption surrounding the authorities use of dodgy experts and a CPS lawyer who has an ambition to hang those who even dare to challenge a speeding offence (alleged) you can have little knowledge of the massive financial implications of taking it further.
I haven't read all the thread as I have more to do with my life but the way I see it is that an approved device is conditional on it being used within a tested and approved mode. Look at it this way. A Gatso is approved, is it not. So let's just sit it on the landing rails of a police helicopter and use it for patrolling a motorway. Approved?
I think not.
It kind of overturns the judgement mentioned earlier by a "learned" Judge that the police are entitled to use an approved device and rely on its reading ABSOLUTELY.
The facts are that the Gatso has to be used according to the conditions of its approval, and those conditions are that it has to be powered by a specific means, (I forget the exact terminology) but I know that even a roadside Gatso can't use a power source from the attending van's batteries. There is a reason for this. If it says it has to be powered from a certain generator, or wired to the mains then it HAS TO BE to be within the Conditions Of Approval.
Now, reasons for not taking an appeal are many. Those who follow the goings on at Pepipoo may remember that I had a case that relied on non approved use of a Gatso a few years ago.
In my case the Gatso was being used from within a police van. The Conditions of Approval excludes this means of operation and the Home Office provided a letter saying as much. In fact they acknowledged that the Gatso had "not been tested or approved for use from within a van".
The Conditions of Approval for the mobile Gatso provide that it has to be used as tested and approved by the HOSDB, ie "For use tripod mounted in the attended actively operated mode as tested".
Since the device was not being used in compliance the evidence produced by it should not have been used in a court of law:
Road Traffic Act 1991: Section 23.20.4 states quite specifically that ANY conditions of
type approval must be complied with.
The section states: “A record produced or a measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be
admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless
a. The device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State and
b. any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.
When this came to court after an 18 month gap from initial NIP, the CPS brought in Trevor Hall of RSS Ltd. An ex CC with a big grudge. A director of a company which is so closely aligned to speeding device manufacturers and takes massive amounts of money from Safety Camera Partnerships as annual subscriptions to fight those who challenge a speeding.
In fact the Articles of Assocition of RSS Ltd states “To assist Safety Camera Partnerships and suppliers in defending legal challenges and test cases". Impartiality is paramount with an "expert". Does this look impartial to you?
Due to the presence of Trevor Hall as an "Expert Witness" brought in by the CPS the court decided to go with his spoken testimony (which was nothing short of a load of waffle with no scientific basis)instead of the Home Office, the very office that grants approval in the first place.
So, an encounter at this stage cost me almost £2500 in costs. These were significantly less than the amount asked for by the CPS.
To take it further would have brought in Andrew Perry, Crown Advocate, and a CPS senior lawyer seconded to RSS Ltd as the person in charge of the CPS submissions. SO, another round agains the already corrupted system with the same "Expert" to stand against me. I asked for Legal Aid due to the complexity of the arguments but was denied so I bailed out at that stage.
I have sympathy for anyone who are convinced of the stance but fail to follow up,, and I have sympathy for those who challenge on the basis of suspect uise of an approved device. It isn't necessarily the case that the defendant has to prove that at the time of of use of the device it was giving faulty/supspect readings. If it can be shown that it was being used in a manner outwith its conditions of approval it really doesn't matter whether the readings themselves were right or wrong.
14-7 said:
^^
Yet the court seems quite happy that the conditions were complied with yes? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
The quote of mine in your post wasn't aimed at yourself by the way.
The courts are full of laypeople magistrates who believe almost anything the CPS tell them. After all, you wouldn't be in front of the bench if you hadn't done it would you?Yet the court seems quite happy that the conditions were complied with yes? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
The quote of mine in your post wasn't aimed at yourself by the way.
When the Home Office respo0nds to a FOI and gives me a letter stating the Gatso hadn't been tested or approved for use from within a vehicle you can't ask for anything more significant than that. Yet they still believed a grossly biased expert instead.
It matters not, except that wrong convictions are made, whether or not the court believes that the Conditions are met. These people do not always believe the obvious when presented with conflicting fiction by the CPS Experts.
I think it's about time that the courts were taken out of this whole scene. Speeding should be decriminalised just like parking, and appeals through another body should be facilitated. PATAS or another similar body should be set up to handle speeding charges if a challenge to a fine is made.
Remember, HM Courts Service is part of a Safety Camera Partnership. Safety Camera Partnerships are in partnership with RSS Ltd who provide "expert witnesses for the CPS (also members of SCP's). So the courts and the CPS are not entirely independent either.
Perhaps worth re-emphasising that Judge Goulbourn had already ruled that if CPS wished to question the expert defence witness they must provide their own expert and a written statement before the full hearing. CPS provided neither and yet had an expectation of proceeding under Judge Stobbart...
The case was heard by a District Judge, I gather (that's a professional Magistrate, not a lay one). Ramtec, if I read the thread correctly, you lost your case, and you didn't appeal. You may think that you were right, but the Judge disagreed, and you haven't tested the point in a higher Court. If someone does, and succeeds, then fine, but until then the point remains just an argument, which so far hasn't been accepted by any Court.
Breadvan73 said:
The case was heard by a District Judge, I gather (that's a professional Magistrate, not a lay one). Ramtec, if I read the thread correctly, you lost your case, and you didn't appeal. You may think that you were right, but the Judge disagreed, and you haven't tested the point in a higher Court.
A District Judge heard my Abuse of Process Application when the CPS gave the court deliberate false information regarding disclosure. He agreed with me that "the CPS Lawyer (who shall remain nameless here) was less than truthful in presenting his reasons for non disclosure but did bugger all about it. In fact I made a complaint to the police about Perverting the Course of Justice, like that was going to go anywhere!!!I was still denied disclosure "because no else had been granted it." This was for the camera operators notes and the Gatso manual. I got the manual eventually after an appeal against a refused FOI request for one.
So, District Judges may have a better understanding of the law but not necessarily the balls to see the correct outcome.
ok this thread has drawn me in. it is a shame that you didn't/couldn't appeal the decision ramtec.
without proper scrutiny,the points you made are,as has been said just an argument. it is a pity that you,and i could be getting the wrong end of the stick here,seemed to put making a documentary 1st,instead of exhausting all the legal avenues available to you. it may ,or may not have blown the whole speed tax camera scam out of the water for good. i do applaud the time and effort put into your case though.
it also seems that maybe the whole camera set up is properly looked at and tested in a more open and truthful way. the public at large do have a good general outlook of our legal system and it seems that everyday,that trust is being erroded slowly away. you hear of cases nearly every week of the whole legal system failing people and if im honest,the older i get the more critical i become that it is fit for purpose.it seems it is set up more as a money grabber than anything that will give out real justice,and i feel ashamed that it is happening in the uk,were we are famed the world over for being a fair and just country.
i do think that there are lots of small things that could be done to start to regain the trust of the people,and i look at it from a outsiders point of view that small steps now would lead to large steps later. start being more open for a start,change the motoring laws so that the points dont come in unless you are 10 mph over, get rid of on the spot fines for the likes of shoplifting,bring back proper community work for the feckless and stop pussy footing around them, do the work or go to prison,and make prison a unpleasant place to be,no tv,no gyms,you learn while your inside and if you dont want to do that you stay in your cell 23/7.that would save more money in the long term than cutting corners like they seem to be doing.
sorry mini rant over.
without proper scrutiny,the points you made are,as has been said just an argument. it is a pity that you,and i could be getting the wrong end of the stick here,seemed to put making a documentary 1st,instead of exhausting all the legal avenues available to you. it may ,or may not have blown the whole speed tax camera scam out of the water for good. i do applaud the time and effort put into your case though.
it also seems that maybe the whole camera set up is properly looked at and tested in a more open and truthful way. the public at large do have a good general outlook of our legal system and it seems that everyday,that trust is being erroded slowly away. you hear of cases nearly every week of the whole legal system failing people and if im honest,the older i get the more critical i become that it is fit for purpose.it seems it is set up more as a money grabber than anything that will give out real justice,and i feel ashamed that it is happening in the uk,were we are famed the world over for being a fair and just country.
i do think that there are lots of small things that could be done to start to regain the trust of the people,and i look at it from a outsiders point of view that small steps now would lead to large steps later. start being more open for a start,change the motoring laws so that the points dont come in unless you are 10 mph over, get rid of on the spot fines for the likes of shoplifting,bring back proper community work for the feckless and stop pussy footing around them, do the work or go to prison,and make prison a unpleasant place to be,no tv,no gyms,you learn while your inside and if you dont want to do that you stay in your cell 23/7.that would save more money in the long term than cutting corners like they seem to be doing.
sorry mini rant over.
ramtec said:
Perhaps worth re-emphasising that Judge Goulbourn had already ruled that if CPS wished to question the expert defence witness they must provide their own expert and a written statement before the full hearing. CPS provided neither and yet had an expectation of proceeding under Judge Stobbart...
If it went to Crown Court I would say a prosecution expert would have appeared and explained that your expert was talking crap. There is no requirement to calibrate the power supply and they are regularly checked for safety and earth bonding.If you were sure of yourself; it seems you are in other areas, then you would have pressed this home, as you have not it seems you know you were on a loser and that you were speeding.
Lynnzer said:
Remember, HM Courts Service is part of a Safety Camera Partnership. Safety Camera Partnerships are in partnership with RSS Ltd who provide "expert witnesses for the CPS (also members of SCP's). So the courts and the CPS are not entirely independent either.
This is the intrinsically corrupt setup that needs torn down by any means necessary... Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff