Power Supply Units to GATSO cameras - update
Discussion
ramtec said:
'Not a problem, Mill. It does amuse me when I'm accused of being a conspiracy theorist, at the same time as someone from the 'industry' goes to so much trouble to diss this thread.
'So much trouble' as in posting a few messages as they have done on numerous - nay hundreds - of other threads?Don't get me wrong, Pistonheads is great and all, but if I were in the Illuminate and I had the power to be in a shadowy government position so that I could do things like pull strings and rig court cases on a whim, I am sure I could find better things to exert my power on than posting a few one-liners on here...
ramtec said:
Well Justin, that either means that you're making an assupmtion about Puff in Boots's interest, or you already know. I think we should be told...
Fair enough, you've caught me. I must be short, I'm typing whilst I speak to Barak about which bits of Libya come to me and which bits go to my colleagues.
Look, as I've said before, even three years ago - your case is interesting, and I've been in a similar situation myself.
However, just because I lost at appeal, or an anonymous poster on PH may have posted one of his hundreds of posts about me, I have no illusions of grandeur that my case is or was so important that shadowy government figures are out to get me and rigged my case.
I lost. Probably wrongly, but I had not the money to lose or the energy to waste pushing the matter to a higher court again, despite the case still being fatally flawed.
If you would admit the same rather than having the attitude that you seemingly always knew you were going to lose because of a conspiracy, you'd get a lot more support on here. However, your conspiracy theory makes little logical sense and if I may be frank, it makes you sound a little like a crackpot rather than someone you is having a legitimate technical and legal argument against GATSOs.
will have to suffice for now...ramtec said:
Thanks for the advice, Justin. I have enough support already thanks, mainly from barristers angling to nail the corrupt speed camera industry once and for all.
Call me cynical but they aren't supporting you they are looking at the potential income generated by the hopefull outcome. That's worth a lot given what an email costs.14-7 said:
Call me cynical but they aren't supporting you they are looking at the potential income generated by the hopefull outcome. That's worth a lot given what an email costs.
And the "other side" is looking at the potential loss of income generated if they lose.Yes, I admire the logic... who stands to lose out the most?
By the way, is anyone running a book on which username puff in boots will use next time he posts here...IF he posts here...?
Just in passing - and I don't want this to split into a discussion of the workings of the Family Court - for those who deny the potential for court processes to be 'rigged' and justice to be thereby adversely affected, consider the Family Court system used to decide the fate of children taken from their parents by Social Services.
Hearings are essentially held in camera, no reporting that could identify the child is allowed ... which effectively means there is no reporting and consequently no public oversight.
Social Services departments provide a list of lawyers that the parents can use. The lawyers on the list often appear to act more for the prosecution than the defence - for example, refusing to let their clients speak and simply agreeing to all Social Services' demands and the issue of Care Orders. Legal Aid is frequently denied to parents seeking to engage a lawyer not on the list, or the LSC delays deciding until it is too late for the parents to do anything other than take one of the 'tame' lawyers on the list or appear unrepresented. Lawyers not on the list who are nevertheless engaged by the parents often cease representation after discussion with Social Services.
Expert testimony for the parents' side is often disallowed, whilst testimony from quasi and non-experts from Social Services' side is allowed and treated as 'expert'. Parents are routinely refused permission to call for a second opinion when such 'experts' have testified against them. The evidence of the court-appointed "independent social worker" seems to be routinely ignored if it contradicts that of Social Services.
There are hearings at which the parents are not allowed to speak by the Judge, and Judges routinely castigate parents who wish to speak or who represent themselves - even though they have the right to do so. Parents representing themselves are denied the opportunity to cross examine witnesses appearing against them. Judgements, 'expert' reports, and position statements are either witheld or given to parents at the last minute - too late to read and analyse properly. Statements from the local authority are shown to the judge but rarely to parents. Prosecution lawyers often read out statements from absent witnesses as though they are themselves the witnesses and consequently this 'evidence' cannot then be questioned. Parents have been given as little notice as an hour to appear in court. Judges make rulings that remove children from their parents on a few minutes of one-sided testimony.
'Evidence' for the prosecution is frequently distorted, non-contemporaneous, unattributed and uncorroborated (sometimes even absolutely denied by others independently on scene ... but their evidence is more frequently dismissed than accepted).
The rights of the children involved (under the UN Convention on Children's Rights, to which the UK is a signatory) to be heard in court is commonly denied and is enthusiastically fought against by Social Services and the prosecution lawyers. Parents are commonly and wrongly told that they may not talk to anyone about their case.
The Court applies the 'balance of probabilities' test rather than that of 'beyond reasonable doubt' required in a criminal court.
Streaky
PS - once again, please do not branch off into a discussion of the Family Court system, this post is simply to point up some parallels with ramtec's argument, and to suggest to the nay-sayers that while Justice might be blind, her arm can still be twisted - S
Hearings are essentially held in camera, no reporting that could identify the child is allowed ... which effectively means there is no reporting and consequently no public oversight.
Social Services departments provide a list of lawyers that the parents can use. The lawyers on the list often appear to act more for the prosecution than the defence - for example, refusing to let their clients speak and simply agreeing to all Social Services' demands and the issue of Care Orders. Legal Aid is frequently denied to parents seeking to engage a lawyer not on the list, or the LSC delays deciding until it is too late for the parents to do anything other than take one of the 'tame' lawyers on the list or appear unrepresented. Lawyers not on the list who are nevertheless engaged by the parents often cease representation after discussion with Social Services.
Expert testimony for the parents' side is often disallowed, whilst testimony from quasi and non-experts from Social Services' side is allowed and treated as 'expert'. Parents are routinely refused permission to call for a second opinion when such 'experts' have testified against them. The evidence of the court-appointed "independent social worker" seems to be routinely ignored if it contradicts that of Social Services.
There are hearings at which the parents are not allowed to speak by the Judge, and Judges routinely castigate parents who wish to speak or who represent themselves - even though they have the right to do so. Parents representing themselves are denied the opportunity to cross examine witnesses appearing against them. Judgements, 'expert' reports, and position statements are either witheld or given to parents at the last minute - too late to read and analyse properly. Statements from the local authority are shown to the judge but rarely to parents. Prosecution lawyers often read out statements from absent witnesses as though they are themselves the witnesses and consequently this 'evidence' cannot then be questioned. Parents have been given as little notice as an hour to appear in court. Judges make rulings that remove children from their parents on a few minutes of one-sided testimony.
'Evidence' for the prosecution is frequently distorted, non-contemporaneous, unattributed and uncorroborated (sometimes even absolutely denied by others independently on scene ... but their evidence is more frequently dismissed than accepted).
The rights of the children involved (under the UN Convention on Children's Rights, to which the UK is a signatory) to be heard in court is commonly denied and is enthusiastically fought against by Social Services and the prosecution lawyers. Parents are commonly and wrongly told that they may not talk to anyone about their case.
The Court applies the 'balance of probabilities' test rather than that of 'beyond reasonable doubt' required in a criminal court.
Streaky
PS - once again, please do not branch off into a discussion of the Family Court system, this post is simply to point up some parallels with ramtec's argument, and to suggest to the nay-sayers that while Justice might be blind, her arm can still be twisted - S
Edited by streaky on Thursday 10th March 10:36
Mill Wheel said:
14-7 said:
Call me cynical but they aren't supporting you they are looking at the potential income generated by the hopefull outcome. That's worth a lot given what an email costs.
And the "other side" is looking at the potential loss of income generated if they lose.Yes, I admire the logic... who stands to lose out the most?
My point isn't about who stands to lose what but is that if all of these barristers are so sure he has a perfect case why aren't they throwing themselves at it for nothing, or at least minimal cost, as the potential income for them if it is proved will be massive.
I thought an exerpt from an interview with the manager of a Safety Camera Partnership might be of interest:
ME: “Mr XXXX, I have a number of questions with regard to the maintenance of the GATSO camera module, and the cabinet on the site at XXXXX.
(1) ME: “Where are the camera modules calibrated?”
MGR: “In the Netherlands.”
ME: “So, under pretty much laboratory conditions, including the power supply, they’re calibrated before being shipped back to the UK?”
MGR: “Yes.”
ME: “Does the type approval, or any other certification, provide for the camera module’s calibrated accuracy, AFTER being shipped across the North Sea, and then moved from cabinet to cabinet?”
MGR: “The officer fitting the unit on site does a check to make sure that it’s ok.”
ME: “But that isn’t a calibration, otherwise it wouldn’t have to go to the Netherlands, would it?”
MGR: “No, it just says that the camera’s working”.
(2) ME: “Do you have a copy of the maintenance and calibration schedule for the SMPSU, the Switched Module Power Supply Unit, used within the cabinet?”
MGR: “We don’t have one, it’s not an area that we’ve ever looked at.”
ME: “But how do you ensure that the correct voltage is being maintained to the camera unit and the radar?”
MGR: “That’s not a question that I’ve ever been asked before. I don’t know.”
(3) ME: “What checks are made to ensure the resistance of the cabinet circuitry, onto which the camera module and radar are connected, falls within a limit that guarantees that the camera module and radar accuracy are reliable?”
MGR: “We don’t do any checks on the cabinet.”
ME: “But surely you must make some basic checks on things like the voltage regulation, perhaps under Health and Safety laws?”
MGR: “So far as I’m aware, the cabinet hasn’t been checked since it was installed in, I think, about 1997.”
ME: “Mr XXXX, I have a number of questions with regard to the maintenance of the GATSO camera module, and the cabinet on the site at XXXXX.
(1) ME: “Where are the camera modules calibrated?”
MGR: “In the Netherlands.”
ME: “So, under pretty much laboratory conditions, including the power supply, they’re calibrated before being shipped back to the UK?”
MGR: “Yes.”
ME: “Does the type approval, or any other certification, provide for the camera module’s calibrated accuracy, AFTER being shipped across the North Sea, and then moved from cabinet to cabinet?”
MGR: “The officer fitting the unit on site does a check to make sure that it’s ok.”
ME: “But that isn’t a calibration, otherwise it wouldn’t have to go to the Netherlands, would it?”
MGR: “No, it just says that the camera’s working”.
(2) ME: “Do you have a copy of the maintenance and calibration schedule for the SMPSU, the Switched Module Power Supply Unit, used within the cabinet?”
MGR: “We don’t have one, it’s not an area that we’ve ever looked at.”
ME: “But how do you ensure that the correct voltage is being maintained to the camera unit and the radar?”
MGR: “That’s not a question that I’ve ever been asked before. I don’t know.”
(3) ME: “What checks are made to ensure the resistance of the cabinet circuitry, onto which the camera module and radar are connected, falls within a limit that guarantees that the camera module and radar accuracy are reliable?”
MGR: “We don’t do any checks on the cabinet.”
ME: “But surely you must make some basic checks on things like the voltage regulation, perhaps under Health and Safety laws?”
MGR: “So far as I’m aware, the cabinet hasn’t been checked since it was installed in, I think, about 1997.”
At risk of appearing to give credibility to this legal nonsense...
Whether the power supply has been calibrated or not, or when and where it was calibrated is irrelevant. The camera is assumed to be working unless you can produce evidence to rebut this at court and show that at the time the camera that snapped you was not working correctly. In this case you'd also have had to produce evidence that an uncalibrated power supply meant that at the time you were speeding, the camera was inaccurate, not just that it might be inaccurate.
It's no good making videos about this, you need to test it in court and appeal your conviction, which you haven't done for reasons that I don't personally buy in to. For me the failure to appeal undermines the confidence you claim to have in your argument.
It's not directly relevant to your case but just for interest's sake there was a new stated case last month where it was held that the police are entitled to use a prescribed device to detect speeding, even where the device is not of an approved type.
Whether the power supply has been calibrated or not, or when and where it was calibrated is irrelevant. The camera is assumed to be working unless you can produce evidence to rebut this at court and show that at the time the camera that snapped you was not working correctly. In this case you'd also have had to produce evidence that an uncalibrated power supply meant that at the time you were speeding, the camera was inaccurate, not just that it might be inaccurate.
It's no good making videos about this, you need to test it in court and appeal your conviction, which you haven't done for reasons that I don't personally buy in to. For me the failure to appeal undermines the confidence you claim to have in your argument.
It's not directly relevant to your case but just for interest's sake there was a new stated case last month where it was held that the police are entitled to use a prescribed device to detect speeding, even where the device is not of an approved type.
ramtec said:
You appear to be conflating legal process with scientific fact. Armed with an expert from the body that sets the scientific standards, we set out to demonstrate that the legal process would be distorted to avoid the consequence its own scientific shortcomings. We did just that.
What did you initially set out to demonstrate or appeal?ramtec said:
You appear to be conflating legal process with scientific fact. Armed with an expert from the body that sets the scientific standards, we set out to demonstrate that the legal process would be distorted to avoid the consequence its own scientific shortcomings. We did just that.
But you haven't, have you? Put your money where your mouth is and appeal your conviction. Tell the media, tweet it, blog it and all the rest. This crusade is starting to resemble one of those New World Order/Sept 11th/chemtrail conspiracy rants.
Didn't you set out to get your conviction quashed on the basis that the power supply hadn't been calibrated? Having failed to do that you're now claiming that your objective was to expose some huge conspiracy to suppress the truth.
Edited by BDZ on Wednesday 30th March 20:13
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff