S 172 conviction - truly shafted !

[Streetcop]

I have to agree Daz that £750 is a bit over the top..

I have heard however, that such a sledgehammer has been used on other such cases to set an example and send the word out....

Street

[dazren]

Streetcop said:

I have heard however, that such a sledgehammer has been used on other such cases to set an example and send the word out....

I probably like yourself and many of your colleagues would prefer to see the courts use this approach with genuine scum.

DAZ

[gemini]

we all know what is right and what is wrong

So we take a chance -

waste ages of police time corresponding and court time debating
then when shafted we do what?


Yeh we complain

Dont get me wrong - the burglar should have his hands chopped off but we know this current society kicks the motorist when down.

You know where the line is drawn!

[Rus Wood]

Streetcop!

The guy did not exploit a loophole in the law. The law does not say that the NIP has to be signed. Plain as day.

The legal system is exploiting a loophole that they have invented in the law by defining it as case law. This is very wrong but we had all better get used to it.

[Streetcop]

He 'tried it on' and lost...

He fought the law and the law won...

I do however, wish the system would deal with scum in such a way though..

Street

[hertsbiker]

so the law should feel truly satisfied that 'justice' has been done? no wonder people are beginning to say they won't help the Police anymore. Terribly sad day for the country.

[dazren]

gemini said:

we all know what is right and what is wrong So we take a chance - waste ages of police time corresponding and court time debating then when shafted we do what? Yeh we complain Dont get me wrong - the burglar should have his hands chopped off but we know this current society kicks the motorist when down. You know where the line is drawn!

No Rich.

The time of scamera partnership staff (civi penpushers) is used due to the law not being clear. This is not front line police officers being screwed about.

DAZ

[gemini]

Now as a business man you should know better

There is a set budget to play with - more clerical time in ASU departments such as Dealing with NIP's means less money to spend on the road cop the CID etc.

What goes around comes around - Im sorry but its a fact

>> Edited by gemini on Friday 27th August 07:30

[Streetcop]

Morning Gemini..
Hope you're well

Street

[Streetcop]

hertsbiker said:

no wonder people are beginning to say they won't help the Police anymore. Terribly sad day for the country.

Don't be over melodramatic hertsbiker..

We're only talking about the occasional road check..I mean in my force it's about once every 5 weeks.

As for people helping the police...Nothing has changed and probably never will. It depends on what you mean by 'helping', but if something outrages a persons moral decency and standards they will help the police. Whether it be ring 999 when they see a crime being committed or by helping a constable arrest a struggling criminal in the street.

I've seen it hundreds of times. Even the scrotes who have been 'harrassed' (their words) by the police, still ring 999 when they want to grass on their one time mates.

It's not a 'sad day for the country' in the slightest.
Goodness me...

Street

[gemini]

Morning SC

Its a sad day when someone says they wont help
Its "our" (an inclusive word!)society and not just the police's problem

We should all want whats best
Now I can see people not wanting a motorist reporting in most straight forward speed cases but when something such as crime happens and there are no witnesses all I hear on this site from the same old moaners is "the cops did nowt"

You reap what you sow goes both ways my PH friends

[Streetcop]

Absolutley Gemini..

You can have the 'I wont help the police' attitude if you're as hard as nails, don't give a shit about your family and don't have a nice car...

If you're not the 'Krays' or such like...then you need the police..

Street

[turbobloke]

gemini said:

There is a set budget to play with - more clerical time in ASU departments such as Dealing with NIP's means less money to spend on the road cop the CID etc.

On the police and speeding fines:
"Using the revenue from speeding tickets to raise money for the police is not what the law is there for, it is contrary to the independence of the police." -Sir John Stevens, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, 2001

Streetcop said:

If you're not the 'Krays' or such like...then you need the police. Street

On the public needing police, and police needing the public:
"I fear that if we prosecute more and more motorists and people have a perception that we are being unreasonable then there will be a backlash. We police by consent and need people to have confidence in the criminal justice system. We rely on people to report offences, to be witnesses and to be jurors in the fight against crime. Anything that undermines that support concerns me." - Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Michael Todd

gemini said:

What goes around comes around - Im sorry but its a fact

Sure is

[gemini]

I fear you misunderstand - not generating money by tickets.
I was meaning the time spent by corresponding to NIP "loops" takes staff and time which costs money

Simple really!

and remember nip covers more than just speeding - even some of the offences which you feel we should prosecute!

[loaf]

gemini said:

I fear you misunderstand - not generating money by tickets. I was meaning the time spent by corresponding to NIP "loops" takes staff and time which costs money Simple really!

Which is not the fault of the motorist, it's the fault of the semi-evolved simians that draft and vote in the legislation in the first place and leave legal holes in it that a one-eyed budgie with a squint could sail an ultra-large crude carrier through. All he was trying to do was play by the rules that the Government had said he had to play by - whereupon the rules were arbitrarily changed by a non-elected old fart who probably spends more time looking at www.lolitas.com then he does at knowing his job.

This is not a dig at BiB - the point I am trying to make is that Joe Motorist is growing increasingly tired of the draconian measures meted out to supposed criminal drivers, and this sort of case does nothing to further the cause of responsible motoring as it will only serve to disenchant even more people - who will, through ignorance, blame Plod and become less and less co-operative with them.

Morning all, btw...

[Mad Dave]

Come on guys, we all know that Lunarscope was trying to get out of a speeding charge on the 'Unsigned' loophole.

Fair enough, the fine is large, but he took a chance and unfortunately lost.

[turbobloke]

loaf said:

This is not a dig at BiB - the point I am trying to make is that Joe Motorist is growing increasingly tired of the draconian measures meted out to supposed criminal drivers, and this sort of case does nothing to further the cause of responsible motoring as it will only serve to disenchant even more people - who will, through ignorance, blame Plod and become less and less co-operative with them. Morning all, btw...

Morning! This thread began due to the fact that motorists are required by "law" to incriminate themselves over motoring "offences" in order to escape the clutches of another "law". Such a requirementdoes not apply to murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, thieves, drug traffickers, muggers, vandals, ASBers and so on. This is fundamentally wrong.

[M@H]

Dear Suspect, we think you were spotted entering/exiting* premises you were not entitled to enter/exit* and were seen/reported to have been* removing goods not belonging to yourself.

Sign Here ................... to admit to all charges we have currently thought of and we will think about letting you off more lightly than if you don't.

Refusal to sign here will mean that we will take you to court anyway on the charge, but we will throw in another charge of failure to own up to the first offence. This is punishable by a fine of up to £5000 YES FIVE GRAND SO SIGN !! ..and up to two years in prison.. YES THE BIG HOUSE AGAIN LOSER, SIGN SIGN SIGN... DOT IT DO IT DO IT.

PS.. We will remove a £60 admin fee from your bank account for processing costs.

* Delete where applicable.

[turbobloke]

M@H said:

Sign Here ................... to admit to all charges we have currently thought of and we will think about letting you off more lightly than if you don't.

How far fetched is reality? Once heard a comment from somebody who'd been talking with an ACPO kinda person who said that it would be much easier if car registration plates were replaced with the sort code and number of the registered keeper's bank account. No smiley.

[lunarscope]

Streetcop said:

Aah! He tried to exploit a loophole in the law and was caught out... Shame really... Street

Street,

The 'loophole' is there for a reason.
The Police are applying the 'letter of the law' so why can't the accused ?
Also, the ECHR has already ruled on a test case (can't remember exact details but it's on Pepipoo) that the right to silence and non self-incrimination is eenshrined in law. European Human Rights Act which overrules local (member country) law. The exemptions in the HRA are meant to be for overwhelming public interest such as 'time of war', 'terrorism', 'national emergency', etc.
Also, the Ticket Office sent me an Offer of Fixed Penalty clearly stating that they had '"evidence" of the driver.
Extra bit: StreetCop, of course I was trying to avoid the speeding charge. The Prosecutor asked me the same question and I answered, "yes of course I know that the signature only proves that I was the driver but, in practice, it is used as an admission of guilt of the speeding charge." She didn't argue that point !


>> Edited by lunarscope on Friday 27th August 10:40