Discussion
SC5011 said:
Hello IOLAIRE,
1) Shoodie had a single policeman - there were 4 police in the police car that followed me. Does this make a difference? Would they have to all be trained operators to say the reading was accurate? I know one of them was a probationer.
Is there a story here we're all missing ? Come on Mungo it just so happens you are a probationer, working that stretch of motorway at the time our man got nicked and you're busy telling him to roll over and take it like a man. I might not know a lot about plod probationers but if the police service is anything like any other job we all get lumbered with a work experience type every now and again but they try not to give you too many at a time, Come on Mungo 'fes up did you nick a westie last week ?
IOLAIRE said:
cptsideways said:
ask if the police car had provida video onbaord, I think you will find it did. In which case ask for a copy.
No video at all and not required either
What do you mean it's not required Mungo?
Not required for whom?
With Vascar the police can press the buttons any time they feel like it and it instantly becomes court evidence. Absolutely completely wrong. I got fitted up for a speed I wasn't doing by a couple of gung ho cops. Reduced my willingless to help the constabulary with their work by about 95%.
bruciebabie said:
mungo said:
cptsideways said:
ask if the police car had provida video onbaord, I think you will find it did. In which case ask for a copy.
No video at all and not required either
What do you mean it's not required Mungo?
Not required for whom?
With Vascar the police can press the buttons any time they feel like it and it instantly becomes court evidence. Absolutely completely wrong. I got fitted up for a speed I wasn't doing by a couple of gung ho cops. Reduced my willingless to help the constabulary with their work by about 95%.
Precisely!!
bruciebabie said:
Reduced my willingless to help the constabulary with their work by about 95%.
And how often has that happened in the past or is even likely to happen in the future unless it is you that needs the help for some reason or another?
Fitted up!
How many times have you got away without any interference at all?
Look on the fit up as good value for money regarding the past
gone said:I do hope that was a totally tongue-in-cheek comment. It smacks of: "Well, we didn't get him the 50 times he was 1 mph over the 70 limit, so let's fit him up for 50 mph over the 30 limit ... that'll even the score!"
Fitted up!
How many times have you got away without any interference at all?
Look on the fit up as good value for money regarding the past
Streaky
streaky said:
Fitted up!
How many times have you got away without any interference at all?
Look on the fit up as good value for money regarding the past
I do hope that was a totally tongue-in-cheek comment. It smacks of: "Well, we didn't get him the 50 times he was 1 mph over the 70 limit, so let's fit him up for 50 mph over the 30 limit ... that'll even the score!"
Streaky
Mungo, you said the driver operates the VASCAR. They've got to press 4 buttons in the right order, accuratley at an alledged 103mph in a short period of time (13.9 secs)....... anyway my point is the chap in the front passanger seat wrote the ticket, not the driver. He took me through the procedure of what HE had done.... at least that's the impression he gave.
If the driver operated the VASCAR, then shouldn't he issue the ticket? Not clutching at straws or anything....
The probationer in this car was an attractive blonde who wouldn't stop giggling - Nice to be able to entertain the BiB.....
IOLAIRE, I will give you more details off line.....
If the driver operated the VASCAR, then shouldn't he issue the ticket? Not clutching at straws or anything....
The probationer in this car was an attractive blonde who wouldn't stop giggling - Nice to be able to entertain the BiB.....
IOLAIRE, I will give you more details off line.....
SC5011 said:
Mungo, you said the driver operates the VASCAR. They've got to press 4 buttons in the right order, accuratley at an alledged 103mph in a short period of time (13.9 secs)....... anyway my point is the chap in the front passanger seat wrote the ticket, not the driver. He took me through the procedure of what HE had done.... at least that's the impression he gave.
If the driver operated the VASCAR, then shouldn't he issue the ticket? Not clutching at straws or anything....
The probationer in this car was an attractive blonde who wouldn't stop giggling - Nice to be able to entertain the BiB.....
IOLAIRE, I will give you more details off line.....
SC, what you have just sent me raises this whole thing to an entirely different level; in fact it's a disgrace.
I'll come back to you this afternoon with a response.
In the meantime don't say anything else on the forum.
Incidentally, there's only one way to stop a blonde giggling!!
SC5011 said:
Mungo, you said the driver operates the VASCAR. They've got to press 4 buttons in the right order, accuratley.....
Is quite wrong.
Its two buttons. One activating distance input, the other time input. In most cases they are operated seperately and takes less time than taking your hand off the wheel to change gear, The only time they are operated simultaneously is when a target being checked is coming in the opposite direction!
SC5011 said:
If the driver operated the VASCAR, then shouldn't he issue the ticket? Not clutching at straws or anything....
Why?
Should the driver not issue any tickets for anything just becuase he/she was driving at the time?
Operating VASCAR and driving is not rocket science or indeed difficult when the requisit input has been received and practiced. Also those that do so are trained and tested before they are allowed out to play
SC5011 said:
The probationer in this car was an attractive blonde who wouldn't stop giggling - Nice to be able to entertain the BiB.....
Did you enquire why she was giggling?
Is this mor assumption?
Are Bib not allowed to be happy in their work?
Service with a smile
IOLAIRE said:
..... in fact it's a disgrace.
Whats a disgrace?
The fact that someone in these circumstances is caught is a disgrace but for their own actions, not those of the people that catch them
IOLAIRE said:
I'll come back to you this afternoon with a response.
In the meantime don't say anything else on the forum.
What nothing? about anything?
Is this legal advice or an official caution?
Why not?
This forum is hardly a Spanish inquisition or even remotely a legal enquiry
! >> Edited by gone on Wednesday 27th April 15:14
gone said:
IOLAIRE said:
..... in fact it's a disgrace.
Whats a disgrace?
The fact that someone in these circumstances is caught is a disgrace but for their own actions, not those of the people that catch them
IOLAIRE said:
I'll come back to you this afternoon with a response.
In the meantime don't say anything else on the forum.
What nothing? about anything?
Is this legal advice or an official caution?
Why not?
>> Edited by gone on Wednesday 27th April 15:14
What was told to me in a private e-mail is a disgrace.
I think once you hear the details Gone, even you will agree.
If this goes to trial as it very well may do, I don't want any evidence being discussed in an open forum.
Yes, it's legal advice.
Kev
You said there were 4 Officers in the car? What sort of car was it? I'm presuming marked up? The words driver training are entering my mind.
As far as the VASCAR operation goes, in a double crewed car, usually the operator, i.e. the passenger will operate it, leaving the driver to drive. That said, it doesn't really matter evidentially who actually operates it.
Two points to note: firstly the operator of the VASCAR must be trained to use it. He or she will have an authoridation to use it which must be current. Secondly, the operator of the VASCAR must do a calibration check of the equipment either prior to or immediately after they measured your speed. This would be recorded in the Officers pocket books. If they have ommitted to do this, chances are CPS would offer no evidence.
If the job was done properly by the Officers you'd be on thin ice going not guilty and fighting. For a single offence of 103mph the most likely sentence would be a SPD - Short Period Disqualification. My guess would be 14 or 28 days.
Its a gamble, you could go not guilty, request full disclosure of the evidence. I'll help you look over it, or I'm sure a certain tall Officer will. It they've got it water tight, just plead guilty and hope.
You said there were 4 Officers in the car? What sort of car was it? I'm presuming marked up? The words driver training are entering my mind.
As far as the VASCAR operation goes, in a double crewed car, usually the operator, i.e. the passenger will operate it, leaving the driver to drive. That said, it doesn't really matter evidentially who actually operates it.
Two points to note: firstly the operator of the VASCAR must be trained to use it. He or she will have an authoridation to use it which must be current. Secondly, the operator of the VASCAR must do a calibration check of the equipment either prior to or immediately after they measured your speed. This would be recorded in the Officers pocket books. If they have ommitted to do this, chances are CPS would offer no evidence.
If the job was done properly by the Officers you'd be on thin ice going not guilty and fighting. For a single offence of 103mph the most likely sentence would be a SPD - Short Period Disqualification. My guess would be 14 or 28 days.
Its a gamble, you could go not guilty, request full disclosure of the evidence. I'll help you look over it, or I'm sure a certain tall Officer will. It they've got it water tight, just plead guilty and hope.
NO Kevin,
DON'T plead guilty and DON'T have a police officer look over the case for you, I don't care if he is a mate.
No disrespect, but all you lads are trained to prosecute, do you fully understand that.
You will look at the case from a totally different view from someone who is defending it and that could be damaging.
I am sick and tired of demonstrating the flaws in VASCAR only to hear yet another copper say there is no defence against it.
I hate repeating myself, but there are numerous defences against it; I use them and I win!!
DON'T plead guilty and DON'T have a police officer look over the case for you, I don't care if he is a mate.
No disrespect, but all you lads are trained to prosecute, do you fully understand that.
You will look at the case from a totally different view from someone who is defending it and that could be damaging.
I am sick and tired of demonstrating the flaws in VASCAR only to hear yet another copper say there is no defence against it.
I hate repeating myself, but there are numerous defences against it; I use them and I win!!
IOLAIRE said:
I am sick and tired of demonstrating the flaws in VASCAR only to hear yet another copper say there is no defence against it.
I hate repeating myself, but there are numerous defences against it; I use them and I win!!
Good!! Well done James, I hope you keep winning.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
IOLAIRE said:
No disrespect, but all you lads are trained to prosecute, do you fully understand that.
You will look at the case from a totally different view from someone who is defending it and that could be damaging.
We are trained to investigate, gather and present evidence. The CPS (or PF
) do the prosecuting... [smug_mode] ...while speaking with the duty CPS solicitor today, she told me she thought it was a shame I'm no longer on traffic, as my evidence files were usually spot on, first time, with no need for further clarification. She also added that I was a very good prosecution witness who always came across well, and most of all, honest. [/smug_mode]
Dibble said:
No disrespect, but all you lads are trained to prosecute, do you fully understand that.
You will look at the case from a totally different view from someone who is defending it and that could be damaging.
We are trained to investigate, gather and present evidence. The CPS (or PF
[smug_mode] ...while speaking with the duty CPS solicitor today, she told me she thought it was a shame I'm no longer on traffic, as my evidence files were usually spot on, first time, with no need for further clarification. She also added that I was a very good prosecution witness who always came across well, and most of all, honest. [/smug_mode]
I appreciate what you're saying Dibble, and you are quite right.
But strictly speaking, if a motorist is issued with an FP and accepts and pays it, the issuing officer has done the prosecution; I know that it is not seen as a prosecution by the powers that be, but the reality is that the punishment and record of the offence is exactly the same, so there is no material difference to the motorist on the receiving end.
I have no doubt Dibble about your integrity; unfortunately we are not talking about one of your cases.
I accept what you're saying about FPNs IOLAIRE, but when they're issued, they're only conditional offers at that stage.
People don't have to accept them - they can always request a Court hearing. I think there is a place for them though (even though I didn't give out that many myself).
People don't have to accept them - they can always request a Court hearing. I think there is a place for them though (even though I didn't give out that many myself).
Thanks IOLAIRE, I won't discuss any of the details on this forum. I spoke to a solicitor yesterday, and he said the officer had no right to even ask the question (which surprised me cos I thought it reasonable), never mind the rest (which I agree was right out of order).
He's advised that I have to wait until the papers come through, and then contact him. We can't really do anything until then - he suggested that in this area it's 3-4 months, so I'm putting it to the back of my mind and just getting on with my life until "that letter" arrives. I will of course update the forum in 3 - 4 months.
Why didn't I ask why Blondie was laughing? Because I didn't want to wind him/them up! If I was dealing with someone in a very distressing situation, I would consider it a completly sh1t thing to been seen laughing. But then I'm not traffic BIB so perhaps I don't understand. Sorry for that!
He's advised that I have to wait until the papers come through, and then contact him. We can't really do anything until then - he suggested that in this area it's 3-4 months, so I'm putting it to the back of my mind and just getting on with my life until "that letter" arrives. I will of course update the forum in 3 - 4 months.
Why didn't I ask why Blondie was laughing? Because I didn't want to wind him/them up! If I was dealing with someone in a very distressing situation, I would consider it a completly sh1t thing to been seen laughing. But then I'm not traffic BIB so perhaps I don't understand. Sorry for that!
If you your e-mail the Goodwood photo to adranny@aol.com i'll post it for you.
Do you know if the other photos are from the 1998 Birmingham motor show? I went to the Motor show that year and and saw the FW400 the had there, so it probably the same car.
Stunning car.
I hope the speeding charge turns out o.k. for you.
Kirk
Do you know if the other photos are from the 1998 Birmingham motor show? I went to the Motor show that year and and saw the FW400 the had there, so it probably the same car.
Stunning car.
I hope the speeding charge turns out o.k. for you.
Kirk
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff