help: "ideas" to avoid penalty points
Discussion
quote:
To start with im pissed off with people saying its bad to take all these cases to court and screw the system.
If you have genuine reason to take it to court do it ! Plod have no right to persecute anyone. However (and it's a big however), facetious excuses will not be treated with compassion !
quote:
ignore all nips in post and wait for summons to reg driver 6 months later. Dont even bother signing the appropriate forms in the summons but write a polite letter to mr or misses justice dogs body at plod house explaining never got a nip cause foot and mouth interupted the post which it did to some extent and swear blind u dont know who driving car as photos are blurred.
Then get found in contempt. Excellent.
quote:
note: you can take them for loss of earnings compensation if they loose!!!!
No you can't, this was published widely on the web. Unfortunately no one has succeeded in a loss of earnings case in England as a consequence of a magistrates case. The burden of proof is to high for the self-employed and employers are required to allow employees to attend court.
quote:
Note: using terms such as recipes, mixing bowl and cooking to confuse all the scum insiders who are blatently infiltrating this message board and trying to persuade people to take the rap.
Such as, for example, PistonTed. You have only contributed to discussions relating to speeding and plod...
nonegreen says he has had 5 NIPs and 2 succesful prosecutions. So next time he'll be dragged up in front of the bench regardless of any efforts to buck the system. Even if he ends up in front of my father (life long owner/driver/enjoyer of high performance vehicles including, until recently, a couple of bikes) this could result in a ban. The problem is that magistrates have prosecution guidelines which are pretty well set in stone. This is why, if you know you've done it and you've got no decent mitigation, you're better off coughing up rather than taking the pi$$.
The tricks suggested for registering the car abroad are illegal... Also how the hell do you explain it to the insurance company when you prang the car on the mainland. If the insurance company believe you are trying it on your details will be registered on the Insurance Fraud Database (automatically) and this can seriously impinge on your ability to get insurance...
To sum up SideshowBob's trying to get out of jail for free-and he knows it. If he has a decent case for buggering up the system he should go for it ! but if not the penalties are not worth it. It would be great if we could mess up the system but dreaming up scams isn't the way to do it-questioning every possible angle is.
quote:
I've got another one of these recipes thats in the mixing bowl as we speak. Note: using terms such as recipes, mixing bowl and cooking to confuse all the scum insiders who are blatently infiltrating this message board and trying to persuade people to take the rap. Why the feck should anyone take points lying down. fight for what you believe in. How is doing 100 -200 mph on a motorway in the RI|GHT conditions harming anybody apart maybe from the environment.
I think you're getting things a little out of proportion with all this talk of people 'infiltrating' the forums etc. I know who's registered and I don't see many signs of some dark force at work here.
What I do see is people who genuinely believe there is scope for more common sense with regard to speed limits having their case undermined by the 'contest everything' brigade. I wholeheartedly agree with the example regarding open, clear motorways but I have different feelings towards someone doing 46mph past me when I'm walking down the high steet.
Thank you. I'm glad someone else sees 46 on the high street as rather different from 100 on an empty, dry motorway. What we need is some way to get this across to the powers that be without being labelled as hooligans 
P'raps a campaign for an 85mph national speed limit might have a chance ? 
Then again probably not
P'raps a campaign for an 85mph national speed limit might have a chance ? Then again probably not quote:
jaydee wrote
It would be great if we could mess up the system but dreaming up scams isn't the way to do it-questioning every possible angle is.
brilliantly written!!! No scams, but use all the rights that you have. So ask for proof, and pursue any holes in that "proof"
Rgds, WalterU
quote:
To start with im pissed off with people saying its bad to take all these cases to court and screw the system.
quote:
If you have genuine reason to take it to court do it ! Plod have no right to persecute anyone. However (and it's a big however), facetious excuses will not be treated with compassion !quote:
I am sorry but there is no however whatsoever. The police are the tools of the justice system and as such they have absolutely no right to bend the law. When they do they get jumped on. (West midlands serious crime squad)?quote:
ignore all nips in post and wait for summons to reg driver 6 months later. Dont even bother signing the appropriate forms in the summons but write a polite letter to mr or misses justice dogs body at plod house explaining never got a nip cause foot and mouth interupted the post which it did to some extent and swear blind u dont know who driving car as photos are blurred.quote:
Then get found in contempt. Excellent.
On What basis do you assert that a failure in the post is an excuse? The issue has been addressed by responding to the court. You can only be found in contempt of the court if you fail to obey the directions of the court. You cannot be found in contempt of the police.
quote:
note: you can take them for loss of earnings compensation if they loose!!!!
No you can't, this was published widely on the web. Unfortunately no one has succeeded in a loss of earnings case in England as a consequence of a magistrates case. The burden of proof is to high for the self-employed and employers are required to allow employees to attend court.
Why is there a form for employers to claim for it then?
quote:
nonegreen says he has had 5 NIPs and 2 succesful prosecutions. So next time he'll be dragged up in front of the bench regardless of any efforts to buck the system. Even if he ends up in front of my father (life long owner/driver/enjoyer of high performance vehicles including, until recently, a couple of bikes) this could result in a ban. The problem is that magistrates have prosecution guidelines which are pretty well set in stone. This is why, if you know you've done it and you've got no decent mitigation, you're better off coughing up rather than taking the pi$$.
I have just been to court for the 1 successful prosecution. I did not get a ban, I got 3 points and £185 quid for pleading not guilty. I proved the police lied on their written statements but the magistrates obviously watch Coronation street. I will probably appeal against this and win. Fortunately you cannot be banned because the system failed to catch you several times before and the magistrate is aware of it and wants to get his own back, precisely because of the strict guidlines under which magistrates operate. Thats why breaking into an old womans home, tying her up and nicking her Christmas money results in a few hours community service and 150 on the M60 gets you banned or jailed. Therefore our beef is really with the government, not the courts.
I think you've misconstrued what I was trying to say nonegreen. I am very much for using the system to our advantage-it's the scams (see above) that will only serve to give us (the performance car community) a bad name
"I am sorry but there is no however whatsoever. The police are the tools of the justice system and as such they have absolutely no right to bend the law. When they do they get jumped on. (West midlands serious crime squad)?"
I'm not suggesting that the police will/do bend the law the problem is with facetious excuses (I wasn't driving it was someone from Italy/America/Mars, I was on the way to see my ailing second cousin twice removed, the dog had just been sick in the back of the car) hence the however...
"On What basis do you assert that a failure in the post is an excuse? The issue has been addressed by responding to the court. You can only be found in contempt of the court if you fail to obey the directions of the court. You cannot be found in contempt of the police."
Failure to return the forms from the magistrates constitutes a direct attempt to mislead the courts-the summons being issued by the magistrates not the police.
"Why is there a form for employers to claim for it then? "
To enable your employers (not you even if you are self-employed) to gain compensation for the time you spend in court-irrespective of whether you are found guilty or not.
"I have just been to court for the 1 successful prosecution."
Sorry I misread your post. Two prosecutions=mandatory court appearance. If your offence is judged "serious" (above 45 in a 30, above 90 in a 70) then the guidelines in place require a minimum of 6 points and may result in a ban...
"I proved the police lied on their written statements"
Err, so you used a legitimate reason to mitigate against the case brought against you-isn't this what I suggested
" Fortunately you cannot be banned because the system failed to catch you several times before and the magistrate is aware of it and wants to get his own back"
Precisely, what can happen is that cumulative succesful prosecutions result in increasing penalties-this is why (if you did it and there's no legitimate mitigation) keeping your head down and coughing up can be the best policy.
If I read you correctly you're for the use the system approach - as am I. What I have a problem with is the Bull$#it approach which brings us all into disrepute. What's needed is a careful consideration of the situation, pursuit of legitimate routes if you feel you can dispute the prosecution, but also an acceptance that occasionally you'll just get caught and you might as well accept it, because the b@$tards in power are intent on painting habitual speeders (who are us) as being in the same category as drink/drug drivers (who are despicable) and the press are happy to collude with this.
Rant over. Peace and love to all
"I am sorry but there is no however whatsoever. The police are the tools of the justice system and as such they have absolutely no right to bend the law. When they do they get jumped on. (West midlands serious crime squad)?"
I'm not suggesting that the police will/do bend the law the problem is with facetious excuses (I wasn't driving it was someone from Italy/America/Mars, I was on the way to see my ailing second cousin twice removed, the dog had just been sick in the back of the car) hence the however...
"On What basis do you assert that a failure in the post is an excuse? The issue has been addressed by responding to the court. You can only be found in contempt of the court if you fail to obey the directions of the court. You cannot be found in contempt of the police."
Failure to return the forms from the magistrates constitutes a direct attempt to mislead the courts-the summons being issued by the magistrates not the police.
"Why is there a form for employers to claim for it then? "
To enable your employers (not you even if you are self-employed) to gain compensation for the time you spend in court-irrespective of whether you are found guilty or not.
"I have just been to court for the 1 successful prosecution."
Sorry I misread your post. Two prosecutions=mandatory court appearance. If your offence is judged "serious" (above 45 in a 30, above 90 in a 70) then the guidelines in place require a minimum of 6 points and may result in a ban...
"I proved the police lied on their written statements"
Err, so you used a legitimate reason to mitigate against the case brought against you-isn't this what I suggested
" Fortunately you cannot be banned because the system failed to catch you several times before and the magistrate is aware of it and wants to get his own back"
Precisely, what can happen is that cumulative succesful prosecutions result in increasing penalties-this is why (if you did it and there's no legitimate mitigation) keeping your head down and coughing up can be the best policy.
If I read you correctly you're for the use the system approach - as am I. What I have a problem with is the Bull$#it approach which brings us all into disrepute. What's needed is a careful consideration of the situation, pursuit of legitimate routes if you feel you can dispute the prosecution, but also an acceptance that occasionally you'll just get caught and you might as well accept it, because the b@$tards in power are intent on painting habitual speeders (who are us) as being in the same category as drink/drug drivers (who are despicable) and the press are happy to collude with this.
Rant over. Peace and love to all
Fair enough Jaydee, I just thought the way you put some of the stuff was a bit odd.
Just to try and add a bit of clarity to where I am coming from though
"I proved the police lied on their written statements"
Err, so you used a legitimate reason to mitigate against the case brought against you-isn't this what I suggested
I was using a technicality. In reality I was doing 78 in a sixty. I am as guilty as hell just as I was in the other 4 failed prosecutions. I think this is really where you and I may differ slightly. I advocate doing whatever I can to get away with it, because I have no respect for the legislation. I do not advocate ripping through towns or villages and I have never been pulled for doing so. I do think that once on sparsely occupied roads and motorways, I have the presence of mind to make the judgement of what speed I drive at. When the green government decided to try to change my attitude they made an enemy of me. So, I will use all legitimate means to stop them. If that means going to court and pulling the prosecution to pieces then fair enough.
One final interesting comment is your reference to drink driving which is something I have never done.
It is my belief that the law has done nothing to deter the serial drink driver. I have theory that say 10% of the population are TT anyway and perhaps 3% are heavy drinkers and alcoholics. Prior to the breathyliser 97% of people went out to the pub had a couple of beers and drove home without incident. 3% went out got smashed and often crashed their cars on the way home. Bringing this into the year 2001 97% of people go out less, drink nothing at all and drive home. The 3% go out get smashed and drive home causing accidents. The only people who have had a culture change were the ones who didn't cause the problem in the first place.
Comparing this with speed I conclude that what is needed in both cases is an ability to stop idiots taking to the road. The sensible way to go is to make it much more difficult to get and keep a license.
Happy new year
Just to try and add a bit of clarity to where I am coming from though
"I proved the police lied on their written statements"
Err, so you used a legitimate reason to mitigate against the case brought against you-isn't this what I suggested
I was using a technicality. In reality I was doing 78 in a sixty. I am as guilty as hell just as I was in the other 4 failed prosecutions. I think this is really where you and I may differ slightly. I advocate doing whatever I can to get away with it, because I have no respect for the legislation. I do not advocate ripping through towns or villages and I have never been pulled for doing so. I do think that once on sparsely occupied roads and motorways, I have the presence of mind to make the judgement of what speed I drive at. When the green government decided to try to change my attitude they made an enemy of me. So, I will use all legitimate means to stop them. If that means going to court and pulling the prosecution to pieces then fair enough.
One final interesting comment is your reference to drink driving which is something I have never done.
It is my belief that the law has done nothing to deter the serial drink driver. I have theory that say 10% of the population are TT anyway and perhaps 3% are heavy drinkers and alcoholics. Prior to the breathyliser 97% of people went out to the pub had a couple of beers and drove home without incident. 3% went out got smashed and often crashed their cars on the way home. Bringing this into the year 2001 97% of people go out less, drink nothing at all and drive home. The 3% go out get smashed and drive home causing accidents. The only people who have had a culture change were the ones who didn't cause the problem in the first place.
Comparing this with speed I conclude that what is needed in both cases is an ability to stop idiots taking to the road. The sensible way to go is to make it much more difficult to get and keep a license.
Happy new year
Nonegreen you are f***ing cool!
do you have any wicked hints for when i goto court?
can you ask them any random questions to discredit them when one cop was following me at 100 and checking his speedo for 5 miles apparently but blatently not 100 yds from my bumper for 5 miles.
the police are full of f***ing shit and fill out witness statements months later that are blatently not true.
do you have any wicked hints for when i goto court?
can you ask them any random questions to discredit them when one cop was following me at 100 and checking his speedo for 5 miles apparently but blatently not 100 yds from my bumper for 5 miles.
the police are full of f***ing shit and fill out witness statements months later that are blatently not true.
quote:
Nonegreen you are f***ing cool!
do you have any wicked hints for when i goto court?
can you ask them any random questions to discredit them when one cop was following me at 100 and checking his speedo for 5 miles apparently but blatently not 100 yds from my bumper for 5 miles.
the police are full of f***ing shit and fill out witness statements months later that are blatently not true.
Well only you know the details of your case, so I can't relly discuss that but in general, when you go to court the following may help.
Dress appropriately, which in my view is conservatively. (James Bond not David Beckham) Speak clearly, don't be aggressive even if a f*ckwit asks you something. Focus very carefully on the point you are making or defending. Never go off at a tangent. Portray yourself as a reasonable man. A good trick if you are quick witted enough is to concede a minor point which is of little relavence. This helps to present you to the court as open minded, responsible and above all truthfull. If the magistrates see you as anti he / she will stop listening.
Good luck with it
hi all,
how can you say that you know everything about someone just 'cos you checked the profiles?!! anyone can be any profession, programmer, street sweeper, copper or doctor. Doesn't matter, because you can't tell on a computer. There are definately types who seem VERY biased towards "taking the rap" here. I think I have said enuff on this...
Is there any way of proving that a copper is having a bad day? for example, we're all human, and if you get pulled by Mr Plod who's going through a messy divorce, who is to say that he won't take it out on YOU ?! - I realise that this is not supposed to happen, but you can bet that it does.
What I'm saying is, how can you trust the police to be fair, honest, and unbiased? I *know* coppers target bikers. Surely this is against the law? likewise, they pull sports cars & Yank cars.
What chance have you got?
C
how can you say that you know everything about someone just 'cos you checked the profiles?!! anyone can be any profession, programmer, street sweeper, copper or doctor. Doesn't matter, because you can't tell on a computer. There are definately types who seem VERY biased towards "taking the rap" here. I think I have said enuff on this...
Is there any way of proving that a copper is having a bad day? for example, we're all human, and if you get pulled by Mr Plod who's going through a messy divorce, who is to say that he won't take it out on YOU ?! - I realise that this is not supposed to happen, but you can bet that it does.
What I'm saying is, how can you trust the police to be fair, honest, and unbiased? I *know* coppers target bikers. Surely this is against the law? likewise, they pull sports cars & Yank cars.
What chance have you got?
C
Good thoughts Carl, I suspect that like you I have been subject to a huge ammount of police attention at least in the past. When I was 17 I passed my test and built a 100hp Ford Corsair which was very sound but looked a bit of a bugger. In the following 3 years I had 172 producers, which is conformation of your thoughts on Bias. Unfortunately the police are always interacting with criminals and so therefore have the greatest difficulty coming to terms with most of us cos were not. Some kind of rehabilitation programme like workplacements might be a good idea.
I think the reason the take the rap brigade are here is because that is the view of the majority at the moment, as the anti car movement gets a grip their view will change.
I think the reason the take the rap brigade are here is because that is the view of the majority at the moment, as the anti car movement gets a grip their view will change.
Heh. True Nonegreen !
What really bugs me about laws, is that while they are *supposed* to protect the innocent from harm, a lot of them have the opposite effect. And some laws are just plain out of date, or even stupid.
If the law won't change to reflect the will of the people, then the will of the people is to break the law.
Some of this stuff is just so common sense, it makes you really wonder at the mentality, ie speed cameras on safe roads, but not where they would save lives. Utter madness.
So it's everyones DUTY to stand up for their rights. You get a ticket & pay it, that makes MY life harder 'cos they build another Gatso. Sort it out !!!
rgds, Carl
What really bugs me about laws, is that while they are *supposed* to protect the innocent from harm, a lot of them have the opposite effect. And some laws are just plain out of date, or even stupid.
If the law won't change to reflect the will of the people, then the will of the people is to break the law.
Some of this stuff is just so common sense, it makes you really wonder at the mentality, ie speed cameras on safe roads, but not where they would save lives. Utter madness.
So it's everyones DUTY to stand up for their rights. You get a ticket & pay it, that makes MY life harder 'cos they build another Gatso. Sort it out !!!
rgds, Carl
I have been pulled over and essentially accused of being a burglar - Reason : I had my College bag on the back window...the master criminal...
I then verbally tore into the Police Officer in question (Just returning from Law class, how handy) and advised him of a few things.. He and his mates sheepishly left and my mates screamed at me while I had a heart attack for getting away with what I had just done....
On the flip side I have been let off a few offences (no brake light, speeding, two nearly bald tyres) so there are plenty of plod who are on side..
Edited by Jason F on Wednesday 2nd January 14:26
I then verbally tore into the Police Officer in question (Just returning from Law class, how handy) and advised him of a few things.. He and his mates sheepishly left and my mates screamed at me while I had a heart attack for getting away with what I had just done....
On the flip side I have been let off a few offences (no brake light, speeding, two nearly bald tyres) so there are plenty of plod who are on side..
Edited by Jason F on Wednesday 2nd January 14:26
quote:
Getting a foreign friend to lie could and has worked. But if Plod suspect you are lying, arrest for Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, may follow, and if convicted a prison sentence will follow at Crown Court rather than the local Magistrates who will just burden your licence and lighten your wallet.
..and pray tell, how does Plod come to this conclusion?
If matey from out-of-England was actually over here at the time, there is NO PROOF that this mitigation is a lie.
Actually, it is very hard for them to prove anything if you say you don't know the name of the bloke who TEST DROVE your car.
As long as you have insurance that covers ANY driver, you ought to get away with it.
C
If matey from out-of-England was actually over here at the time, there is NO PROOF that this mitigation is a lie.
Actually, it is very hard for them to prove anything if you say you don't know the name of the bloke who TEST DROVE your car.
As long as you have insurance that covers ANY driver, you ought to get away with it.
C
quote:
Fair enough Jaydee, I just thought the way you put some of the stuff was a bit odd.
Did you note the date ??? P'raps to much
Point taken tho. I ought to have given it a little more thought Comparing this with speed I conclude that what is needed in both cases is an ability to stop idiots taking to the road. The sensible way to go is to make it much more difficult to get and keep a license.
Oh YES.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff