should i have hired a solicitor?
Discussion
DeMolay said:
I maintain that being stopped by two officers using VASCAR is the hardest charge to wriggle out of on Britain's roads.
I can vouch for that.
M5 Doing 80-85, coughed to 80-85, got done for 99.1.
Went to court with a clean licence, and came out with 6 points and an empty wallet.
I KNOW I wasn't doing "the Ton" because the roof on my Chimera whistled like a pig (no offence) at anything over 90, hence the 80-85 cruise speed.
Tucked up good and proper.
Best of luck in court.
blueyes said:
I can vouch for that.
M5 Doing 80-85, coughed to 80-85, got done for 99.1.
Went to court with a clean licence, and came out with 6 points and an empty wallet.
I KNOW I wasn't doing "the Ton" because the roof on my Chimera whistled like a pig (no offence) at anything over 90, hence the 80-85 cruise speed.
Tucked up good and proper.
Best of luck in court.
Absolutely sickening, isn't it. I had a similar thing happen with a police officer using a hand held device. My speed, 30(ish) mph. Speed on NIP, 51mph.
Legal advice was that the magistrates will always believe the police officer.
I've not been able to spend much time on PH recently but I have decided that I really should utilise my time on topics that are important and affect all of us directly or otherwise.
I think now it's clear from the responses to this post that the two most significant problems are the understanding of VASCAR principles, and the clear chasm that exists between the principles of law and how it is actually being applied in the lesser courts, particularly in England.
The single largest problem with VASCAR is simply that it is manually operated; in other words an input and output is required by the pressing of buttons by an operator; the fact that he is a Police Officer who is highly trained is of no consequence whatever to the mechanical and electrical function of the device; it cannot differentiate between operators, it just responds to inputs.
The fact that it is highly accurate and calibrated in it's internal operation is of no consequence when the integrity of the operation is finally determined by a seriously flawed operator, a human being.
It is of no consequence that the officer MIGHT be completely honest, MIGHT be operating the device properly, MIGHT have full site of the vehicle, MIGHT NOT be biased, prejudiced, have a personal bent on "speeders", MIGHT be performing this same operation for the umpteenth time near the end of a 12 hour shift and has become just slightly jaded and cavalier about the whole operational business, (and who could blame him!).
What is of total significance is that without the VASCAR readings simultaneously appearing on a video that can be examined and either agreed or disputed by both sides in a trial, all of the above have distinct and powerful possibilities; that places them firmly inside the realm of reasonable doubt.
In this type of case there are basically two forms of evidence: verbal testimony, I saw Mr. X doing such and such; and material evidence, objects, verified documents, forensic productions, video tapes, etc.
In other words, things that you can see and touch and read that contribute towards proving the case.
Let's look at the agreed or asserted evidence in Shoodie's case so far.
The officer was on his own, he has no visual corroboration from any other witness.
He claims he was operating VASCAR and detected Shoodie at a certain speed; not only does he have no written, printed, or video evidence of either the event or the calculations, by his own admission, his vehicle was not even fitted with a video camera.
Due to the fact that he was positioned at, or very close to the first datum point for the calculation, he could not have clear sight of the second one, it is simply a physical impossibility to be in two places at once; visual perspective is therefore a fact because it is an accepted reality, it is NOT open to argument.
When certain facts are agreed they are then read and accepted as evidence and, as the trial unfolds, it is up to the court to decide what they will accept as evidence dependant on the quality of the same.
Let's imagine the case goes all the way to trial and the Officer has given his evidence led by the CP and it amounts to what we know so far.
It then goes something like this on cross examination:-
Shoodie; "So officer, you've explained how you measured my vehicle's speed using the equipment in your vehicle; can you show the Court the video evidence of this?"
Officer has to say no, will probably add that there is no camera in the car.
S; "So do you actually possess any material evidence as regards the speed of my vehicle to show to the court?"
The officer HAS to say no.
S; "So you cannot actually prove TO THE COURT that my vehicle was doing any speed really?"
Now at this point the officer can try and argue and bluster, but there is absolutely only one answer to this question, no!
S; "Are you aware of the simple principles of perspective?". (If he is not or starts to argue about this use photographs in the way I suggested about the length of a limo as an example).
S; "Would it be possible for you to clearly observe both datum points from where you were standing?"
Again he might attempt to put up an argument but you have to stick to your guns and get him to answer yes or no; there is of course only one answer, no.
S; "If you pressed the input buttons on the VASCAR either early or late would it significantly affect the reading on the VDU?"
He will almost certainly argue about this stating how experienced he is and how well trained, but you simply ask him to answer the question yes or no, and remind him that you are not questioning his personal integrity, you are simply asking a technical question.
He HAS to say yes, because it is a fact.
S; "Would you therefore agree that a restricted view of either of the datum points would result in an incorrect input?".
Now you will definitely get a fight here as well, but again, at the end of the day he has to admit that it would, simply because it is a fact.
S; "So would I be correct in saying that what you are telling the court is that you carried out the calculations using VASCAR, with a restricted view of one of the datum points and you have absolutely no evidence to support what you say, is that correct Officer?"
There's only one answer yet again, yes.
Do you notice Shoodie that what you have to do is get the witness to agree with you when questioning them.
If you want a yes answer, frame the question in such a way that it is the only possible answer and is in agreement to your point in the question; this makes it much more powerful because the witness appears to assent to your questions.
Now I want any BiB or the Lord Chancellor or all you hot shot lawyers or Lord Denning or the bloody Queen to tell me what is wrong with that defence and how on earth the Crown would prove this case beyond all reasonable doubt?
Now that brings us to the crucial point of why any of us would go to all this trouble.
Twenty years ago I used to get friends and colleagues telling me I was exaggerating when I maintained that the law was being used as a tool against the motorist and if we didn't resist it, it would escalate to the point where it was uncontrollable; very few would listen.
The introduction of the Fixed Penalty system was the first of many nails in the coffin; instant prosecution.
Give the power to a traffic cop to be arresting officer, prosecutor, judge and jury all in one go; instant income, no court costs; what an earner, I thought it simply could get no worse; then I saw the first speed camera and I instinctively knew that we had reached new heights in injustice and immorality.
Now we can lose our licence in one trip to work, it really is that simple.
Let's assume that this case related to me instead of Shoodie.
I have vast driving experience and ability, a crystal clear insurance record for over thirty five years, a clean driving licence for as long as I can remember, but some of you on here, including those with obvious knowledge of the Law, would have me turn up in this court, plead guilty and lose my licence, my job and therefore my income with the knock on devastating effect that this has; all on the totally unsupported statement of one policeman.
You seriously have to open your minds to what is happening here, it is NOT acceptable by any standards.
Do you think that this kind of prosecution actually achieves anything? Do you think it would make either myself or Shoodie a better driver, teach us a "lesson"?
Whilst I have absolutely no doubt that there are many magistrate courts that will blindly prosecute on this kind of evidence, it simply highlights how seriously degraded the prosecution system has become, and is all the more reason why all of us should be in there fighting it, reminding the judges that the law is there to protect us and maintain justice and morality; any other implementation of it is a misuse and has to stop.
I think now it's clear from the responses to this post that the two most significant problems are the understanding of VASCAR principles, and the clear chasm that exists between the principles of law and how it is actually being applied in the lesser courts, particularly in England.
The single largest problem with VASCAR is simply that it is manually operated; in other words an input and output is required by the pressing of buttons by an operator; the fact that he is a Police Officer who is highly trained is of no consequence whatever to the mechanical and electrical function of the device; it cannot differentiate between operators, it just responds to inputs.
The fact that it is highly accurate and calibrated in it's internal operation is of no consequence when the integrity of the operation is finally determined by a seriously flawed operator, a human being.
It is of no consequence that the officer MIGHT be completely honest, MIGHT be operating the device properly, MIGHT have full site of the vehicle, MIGHT NOT be biased, prejudiced, have a personal bent on "speeders", MIGHT be performing this same operation for the umpteenth time near the end of a 12 hour shift and has become just slightly jaded and cavalier about the whole operational business, (and who could blame him!).
What is of total significance is that without the VASCAR readings simultaneously appearing on a video that can be examined and either agreed or disputed by both sides in a trial, all of the above have distinct and powerful possibilities; that places them firmly inside the realm of reasonable doubt.
In this type of case there are basically two forms of evidence: verbal testimony, I saw Mr. X doing such and such; and material evidence, objects, verified documents, forensic productions, video tapes, etc.
In other words, things that you can see and touch and read that contribute towards proving the case.
Let's look at the agreed or asserted evidence in Shoodie's case so far.
The officer was on his own, he has no visual corroboration from any other witness.
He claims he was operating VASCAR and detected Shoodie at a certain speed; not only does he have no written, printed, or video evidence of either the event or the calculations, by his own admission, his vehicle was not even fitted with a video camera.
Due to the fact that he was positioned at, or very close to the first datum point for the calculation, he could not have clear sight of the second one, it is simply a physical impossibility to be in two places at once; visual perspective is therefore a fact because it is an accepted reality, it is NOT open to argument.
When certain facts are agreed they are then read and accepted as evidence and, as the trial unfolds, it is up to the court to decide what they will accept as evidence dependant on the quality of the same.
Let's imagine the case goes all the way to trial and the Officer has given his evidence led by the CP and it amounts to what we know so far.
It then goes something like this on cross examination:-
Shoodie; "So officer, you've explained how you measured my vehicle's speed using the equipment in your vehicle; can you show the Court the video evidence of this?"
Officer has to say no, will probably add that there is no camera in the car.
S; "So do you actually possess any material evidence as regards the speed of my vehicle to show to the court?"
The officer HAS to say no.
S; "So you cannot actually prove TO THE COURT that my vehicle was doing any speed really?"
Now at this point the officer can try and argue and bluster, but there is absolutely only one answer to this question, no!
S; "Are you aware of the simple principles of perspective?". (If he is not or starts to argue about this use photographs in the way I suggested about the length of a limo as an example).
S; "Would it be possible for you to clearly observe both datum points from where you were standing?"
Again he might attempt to put up an argument but you have to stick to your guns and get him to answer yes or no; there is of course only one answer, no.
S; "If you pressed the input buttons on the VASCAR either early or late would it significantly affect the reading on the VDU?"
He will almost certainly argue about this stating how experienced he is and how well trained, but you simply ask him to answer the question yes or no, and remind him that you are not questioning his personal integrity, you are simply asking a technical question.
He HAS to say yes, because it is a fact.
S; "Would you therefore agree that a restricted view of either of the datum points would result in an incorrect input?".
Now you will definitely get a fight here as well, but again, at the end of the day he has to admit that it would, simply because it is a fact.
S; "So would I be correct in saying that what you are telling the court is that you carried out the calculations using VASCAR, with a restricted view of one of the datum points and you have absolutely no evidence to support what you say, is that correct Officer?"
There's only one answer yet again, yes.
Do you notice Shoodie that what you have to do is get the witness to agree with you when questioning them.
If you want a yes answer, frame the question in such a way that it is the only possible answer and is in agreement to your point in the question; this makes it much more powerful because the witness appears to assent to your questions.
Now I want any BiB or the Lord Chancellor or all you hot shot lawyers or Lord Denning or the bloody Queen to tell me what is wrong with that defence and how on earth the Crown would prove this case beyond all reasonable doubt?
Now that brings us to the crucial point of why any of us would go to all this trouble.
Twenty years ago I used to get friends and colleagues telling me I was exaggerating when I maintained that the law was being used as a tool against the motorist and if we didn't resist it, it would escalate to the point where it was uncontrollable; very few would listen.
The introduction of the Fixed Penalty system was the first of many nails in the coffin; instant prosecution.
Give the power to a traffic cop to be arresting officer, prosecutor, judge and jury all in one go; instant income, no court costs; what an earner, I thought it simply could get no worse; then I saw the first speed camera and I instinctively knew that we had reached new heights in injustice and immorality.
Now we can lose our licence in one trip to work, it really is that simple.
Let's assume that this case related to me instead of Shoodie.
I have vast driving experience and ability, a crystal clear insurance record for over thirty five years, a clean driving licence for as long as I can remember, but some of you on here, including those with obvious knowledge of the Law, would have me turn up in this court, plead guilty and lose my licence, my job and therefore my income with the knock on devastating effect that this has; all on the totally unsupported statement of one policeman.
You seriously have to open your minds to what is happening here, it is NOT acceptable by any standards.
Do you think that this kind of prosecution actually achieves anything? Do you think it would make either myself or Shoodie a better driver, teach us a "lesson"?
Whilst I have absolutely no doubt that there are many magistrate courts that will blindly prosecute on this kind of evidence, it simply highlights how seriously degraded the prosecution system has become, and is all the more reason why all of us should be in there fighting it, reminding the judges that the law is there to protect us and maintain justice and morality; any other implementation of it is a misuse and has to stop.
IOLAIRE said:
The single largest problem with VASCAR is simply that it is manually operated; in other words an input and output is required by the pressing of buttons by an operator; the fact that he is a Police Officer who is highly trained is of no consequence whatever to the mechanical and electrical function of the device;
You've GOT to be having a laugh here. You're being way too simplistic. Whilst a chimpanzee could in theory press the buttons on VASCAR and get some sort of a reading, that unfortunately isn't the case with Shoodie. He was nabbed by an officer who is (I would imagine) highly trained. Now obviously if he was operating the VASCAR with his eyes shut then there would be an issue, but that isn't the case here. Prior opinion, backed up with the VASCAR reading will be the policeman's line of attack. His word basically, since there is no evidence of the recorded speed. There doesn't need to be anyway because VASCAR does not require type approval, and is not subject to the same constraints as other speed enforcement devices.
IOLAIRE said:
The fact that it is highly accurate and calibrated in it's internal operation is of no consequence when the integrity of the operation is finally determined by a seriously flawed operator, a human being.
As above, way too simplistic. How on earth do you know the operator is seriously flawed? You don't. Your reasoning is suspect beyond belief. Do you seriously expect a magistrate will share this view? I don't.
IOLAIRE said:
What is of total significance is that without the VASCAR readings simultaneously appearing on a video that can be examined and either agreed or disputed by both sides in a trial, all of the above have distinct and powerful possibilities; that places them firmly inside the realm of reasonable doubt.
I know where you are coming from, but the court will probably believe the policeman who will state that the device was operated correctly and displayed the speed which Shoodie is being charged with. And as above with regards to the type approval. No record is required as it ain't type approved.
IOLAIRE said:
The officer was on his own, he has no visual corroboration from any other witness.
He claims he was operating VASCAR and detected Shoodie at a certain speed; not only does he have no written, printed, or video evidence of either the event or the calculations, by his own admission, his vehicle was not even fitted with a video camera.
As above. Irrelevant. No record is required. The VASCAR IS the corroboration. I'm not sure you have grasped this.
IOLAIRE said:
Due to the fact that he was positioned at, or very close to the first datum point for the calculation, he could not have clear sight of the second one, it is simply a physical impossibility to be in two places at once; visual perspective is therefore a fact because it is an accepted reality, it is NOT open to argument.
Hogwash. How do you know he couldn't see it? Unless Shoodie can demonstrate that the officer couldn't see the two pre-fed distance markers then that particular avenue is a dead-duck. The officer will say that he could see them, and the court will believe him.
IOLAIRE said:
Shoodie; "So officer, you've explained how you measured my vehicle's speed using the equipment in your vehicle; can you show the Court the video evidence of this?"
Officer has to say no, will probably add that there is no camera in the car.
S; "So do you actually possess any material evidence as regards the speed of my vehicle to show to the court?"
The officer HAS to say no.
Plod doesn't need any material evidence. He has his word, and that will be enough for the court, unless Shoodie can demonstrate that he is an unreliable witness. How he would do this is unknown.
IOLAIRE said:
S; "So you cannot actually prove TO THE COURT that my vehicle was doing any speed really?"
Now at this point the officer can try and argue and bluster, but there is absolutely only one answer to this question, no!
Utter, utter, utter, utter cr@p. As above. The proof is his word. It's so simple.
IOLAIRE said:
S; "Are you aware of the simple principles of perspective?".
Good grief. Now this really is a wind-up. Go down this road and you will look like a fool unless you have evidence to back up any questions. Venturing into the realms of this kind of questioning can backfire dramatically. I can't believe you are even suggesting it.
IOLAIRE said:
S; "Would it be possible for you to clearly observe both datum points from where you were standing?"
Again he might attempt to put up an argument but you have to stick to your guns and get him to answer yes or no; there is of course only one answer, no.
And if he answers 'yes', then what? You're shafted. As I stated above, Shoodie MUST have evidence that the officer couldn't see the two markers, or any questions are pointless if the officer takes an opposing view.
IOLAIRE said:
S; "If you pressed the input buttons on the VASCAR either early or late would it significantly affect the reading on the VDU?"
He will almost certainly argue about this stating how experienced he is and how well trained, but you simply ask him to answer the question yes or no, and remind him that you are not questioning his personal integrity, you are simply asking a technical question.
He HAS to say yes, because it is a fact.
S; "Would you therefore agree that a restricted view of either of the datum points would result in an incorrect input?".
Now you will definitely get a fight here as well, but again, at the end of the day he has to admit that it would, simply because it is a fact.
S; "So would I be correct in saying that what you are telling the court is that you carried out the calculations using VASCAR, with a restricted view of one of the datum points and you have absolutely no evidence to support what you say, is that correct Officer?"
There's only one answer yet again, yes.
Do you notice Shoodie that what you have to do is get the witness to agree with you when questioning them.
If you want a yes answer, frame the question in such a way that it is the only possible answer and is in agreement to your point in the question; this makes it much more powerful because the witness appears to assent to your questions.
Now I want any BiB or the Lord Chancellor or all you hot shot lawyers or Lord Denning or the bloody Queen to tell me what is wrong with that defence and how on earth the Crown would prove this case beyond all reasonable doubt?
This all hinges on the officer saying (or you demonstrating) that he couldn't see the two markers. He will say he could see them, so you had better get some pretty good evidence or you will be shafted.
IOLAIRE said:
Now that brings us to the crucial point of why any of us would go to all this trouble.
Twenty years ago I used to get friends and colleagues telling me I was exaggerating when I maintained that the law was being used as a tool against the motorist and if we didn't resist it, it would escalate to the point where it was uncontrollable; very few would listen.
The introduction of the Fixed Penalty system was the first of many nails in the coffin; instant prosecution.
Give the power to a traffic cop to be arresting officer, prosecutor, judge and jury all in one go; instant income, no court costs; what an earner, I thought it simply could get no worse; then I saw the first speed camera and I instinctively knew that we had reached new heights in injustice and immorality.
Now we can lose our licence in one trip to work, it really is that simple.
Let's assume that this case related to me instead of Shoodie.
I have vast driving experience and ability, a crystal clear insurance record for over thirty five years, a clean driving licence for as long as I can remember, but some of you on here, including those with obvious knowledge of the Law, would have me turn up in this court, plead guilty and lose my licence, my job and therefore my income with the knock on devastating effect that this has; all on the totally unsupported statement of one policeman.
You seriously have to open your minds to what is happening here, it is NOT acceptable by any standards.
Do you think that this kind of prosecution actually achieves anything? Do you think it would make either myself or Shoodie a better driver, teach us a "lesson"?
Whilst I have absolutely no doubt that there are many magistrate courts that will blindly prosecute on this kind of evidence, it simply highlights how seriously degraded the prosecution system has become, and is all the more reason why all of us should be in there fighting it, reminding the judges that the law is there to protect us and maintain justice and morality; any other implementation of it is a misuse and has to stop.
Aaaahhhh!! I see. You want Shoodie to plead not guilty and argue the toss because you think the system is unfair. I agree the system is unfair, but unless Shoodie shows that the policeman is unreliable, or gets evidence to disprove him, then this whole line of defence is a write-off. Shoodie, be very, very wary of this kind of advice.
DeMolay said:
The fact that it is highly accurate and calibrated in it's internal operation is of no consequence when the integrity of the operation is finally determined by a seriously flawed operator, a human being.
As above, way too simplistic. How on earth do you know the operator is seriously flawed? You don't. Your reasoning is suspect beyond belief. Do you seriously expect a magistrate will share this view? I don't.
The operator is seriously flawed simply by reason of being human. If this was a scientific experiment to measure the speed of the car using a VASCAR type device there would be considerable precautions taken to ensure an accurate result, all of which would involve taking many readings, not just one, and still would not be able to come up with anything more definite than "There was an x% probability that the car was doing between y and z mph". A single measurement taken by a human, however highly trained, trying to press a button in time with a car passing two points, one of which he does not have an appropriate view of, is essentially worthless.
DeMolay said:
Due to the fact that he was positioned at, or very close to the first datum point for the calculation, he could not have clear sight of the second one, it is simply a physical impossibility to be in two places at once; visual perspective is therefore a fact because it is an accepted reality, it is NOT open to argument.
Hogwash. How do you know he couldn't see it? Unless Shoodie can demonstrate that the officer couldn't see the two pre-fed distance markers then that particular avenue is a dead-duck. The officer will say that he could see them, and the court will believe him.
Parallax error. He is very close to the first point, so he is viewing the car passing the second point from a direction almost parallel to the car's motion. The further the line of sight deviates from perpendicular to the car's motion at the second point, the less accurate the perception of when the car passes the point will be; when you get to being almost parallel, it's pretty much worthless. Unless the second point is something like a bridge shadow, which can be seen to fall across the car as it passes, there is simply no way he can make a useful observation of precisely when it passes.
Seems we have lost the message from Shoodies first post that he WAS SPEEDING and reported for this and wants a let out having broken the law because of an impending ban. Note no mention of wrongly detected or a fit up.
IOLAIRE tries to give this let out by what any BiB will tell you that when the defence have nothing to work on then attack the integrity of the Police.
Prosecution have to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt which is why IOLIARE's suggestion may well work, but like BiB Mags have heard it all before.
DVD
IOLAIRE tries to give this let out by what any BiB will tell you that when the defence have nothing to work on then attack the integrity of the Police.
Prosecution have to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt which is why IOLIARE's suggestion may well work, but like BiB Mags have heard it all before.
DVD
Pigeon said:
IOLAIRE said:
The fact that it is highly accurate and calibrated in it's internal operation is of no consequence when the integrity of the operation is finally determined by a seriously flawed operator, a human being.
As above, way too simplistic. How on earth do you know the operator is seriously flawed? You don't. Your reasoning is suspect beyond belief. Do you seriously expect a magistrate will share this view? I don't.
The operator is seriously flawed simply by reason of being human. If this was a scientific experiment to measure the speed of the car using a VASCAR type device there would be considerable precautions taken to ensure an accurate result, all of which would involve taking many readings, not just one, and still would not be able to come up with anything more definite than "There was an x% probability that the car was doing between y and z mph". A single measurement taken by a human, however highly trained, trying to press a button in time with a car passing two points, one of which he does not have an appropriate view of, is essentially worthless.
I'm actually having trouble taking this in. Incredible. So Shoodie should go to court and say that VASCAR should not be used at all as it is unreliable because the operator is, and I will quote you and IOLAIRE, "seriously flawed"? Fantastic defence strategy. It is a WORTHLESS defence to go in and say this. Years of police operation of this device is unreliable, and any conviction based upon it should be looked at again? What exactly do you suggest then? Should VASCAR be thrown on the scrap-heap?
Pigeon said:
IOLAIRE said:
Due to the fact that he was positioned at, or very close to the first datum point for the calculation, he could not have clear sight of the second one, it is simply a physical impossibility to be in two places at once; visual perspective is therefore a fact because it is an accepted reality, it is NOT open to argument.
Hogwash. How do you know he couldn't see it? Unless Shoodie can demonstrate that the officer couldn't see the two pre-fed distance markers then that particular avenue is a dead-duck. The officer will say that he could see them, and the court will believe him.
Parallax error. He is very close to the first point, so he is viewing the car passing the second point from a direction almost parallel to the car's motion. The further the line of sight deviates from perpendicular to the car's motion at the second point, the less accurate the perception of when the car passes the point will be; when you get to being almost parallel, it's pretty much worthless. Unless the second point is something like a bridge shadow, which can be seen to fall across the car as it passes, there is simply no way he can make a useful observation of precisely when it passes.
You went to the same school of thought as IOLAIRE; and you are as naive as him too. Standing up in court and banging on about parallax etc. will be treated with the contempt it deserves unless you have some sh!t-hot evidence to back up what you are saying.
Is it usual to have video in VASCAR equipped vehicles?
If so, why?
If the answer is to back up the fact that the operator used the equipment correctly then whoever decided to equip VASCAR vehicles with video must have accepted that there's room for doubt.
Whether this thinking translates to the bench accepting it is another matter though.
Phil.
If so, why?
If the answer is to back up the fact that the operator used the equipment correctly then whoever decided to equip VASCAR vehicles with video must have accepted that there's room for doubt.
Whether this thinking translates to the bench accepting it is another matter though.
Phil.
philly said:
Is it usual to have video in VASCAR equipped vehicles?
If so, why?
If the answer is to back up the fact that the operator used the equipment correctly then whoever decided to equip VASCAR vehicles with video must have accepted that there's room for doubt.
Whether this thinking translates to the bench accepting it is another matter though.
Phil.
In todays..."prove it prove it prove it" world....it's necessary. Just backs up the prosecution evidence. Simple.
Then again...police motorcycles rarely have video cameras, yet use vascar/police pilot.
Appeal after death sentence. No mate just take the biiter ban and be on with you're life 
OK, this is in answer to De Molay.
I have just checked your profile and like lots of individuals on here you are anonymous, unlike myself.
On my profile you know exactly who you are dealing with and the motifs behind where I am coming from.
I will ask you once again DeMolay, who the Hell are you?
Because I can give advice on this forum drawn from over thirty years experience that has WORKED, do you fully understand that?
I will now once again state the law: the onus of proof is on the Crown, NOT the accused. That is hewn in stone!
If you are inferring that this principle is ignored on a regular basis by the lower courts, in other words magistrates, I would agree; that does not make it correct, I have stated this on several occasions in this post alone.
If you are a practicing solicitor in today's courts you are, by virtue of your profession, pressurised into responding to the norm whilst working in the courts.
I can fully understand this but cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, condone it.
You seem to be totally immune to the real philosophical principles here, because you are actually advising Shoodie to go with the flow even if it means being prosecuted when there is utterly clear serious doubt with regard to the Crown evidence.
At no time have I implied or even hinted that every VASCAR calculation was flawed or that it should be scrapped, why do you attempt to imply that I have?
If the vehicle on the day would have been equipped with a video camera, then the corroborative evidence would have existed, end of story; but it wasn't.
When every specific fact is taken into account IN THIS CASE, not ALL cases, there exists a first class defence.
Your remark earlier in the post about my lack of understanding your handle is deeply insulting, and for me casts the deepest suspicion on your motifs behind the advice you are giving.
For the sake of the forum, and so that you are left in no doubt about my TOTAL understanding of your handle, the following is a brief resume.
The real Jacques De Molay was the final Grand Master of the ancient order of the Knights Templar.
He was betrayed, tortured and eventually put to death in a so called "Holy Inquisition" by King Philip the Fourth of France, known as Philip the Fair, and Pope Clement the Fifth.
This act of genocide was perpetrated on Friday the 13th of October, 1307 and resulted in the slaughter of well over ten thousand Templars.
His order represented valour, honour and justice in an era where the world was virtually devoid of such attributes.
The last of the Templars managed to escape to Scotland and procure sanctuary from Robert the Bruce.
They are buried in Rosslyn Chapel in Midlothian.
Your choice of name De Molay carries with it the most swaggering arrogance if you are truly aware of it's significance; perhaps you would care to enlighten the forum as to your choice of name and if you indeed liken yourself to the original, your justification of the insulting remarks made against me as a substitution of authentic legal argument, and why you seek to have Shoodie prosecuted by default.
I have just checked your profile and like lots of individuals on here you are anonymous, unlike myself.
On my profile you know exactly who you are dealing with and the motifs behind where I am coming from.
I will ask you once again DeMolay, who the Hell are you?
Because I can give advice on this forum drawn from over thirty years experience that has WORKED, do you fully understand that?
I will now once again state the law: the onus of proof is on the Crown, NOT the accused. That is hewn in stone!
If you are inferring that this principle is ignored on a regular basis by the lower courts, in other words magistrates, I would agree; that does not make it correct, I have stated this on several occasions in this post alone.
If you are a practicing solicitor in today's courts you are, by virtue of your profession, pressurised into responding to the norm whilst working in the courts.
I can fully understand this but cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, condone it.
You seem to be totally immune to the real philosophical principles here, because you are actually advising Shoodie to go with the flow even if it means being prosecuted when there is utterly clear serious doubt with regard to the Crown evidence.
At no time have I implied or even hinted that every VASCAR calculation was flawed or that it should be scrapped, why do you attempt to imply that I have?
If the vehicle on the day would have been equipped with a video camera, then the corroborative evidence would have existed, end of story; but it wasn't.
When every specific fact is taken into account IN THIS CASE, not ALL cases, there exists a first class defence.
Your remark earlier in the post about my lack of understanding your handle is deeply insulting, and for me casts the deepest suspicion on your motifs behind the advice you are giving.
For the sake of the forum, and so that you are left in no doubt about my TOTAL understanding of your handle, the following is a brief resume.
The real Jacques De Molay was the final Grand Master of the ancient order of the Knights Templar.
He was betrayed, tortured and eventually put to death in a so called "Holy Inquisition" by King Philip the Fourth of France, known as Philip the Fair, and Pope Clement the Fifth.
This act of genocide was perpetrated on Friday the 13th of October, 1307 and resulted in the slaughter of well over ten thousand Templars.
His order represented valour, honour and justice in an era where the world was virtually devoid of such attributes.
The last of the Templars managed to escape to Scotland and procure sanctuary from Robert the Bruce.
They are buried in Rosslyn Chapel in Midlothian.
Your choice of name De Molay carries with it the most swaggering arrogance if you are truly aware of it's significance; perhaps you would care to enlighten the forum as to your choice of name and if you indeed liken yourself to the original, your justification of the insulting remarks made against me as a substitution of authentic legal argument, and why you seek to have Shoodie prosecuted by default.
I'm certainly not going to divulge who I am; for the simple reason that I choose to stay anonymous.
We'll agree to differ on courtroom policies, but I do believe Shoodie is doomed if he follows your line of defence. As DVD has stated, when short on legitimate defence strategies, the defendant usually attacks the police with some nonsense or other. I was in court last week when this happened, and the defendant was convicted, even though he had a good defence.
As for my name; well I happen to like it. I don't preach to adopt (nor would wish to) the moral policies of the man in question. He's a historical character with an intriguing past. Thank you for the history lesson by the way, but you wasted your time as I know a good deal about the subject matter already. Oh, and by the way - there is no evidence whatsoever that the Templars came to Scotland in the 14th century. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. Unless you can offer evidence that I am not aware of?
We'll agree to differ on courtroom policies, but I do believe Shoodie is doomed if he follows your line of defence. As DVD has stated, when short on legitimate defence strategies, the defendant usually attacks the police with some nonsense or other. I was in court last week when this happened, and the defendant was convicted, even though he had a good defence.
As for my name; well I happen to like it. I don't preach to adopt (nor would wish to) the moral policies of the man in question. He's a historical character with an intriguing past. Thank you for the history lesson by the way, but you wasted your time as I know a good deal about the subject matter already. Oh, and by the way - there is no evidence whatsoever that the Templars came to Scotland in the 14th century. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. Unless you can offer evidence that I am not aware of?
DeMolay said:
I'm certainly not going to divulge who I am; for the simple reason that I choose to stay anonymous.
We'll agree to differ on courtroom policies, but I do believe Shoodie is doomed if he follows your line of defence. As DVD has stated, when short on legitimate defence strategies, the defendant usually attacks the police with some nonsense or other. I was in court last week when this happened, and the defendant was convicted, even though he had a good defence.
As for my name; well I happen to like it. I don't preach to adopt (nor would wish to) the moral policies of the man in question. He's a historical character with an intriguing past. Thank you for the history lesson by the way, but you wasted your time as I know a good deal about the subject matter already. Oh, and by the way - there is no evidence whatsoever that the Templars came to Scotland in the 14th century. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. Unless you can offer evidence that I am not aware of?
Well DeMolay this response is certainly a vast improvement on your others, but I fear both yourself and DVD are still getting the wrong end of the stick.
I have given Shoodie advice because he came on the forum asking for it, and the advice he has been given is not mandatory; it is his decision whether or not he takes it up.
It is however based on very similar cases that have been successful, albeit at High Court level.
At no time in this defence did I suggest he attack the police; you have to understand the subtleties here.
All you are saying is that the officer cannot back up his statement with material evidence, therefore any conviction would be unsafe.
It is the abscence of evidence that is the problem, not the officer lying or being mistaken.
When the question arises about the sighting of the second datum point, it is not a matter of saying to him that he couldn't see it so therefore he must be mistaken or lying; what you are saying is without video testimony, he cannot PROVE the accuracy of what he did when you have raised the question of perspective as a serious doubt.
This is my whole point about the onus of proof; once the question is raised it is the Crown who has to prove the accuracy; the accused does not have to disprove it.
I fully take on board what you say about good defences being unsuccessful in court; but I have found in almost every occasion that the Appeal Court will take an entirely different view.
Incidentally, I had assumed that you were well aware of who Jacques De Molay was , so the "history lesson" was for the rest of the forum as a point of interest.
We do share a common interest there, I have studied the ancient masonic principles for over thirty years now and few things are more fascinating.
I don't know if you have done so or not, but the place to research the Templars is France and in particular Paris; there are dozens of fascinating bookshops full of very old books on the subject, most of them albeit in French, but terrific nonetheless.
I am convinced the Templars were in Scotland along time before Rosslyn was built, but that's for another time, and forum.
IOLAIRE said:
...........
Incidentally, I had assumed that you were well aware of who Jacques De Molay was , so the "history lesson" was for the rest of the forum as a point of interest.
........
Thanks for the history lesson, I'm sure everyone on this forum, (along with the rest of the world) has read the Da Vinci Code too!
>> Edited by Raify on Tuesday 21st December 08:06
Raify said:
...........
Incidentally, I had assumed that you were well aware of who Jacques De Molay was , so the "history lesson" was for the rest of the forum as a point of interest.
........
Thanks for the history lesson, I'm sure everyone on this forum, (along with the rest of the world) has read the Da Vinci Code too!
>> Edited by Raify on Tuesday 21st December 08:06
Sorry, I'm afraid I haven't.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff