Durastriction

[krusty]

I was travelling along the Bentley Bypass Northbound towards Farnham last weekend and noticed a scamera van parked in the centre reservation adjacent to the slip road. I was travelling about 65mph so no issues but I noticed that the Surrey Van was about 400m into Hampshire.
My question is obviously the legality of being prosecuted by Surrey Police if their evidence is outside their County??
Fair enough if they are pursuing someone and leave the county but setting up camp in another county to rake in a few more quid seems wrong.

[streaky]

Perhaps they'll split the income - Streaky

[Mg6b]

County boundaries in England and Wales do not apply to UK police. Its not the US here

Scotland is a different matter but Scotland seems to be a better place anyway except if you drive a fast car

[timskipper]

What in the name of the Oxford English Dictionary is a "Durastriction"?! It sounds like something your GP could help you with.

[GreigM]

Mg6b said:

but Scotland seems to be a better place anyway except if you drive a fast car

I don't really understand that - we have light policing and simply the best driving roads in the UK...whats bad about driving a fast car in Scotland?

[T_Pot]

GreigM said:

Mg6b said:

but Scotland seems to be a better place anyway except if you drive a fast car

I don't really understand that - we have light policing and simply the best driving roads in the UK...whats bad about driving a fast car in Scotland?

its the annoying accent on the radio


sorry

[GreigM]

T_Pot said:

GreigM said:

Mg6b said:

but Scotland seems to be a better place anyway except if you drive a fast car

I don't really understand that - we have light policing and simply the best driving roads in the UK...whats bad about driving a fast car in Scotland?

its the annoying accent on the radio


sorry

In my car you can't hear the radio

[T_Pot]

ahhh yeah i had heard them old volkswagons were a bit noisy in the wind.



ok ok, im only joking, before you all start on the TVR jokes

[mel]

Quick Krusty put ya foot down and make for the county line yee harrrrr (Dukes of Hazard stylee)

[Cider Andy]

krusty said:

My question is obviously the legality of being prosecuted by Surrey Police if their evidence is outside their County?

About three years ago I spotted a similar thing where the A6 passes northbound from Greater Manchester into Lancashire. To compound the problem the limit changes from NSL to 30 about 25m before the Lancashire border. But the 30 sign on the offside was completely obscured by overhanging trees from a neighbouring property (to the point it could not be read if you walked right up to it). And the one on the nearside was obscured by a new bus stop sign to the point that it could not be read until you were a few metres away from it.

I spoke to the [Lancashire] operator, who showed me he had his camera trained at a point 70m from his van, about 15m into the neighbouring county, within the 30 limit. I pointed this out; he replied that nobody really knew where the boundary was. To his credit he did go and check the visibility of the road signs.

Earlier in the day a friend who didn't know the road had passed the 30 signs at 45 MPH and subsequently spoke to the camera operator, who showed him an image of his car at that speed that was to be used to prosecute him. No notice ever arrived and the following day the bus stop was moved. A few days later the overhanging trees were cut back.

I heard it was reported in the local paper that nobody had been prosecuted that day, although I didn't see the report myself. And the van has never been back there. But it did make me wonder how many drivers who didn't know this busy road were successfuly prosecuted prior to that.

[marshalla]

timskipper said:

What in the name of the Oxford English Dictionary is a "Durastriction"?! It sounds like something your GP could help you with.

I wonder if the word being groped for, phonetically at least, might perhaps be "jurisdiction" ?

TBH - the OP's attempt isn't bad for someone coming from a country where knowledge of spelling is now optional for anyone below the age of 38.

[havoc]

marshalla said:

TBH - the OP's attempt isn't bad for someone coming from a country where knowledge of spelling is now optional for anyone below the age of 38.

It will only get worse - English Grammar is no longer on the syllabus for certain age-groups (not sure which, or how widespread, but the mere fact that it is at all is appalling).

Edit: I think it's infants - you know, that age when children are learning to talk...

[Burgmeister]

havoc said:

marshalla said:

TBH - the OP's attempt isn't bad for someone coming from a country where knowledge of spelling is now optional for anyone below the age of 38.

It will only get worse - English Grammar is no longer on the syllabus for certain age-groups (not sure which, or how widespread, but the mere fact that it is at all is appalling).

Edit: I think it's infants - you know, that age when children are learning to talk...

Spelling is important, especially on PH where there are many pedantic chaps. I however think that in some instances spelling is not important. As long as people understand what word you are trying to write it does not really matter. Everyone knows what word the OP was trying to form and as such his spelling does not matter. We are not submitting our work for marking.

[GreigM]

T_Pot said:

ahhh yeah i had heard them old volkswagons were a bit noisy in the wind.



ok ok, im only joking, before you all start on the TVR jokes

its an old fiat if we're being pedantic (with a tubi)

[Peter Ward]

Cider Andy said:

krusty said:

My question is obviously the legality of being prosecuted by Surrey Police if their evidence is outside their County?

About three years ago I spotted a similar thing where the A6 passes northbound from Greater Manchester into Lancashire. To compound the problem the limit changes from NSL to 30 about 25m before the Lancashire border. But the 30 sign on the offside was completely obscured by overhanging trees from a neighbouring property (to the point it could not be read if you walked right up to it). And the one on the nearside was obscured by a new bus stop sign to the point that it could not be read until you were a few metres away from it.

I spoke to the [Lancashire] operator, who showed me he had his camera trained at a point 70m from his van, about 15m into the neighbouring county, within the 30 limit. I pointed this out; he replied that nobody really knew where the boundary was. To his credit he did go and check the visibility of the road signs.

Earlier in the day a friend who didn't know the road had passed the 30 signs at 45 MPH and subsequently spoke to the camera operator, who showed him an image of his car at that speed that was to be used to prosecute him. No notice ever arrived and the following day the bus stop was moved. A few days later the overhanging trees were cut back.

I heard it was reported in the local paper that nobody had been prosecuted that day, although I didn't see the report myself. And the van has never been back there. But it did make me wonder how many drivers who didn't know this busy road were successfuly prosecuted prior to that.

Well that sounds like good news.

However, doesn't the camera van operator have a legal duty to check on all signage at the target sight BEFORE commencing his/her persecution session? In which case, I'm surprised that the starting checks failed to notice the obscured signs while the later check resulted in a complete change of heart. Did the foliage grow so quickly, or perhaps the bus stop was erected during the session? I think not.

In short, this is yet another piece of evidence in support of the view that everything other than the figure on the photo is ignored by every member of the partnership who operate in cahoots to ensure nobody gets off. That's the police and CPS working with the magistrates. Forget the idea that a magistrate's court is an independent dispenser of justice -- it's just the judge/(no-)jury arm of the integrated persecution chain.

[streaky]

Burgmeister said:

havoc said:

marshalla said:

TBH - the OP's attempt isn't bad for someone coming from a country where knowledge of spelling is now optional for anyone below the age of 38.

It will only get worse - English Grammar is no longer on the syllabus for certain age-groups (not sure which, or how widespread, but the mere fact that it is at all is appalling).

Edit: I think it's infants - you know, that age when children are learning to talk...

Spelling is important, especially on PH where there are many pedantic chaps. I however think that in some instances spelling is not important. As long as people understand what word you are trying to write it does not really matter. Everyone knows what word the OP was trying to form and as such his spelling does not matter. We are not submitting our work for marking.

Or to put it another way:

Splenlig is irmpoantt, esciplalecy on PH werhe trhee are mnay pandtetic cahps. I hevower tinhk that in some intancses seplinlg is not iptormnat.

The trick lies having the correct characters in the word and the first and last character right. The human brain then decodes the word (afterall, we can all - well, most of us - read outlaw's posts with little difficulty).

But it's easier if the majority of the words in the sentence are nonsensical anagrams; a single spelling error stands out.

Streaky

[PottyMouth]

It's the Hampshire van which enforces the bentley bypass, not the surrey van.

There is nothing however to prevent a police force prosecuting for an offence outside of its force area.

Edited by PottyMouth on Friday 4th January 14:50

[streaky]

Further to the spelling discussion, I presumed that "Durastriction" was some sort of medical complaint affecting the brain's outermost covering - Streaky

[Deltaf01]

GreigM said:

we're being pedantic (with a tubi)

Be careful, theres probably a law against that.

[Bing o]

Burgmeister said:

havoc said:

marshalla said:

TBH - the OP's attempt isn't bad for someone coming from a country where knowledge of spelling is now optional for anyone below the age of 38.

It will only get worse - English Grammar is no longer on the syllabus for certain age-groups (not sure which, or how widespread, but the mere fact that it is at all is appalling).

Edit: I think it's infants - you know, that age when children are learning to talk...

Spelling is important, especially on PH where there are many pedantic chaps. I however think that in some instances spelling is not important. As long as people understand what word you are trying to write it does not really matter. Everyone knows what word the OP was trying to form and as such his spelling does not matter. We are not submitting our work for marking.

If we all give up on spelling words the right way then how will we communicate in writing? It would be virtually impossible as various different sub dialects were created.

There is a reason why we have (or used to have) rules of grammar and spelling, so we all have a common standard of communication.