One law for them.....
Discussion
JMGS4 said:
Obviously a lying barsteward as he said he was "following a Volvo SPORTS car!!!!!!! even the old P112/114 wasn't a sports car even with the most blinkered viewpoint........
Ah but to a judge, a volvo IS a sports car!
Anybody know if he got off the speeding? I'd like to use it as a defence: "I know you SUSPECT that i was doing 104mph, and the video shows that it looked SUSPICIOUSLY like I was doing 104, and the officers in traffic car behind me SUSPECT that I was doing 104 but SUSPICION of a crime is not enough to convict me your honour"
What do you think?
the judge said:
One is bound to have suspicion, but suspicion is not enough to convict a person in this country.
Unless the alleged crime is speeding.
He obviously hasn't read Yorke& Maudesley. In that the judgement, the whole basis of conviction is based on no more than suspicion.
Just in case I'm ever on a jury in similar circumstances, can the jury ignore the judge's direction and convict anyway?
jeffreyarcher said:
One is bound to have suspicion, but suspicion is not enough to convict a person in this country.
Unless the alleged crime is speeding.
He obviously hasn't read Yorke& Maudesley. In that the judgement, the whole basis of conviction is based on no more than suspicion.
Just in case I'm ever on a jury in similar circumstances, can the jury ignore the judge's direction and convict anyway?
NO.
jeffreyarcher said:I believe that is contempt of court
One is bound to have suspicion, but suspicion is not enough to convict a person in this country.
Unless the alleged crime is speeding.
He obviously hasn't read Yorke& Maudesley. In that the judgement, the whole basis of conviction is based on no more than suspicion.
Just in case I'm ever on a jury in similar circumstances, can the jury ignore the judge's direction and convict anyway?
puggit said:
the judge said:
One is bound to have suspicion, but suspicion is not enough to convict a person in this country.
Unless the alleged crime is speeding.
He obviously hasn't read Yorke& Maudesley. In that the judgement, the whole basis of conviction is based on no more than suspicion.
Just in case I'm ever on a jury in similar circumstances, can the jury ignore the judge's direction and convict anyway?
I believe that is contempt of court
As opposed to the Judge's decision in this case, which shows his contempt for the rest of us.
He escaped by the skin of his teeth. I would not have wanted to be in his shoes and all because of avoiding a few points and a fine.
His career is finished now and he still has the wrath of the Chief Constable to endure who has increasing power to deal with this sort of incident.
He may have been saved by the judge but the people he works with will make their own judgement of his conduct and it will not be comfortable for him to continue working with any of those directly or indirectly invovled, even if the Chief considers he should still be allowed to do so.
Still, his occupation aside, he has done no more than anyone else to avoid a conviction in court but for him at great personal cost.
His career is finished now and he still has the wrath of the Chief Constable to endure who has increasing power to deal with this sort of incident.
He may have been saved by the judge but the people he works with will make their own judgement of his conduct and it will not be comfortable for him to continue working with any of those directly or indirectly invovled, even if the Chief considers he should still be allowed to do so.
Still, his occupation aside, he has done no more than anyone else to avoid a conviction in court but for him at great personal cost.
gone said:
Still, his occupation aside, he has done no more than anyone else to avoid a conviction in court.
Well, except abusing his position as a police officer.
Which I think is a bit more serious than the "I want you to prove it, not make me do your job for you" defence that many people choose to use.
northernboy said:
Still, his occupation aside, he has done no more than anyone else to avoid a conviction in court.
Well, except abusing his position as a police officer.
Which I think is a bit more serious than the "I want you to prove it, not make me do your job for you" defence that many people choose to use.
Which is basically what I said and if only they say "...you to prove it, not make me do your job for you"
If you care to trawl some of the threads on this site suggesting all sorts of fabrication to avoid a prosecution and what if I am found out, you will see that lots do it.
That does not excuse him in the least. Nor does it anyone else.
Finding a hole in a prosecution case and getting away with it is all part of the game. Lying sadly is also part of the game and sometimes as in this case very difficult to prove, even with Police witnesses who were present at the incident giving evidence in court against him!
Just another person who thinks the law is 
ed in this area, who is doing everything he can to avoid persecution by the minority that control the state. Unfortunately he'll probably end up losing his job/career prospects over this non-crime event and we as a society will lose the skills of a trained police officer. All because of this anti motorist speed is bad nonsense.
DAZ
ed in this area, who is doing everything he can to avoid persecution by the minority that control the state. Unfortunately he'll probably end up losing his job/career prospects over this non-crime event and we as a society will lose the skills of a trained police officer. All because of this anti motorist speed is bad nonsense. DAZ
david_s said:
There is a difference though between those who are paid to uphold the law and the rest of us. Or is it a case of do as I say and not as I do?
Don't blame the soldiers blame the generals. Most coppers join the service for the right reasons, not to become goverment bootboys. He clearly regards the laws on motorway speed limits as preposterous as most of us do.
DAZ
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff