Light-Fingered Scum: Enough Is Enough

[gpshead]

It's time some (non-violent!) direct action was taken against this brazen theft in the name of road safety. I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about. They won't listen to reason, they won't listen to their own statistics, they just keep helping themselves to our hard-earned and thumbing their nose at us. In the words of Alan Partridge, subhuman scum.

Why don't we have a week/month/longer when anyone so inclined on PH/Safespeed/Pepipoo etc who happens upon a tt-in-a-van stands before it with a warning sign? Yes, that poor old guy lost his licence because he dared to stop people breaking the law. BUT, if lots of people do it then the press will have a field day and TPTB will have to think long and hard about prosecuting anyone lest they create martyrs. And wasn't there that other case when it couldn't be proved that anyone had been speeding in the first place? Also, if the warning sign is such that it makes the ttvan's presence obvious without actually mentioning it, how can there be anything illegal about it? Something like "accident blackspot ahead" together with the speed limit and maybe a picture of a camera (as in "there could be cameras" ). Perhaps legal eagles could advise us what one could get away with.

We'd only need a couple of hundred plus to make an impact. The more the better of course. We could start a website with a count of how many traps had been frustrated and how much we had kept in motorists' pockets where it belonged. Just think of the glow of satisfaction that would come from hitting them where it hurts. It may even start off a trend. Imagine if it started happening all the time. The bastards couldn't do a thing and the civilian operators/managers would be out of a job and (with any justice) unemployable!

Admittedly I'm getting carried away, but what do people think about this, if only as a form of ongoing, distributed protest? Few occurrences demonstrate the underhandedness of the scamerati as elegantly as when they throw a tantrum because of someone warning people; apart from anything else, if it started happening all the time then I think we would get yet more people "on board". Everyone would win except the parasitic thieving dregs of society...or are there drawbacks which make this idea unworkable in any form? (No, Vonhosen, that's not an invitation to start defending cameras thanks. )

Disclaimer: I am not inciting anyone to break the law, I am specifically trying to find legal ways to go about this. I just think we should do something rather than moaning all the time (of which I'm as guilty as anyone!)

Edited by gpshead on Sunday 3rd December 22:03

[andmole]

sounds like a splendid idea

[Globulator]

gpshead said:

It's time some (non-violent!) direct action was taken against this brazen theft in the name of road safety. I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about. They won't listen to reason, they won't listen to their own statistics, they just keep helping themselves to our hard-earned and thumbing their nose at us. In the words of Alan Partridge, subhuman scum.

It is the modern form of highway robbery, a form of parasite that not only robs but is causing a breakdown in road safety and thereby I believe is responsible for killing people.

Stopping the odd scamera physically is I think not going to make much difference, (although I always think it's nice to see a fixed camera that has been made safe). Speed limits will still get lower and lower, and the APCO rules for placing speed cameras will continue their use in safe places and their absence in dangerous ones, and I think a big problem is that the money made is so much more attractive than saving lives by better road design. Never get in the way of the money - you will be trampled underfoot.

The (best in my view), legal and obvious solution is for any PHer to alway insist on a court appearance - i.e. NEVER just pay up. ALWAYS insist on the full tape, evidence of limit etc. Sometimes you have to fight a bully. Losing here is not a problem, by bending over and confessing you lose anyway, at court you may win. If you don't, it doesn't have to cost much either, plus the extra pounds you pay now means freedom and safety later. They need to prove the limit is valid, the machine is correct and used correctly (calibration, specs spacing, type approval, gatso flash timing etc), code of conducts (APCO) were followed, and that your speed was what they claim it was and that you were driving. Make the parasites work for your money - after all, you did.

If all PHers went to court, we'd grind the system down and possibly STOP it. The scamera gangs are using the law against us, it's time we used the law and the justice against them, lets make 2007 the year that the courts got gridlock. All NIPs must end up in court.

[leadfootlydon]

Count me in.

Somewhere along the way morality and legality parted company. Maybe it was always the way, but it has gone too far. It is not moral to tax responsible motorists in the name of safety.

[andmole]

gpshead said:

Disclaimer: I am not inciting anyone to break the law, I am specifically trying to find legal ways to go about this. I just think we should do something rather than moaning all the time (of which I'm as guilty as anyone!)

Edited by gpshead on Sunday 3rd December 22:03

Remember this bit, we all agree to this and there can be no problem from anyone. Any moderaters watching, noone has any intention of breaking the law, just using it.

[Globulator]

andmole said:

Remember this bit, we all agree to this and there can be no problem from anyone. Any moderaters watching, noone has any intention of breaking the law, just using it.

Not just for the mods, we must use the law to stand any hope of winning.

The law will always be stronger than both us and the CPS, the CPS has been using the law and abusing process freely for some time now - which is why we keep losing.

Now is OUR TURN to use the law. Legal means are always far more interesting too .. Strategy is to grind them down, bonus points are what the experience and practice of taking all challenges apart in court will give us. .. find a few big holes and thousands of people could be demanding their money back

[justinp1]

Globulator said:

andmole said:

Remember this bit, we all agree to this and there can be no problem from anyone. Any moderaters watching, noone has any intention of breaking the law, just using it.

Not just for the mods, we must use the law to stand any hope of winning.

The law will always be stronger than both us and the CPS, the CPS has been using the law and abusing process freely for some time now - which is why we keep losing.

Now is OUR TURN to use the law. Legal means are always far more interesting too .. Strategy is to grind them down, bonus points are what the experience and practice of taking all challenges apart in court will give us. .. find a few big holes and thousands of people could be demanding their money back

Completely agreed.

If everyone who was accused did not give up or refused to stand trial until they got the full tape of the enforcement session the system would grind to a halt.

The reason is being is that you only end up getting the tape after the CPS have spent hours trying to get out of releasing it and often you have already taken up court time. And thats only an *if*.... They most likely will not materialise as the CPS realise that there are setup errors, the operator is zapping everything that moves, or the device has produced errors.

If they released the tape in these situation it then puts doubt on all the other cases on the tape

[streaky]

If you stood by the van and didn't obstruct the operation of the scamera, then you would surely not be guilty of OaPO contrary to s89(2) Police Act 1996.

If standing at some distance from the scamera van the sign might read:

<name of scamera pratnership>
Revenue Collection Point ahead

This would play well in the press and does not contain any advice regarding speed whilst getting the "speed" and "safety" words in because they're commonly part of the pratnership's name.

Streaky

[vonhosen]

streaky said:

If you stood by the van and didn't obstruct the operation of the scamera, then you would surely not be guilty of OaPO contrary to s89(2) Police Act 1996.

If standing at some distance from the scamera van the sign might read:

<name of scamera pratnership>
Revenue Collection Point ahead

This would play well in the press and does not contain any advice regarding speed whilst getting the "speed" and "safety" words in because they're commonly part of the pratnership's name.

Streaky

It doesn't have to be your intention to obstruct, just that you do & are aware that it would.

If you holding the sign results in the officer not being able to gain the secondary evidence, having got the primary, you are going to be on dodgy ground yourself.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 4th December 07:11

[cuneus]

What if he/she is a civilian ?

[leadfootlydon]

What if you were not there holding the sign. Would the sign itself be illegal?

[justinp1]

cuneus said:

What if he/she is a civilian ?

Now *thats* a very good point!

Whilst I understand that in speed enforcement the statute is that the local bigwig can empower civilians to do it (despite the legal protestations) I am sure that you would not be guilty of obstructing the police as they are not the police.

If nothing else, if you *were* charged it woul make a huge furore - and the legal implications of civilians doing the job in the first place would be under further scruitiny as would the desperate protection of the 'revenue machine'.

[NugentS]

Globulator said:

gpshead said:

It's time some (non-violent!) direct action was taken against this brazen theft in the name of road safety. I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about. They won't listen to reason, they won't listen to their own statistics, they just keep helping themselves to our hard-earned and thumbing their nose at us. In the words of Alan Partridge, subhuman scum.

It is the modern form of highway robbery, a form of parasite that not only robs but is causing a breakdown in road safety and thereby I believe is responsible for killing people.

Stopping the odd scamera physically is I think not going to make much difference, (although I always think it's nice to see a fixed camera that has been made safe). Speed limits will still get lower and lower, and the APCO rules for placing speed cameras will continue their use in safe places and their absence in dangerous ones, and I think a big problem is that the money made is so much more attractive than saving lives by better road design. Never get in the way of the money - you will be trampled underfoot.

The (best in my view), legal and obvious solution is for any PHer to alway insist on a court appearance - i.e. NEVER just pay up. ALWAYS insist on the full tape, evidence of limit etc. Sometimes you have to fight a bully. Losing here is not a problem, by bending over and confessing you lose anyway, at court you may win. If you don't, it doesn't have to cost much either, plus the extra pounds you pay now means freedom and safety later. They need to prove the limit is valid, the machine is correct and used correctly (calibration, specs spacing, type approval, gatso flash timing etc), code of conducts (APCO) were followed, and that your speed was what they claim it was and that you were driving. Make the parasites work for your money - after all, you did.

If all PHers went to court, we'd grind the system down and possibly STOP it. The scamera gangs are using the law against us, it's time we used the law and the justice against them, lets make 2007 the year that the courts got gridlock. All NIPs must end up in court.

I am already doing this - I have had two pre-trial reviews with another coming up next year. I will make it go on as long as possible....

Sean

[havoc]

Globulator said:

If you don't, it doesn't have to cost much either...

Tell that to Peter Ward...he's been pushed around something stupid by arrogant and unaccountable CPS ****'s, and has now felt forced into hiring a solicitor to help fight his case.

vonhosen said:

If you holding the sign results in the officer not being able to gain the secondary evidence, having got the primary, you are going to be on dodgy ground yourself.

OK, what if you and your sign were round the corner before the van...the officer CANNOT gain any primary evidence (his observation), because the cars aren't speeding.

So there is NO evidence that you were obstructing the officer, as no-one can say whether any cars slowed down as a result of your sign.

[Zod]

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

If you holding the sign results in the officer not being able to gain the secondary evidence, having got the primary, you are going to be on dodgy ground yourself.

OK, what if you and your sign were round the corner before the van...the officer CANNOT gain any primary evidence (his observation), because the cars aren't speeding.

So there is NO evidence that you were obstructing the officer, as no-one can say whether any cars slowed down as a result of your sign.

vh can talk around this point for 20 pages on PH without ever admitting that if you cause every car to slow down before the Policeman operating the laser has the opportunity to form an impression that any of those cars is speeding, then you cannot have committed the offence of obstructign a Police officer.

Stand around the corner warning cars that he cannot see and no offence is committed.

[Globulator]

havoc said:

Tell that to Peter Ward...he's been pushed around something stupid by arrogant and unaccountable CPS ****'s, and has now felt forced into hiring a solicitor to help fight his case.

Thanks havoc I know about Peter's case and helping him towards winning it. Peters case is costing money because he is going for a more certain win and has hired a solicitor - a very good idea in his case because the evidence looks like he wasn't even above the limit so a win is more likely.

You do not however have to spend this money.
It's much cheaper if you turn up, knowledgeably defend yourself and insist of them digging out all of the evidence. They still need to prove their case. Your chance of winning may not be as high, but it's a lot better than just bending over. You've got to pay a small amount for court costs, note when the CPS cause the delays (i.e. deal with the impartial court - not the CPS enemy), and insist in court that you only pay for costs you accrue (i.e. one full tape - not 5 tape edits). If you win they have to pay you

After a few of these we'll have a good check-list for the sequence of doing this and a good list of all the legal wrinkles and issues and rights we have, so we can defend ourselves cheaply using the same knowledge as the big-shot solicitors. The last thing these robbers want is for us to defend ourselves, like any bully they keep on pushing us do pay up an be quiet.

[Globulator]

vonhosen said:

If you holding the sign results in the officer not being able to gain the secondary evidence, having got the primary, you are going to be on dodgy ground yourself.

Interesting: determine the operator is a civilian, then you might be able to simply stand/park in the way perfectly legally.

Sounds good.... I quite fancy a picnic.

Any legal bods know about this?

[leadfootlydon]

Zod said:

Stand around the corner warning cars that he cannot see and no offence is committed.

Sounds good to me. Come on vh, what have we missed...

[streaky]

vonhosen said:

streaky said:

If you stood by the van and didn't obstruct the operation of the scamera, then you would surely not be guilty of OaPO contrary to s89(2) Police Act 1996.

If standing at some distance from the scamera van the sign might read:

<name of scamera pratnership>
Revenue Collection Point ahead

This would play well in the press and does not contain any advice regarding speed whilst getting the "speed" and "safety" words in because they're commonly part of the pratnership's name.

Streaky

It doesn't have to be your intention to obstruct, just that you do & are aware that it would.

If you holding the sign results in the officer not being able to gain the secondary evidence, having got the primary, you are going to be on dodgy ground yourself.

It must be wilful: "by conscious design or purpose" - Streaky

[sadako]

Why not put signs on lamp posts saying exactly how far away the scams are? Make them a complete sod to remove as well