NIPS, and the weakest parts of the whole rotten system ??

[Racing Rod]

Must be:

(1)Registration details

(2)Name and address of recorded keeper/owner.

For without this information, those enforcing this judicially twisted and perverted anti right to silence and self incrimination legislation would get nowhere.

So, how, whilst remaining within the law, can we change, adapt, alter or even partly disguise the information we supply so willingly that enables them to track us down ?

This is the weak point of the entire system, we may not be able to force the Government of the day to repeal this travesty of British justice, so we are left with only one option, find a way legally that allows us to supply the information required to register our cars, and insure them properly, that makes life very difficult for those attempting to track us down. This must be lawful otherwise it will fail somewhere down the line, it need not be foolproof for part of the plan would be to tie up resources to such a degree that it becomes financially impossible to support or takes up so much time and effort that the system implodes on itself.

It appears to me that those of us that keep/own cars via a company at least have an additional layer of administration for them to get through, this costs them time and money. I also understand that although the same kind of penalties apply to companies/company directors/company sec, etc etc, who fail to provide driver information, 9 out of 10 times the original speeding offence that produced the NIP in the first place is dropped in favour of the offence "failing to supply" so this in real terms underlines the weakness yet again as they are forced in another direction if indeed they intend to continue with the case.

It also appears to me that the present system stands or falls on the ease in which NIPS are sent out and money pours in mainly because people don't want the hassle so again, if we can find a way to slow down the cash flow or interrupt it, delay it, whatever, then within a very short space of time it will become apparent that something disturbing is happening and that this fragile system that is totally dependent on our freely given information in the first place could be at risk !!!

I have no answers at present but see opportunities within the company ownership route, but this requires a lot more work. One never knows what idea's are floating about until you ask, so if there are any clever, lawful, and brilliant potential solutions out there, maybe through discussion and sharing our thoughts on here we can come up with something that might just work, or cause them to spend far more of their time and ill gotten gains supporting the whole rotten system. I would add that I have never been a NIP victim as yet, but I sense that it will only be a matter of time, I spend a lot of time looking for cameras and camera vans whilst driving and take the appropriate action when I spot them, can't remember the last time I spotted a police petrol vehicle, they seem to be a dying breed these days.

Discuss.

[Dwight VanDriver]

Isn't it time people took responsibility for their actions Woolfie?

O
Dvd

[jeremyc]

Would it be possible for an organisation to be the registered keeper of vehicle(s) without knowing the identity or details of the owners?

Owners would be able to anonymously register their cars through such an organisation, then when a NIP was received the organisation could (quite truthfully) say that they couldn't name the driver.

Mmmmmm.

[TOPTON]

would it not be possible to register a car to a minor. Possibly too young to write or respond to letters etc. Then not being able to fill in the forms or identify the driver would not be illegal

[Racing Rod]

TOPTON said:

would it not be possible to register a car to a minor. Possibly too young to write or respond to letters etc. Then not being able to fill in the forms or identify the driver would not be illegal

It's idea like this we need to look at, where as we wouldn't consider a below the belt approach normally, perhaps something like this if absolutely legal would cause the type of havoc we are looking for.

[s2art]

I mentioned it before but by registering the car you use with your spouse and vice versa, you should be able to take advantage of the law that prevents a spouse from being compelled to testify against their partner. That is the spouse fulfills her duty in informing the police of the driver but the evidence would be unadmissable in court.
NOTE IANAL and this needs to be confirmed.

[SS2.]

s2art said:

I mentioned it before but by registering the car you use with your spouse and vice versa, you should be able to take advantage of the law that prevents a spouse from being compelled to testify against their partner. That is the spouse fulfills her duty in informing the police of the driver but the evidence would be unadmissable in court.
NOTE IANAL and this needs to be confirmed.

Correct in so far as the spouse's evidence couldn't be used, but not for the reasons you suggest - it has little to do with the compellability or otherwise of spouses.

For instance, if a wife were to receive a NIP and complete her s.172 form which nominated her husband, then hubby would receive his own NIP / s.172 request in due course. If he were to ignore the s.172 request, he would probably be summoned for failing to provide driver details. Its highly unlikely that he would be summoned for the alleged speeding offence.

However, if he was to be summoned for the speeding, then his wife's s.172 form on which she nominated him would be of negligible evidential value to the prosecution. To convict, they would require either a confession from the husband, or a statement proporting to be signed by the husband that he was the driver at the time of the alleged offence. The wife's statement that hubby was driving would not be enough for the prosecution to secure hubby's conviction..

Edited by SS2. on Friday 6th July 16:07

[s2art]

SS2. said:

s2art said:

I mentioned it before but by registering the car you use with your spouse and vice versa, you should be able to take advantage of the law that prevents a spouse from being compelled to testify against their partner. That is the spouse fulfills her duty in informing the police of the driver but the evidence would be unadmissable in court.
NOTE IANAL and this needs to be confirmed.

Correct in so far as the spouse's evidence couldn't be used, but not for the reasons you suggest - it has little to do with the compellability or otherwise of spouses.

For instance, if a wife were to receive a NIP and complete her s.172 form which nominated her husband, then hubby would receive his own NIP / s.172 request in due course. If he were to ignore the s.172 request, he would probably be summoned for failing to provide driver details. Its highly unlikely that he would be summoned for the alleged speeding offence.

However, if he was to be summoned for the speeding, then his wife's s.172 form on which she nominated him would be of negligible evidential value to the prosecution. To convict, they would require either a confession from the husband, or a statement proporting to be signed by the husband that he was the driver at the time of the alleged offence. The wife's statement that hubby was driving would not be enough for the prosecution to secure hubby's conviction..

OK, its back to ping pong then. One spouse nominates the other, then the other spouse does the same.

BTW in the original example what if the nominated spouse just writes back something like 'Not me Guv, I have no idea, not my car'

Edited by s2art on Friday 6th July 16:35

[oldsoak]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Isn't it time people took responsibility for their actions Woolfie?

O
Dvd

Hear Hear!

[s2art]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Isn't it time people took responsibility for their actions Woolfie?

O
Dvd

This could be viewed as a form of direct action, such as protest marches. Therefore it is taking responsibility.

[Racing Rod]

s2art said:

Dwight VanDriver said:

Isn't it time people took responsibility for their actions Woolfie?

O
Dvd

This could be viewed as a form of direct action, such as protest marches. Therefore it is taking responsibility.

Agreed, it is a form of direct action as the normal alternatives get us nowhere and tackling the problem head on is falling on deaf ears. I am totally behind people taking responsibility for their own actions, I do, but this is not about the quite obvious benefits of the authorities knowing who owns which car and where, this is about a misuse of the law, a perversion of the British justice system and an outright abuse of power for financial benefit masquerading as road safety policies, via an otherwise perfectly sensible owner/keeper registration process. Those who enforce the law when on active service can be forgiven for not questioning it, though I am sure some do, as jobs would be on the line, but those who have retired and are prepared to call it as it is must by definition as an EX officer of the law have a problem with the principal that (A) you are guilty unless proven innocent and (B)You must confess to the offence as this will be all we have in order to prosecute you.

I would like to hear from a serving or retired police officer who thinks that both A and B above is a misinterpretation of the NIP process and if so how it is justified when set against the basic principals of British justice.

[Boosted LS1]

One could report that important mail hasn't been received at one's address to the post office. So that if a NIP gets posted there could be doubt it ever arrived. Don't the PO lose billions of letters or are they just envelopes with cash/cards in them?

An identical car could get a NIP when you could prove yours was at , hmmm the police station whilst you were asking the sergeant for directions, or the GP's. Anywhere would do if you could prove you were there easily. Yikes, there must be 2 cars with the same plate! People must be getting desperate with jobs at stake so would be prepared to do all sorts of things in their hour of need. Involving spouses isn't a good idea imo, neither is perjury but nipping things in the bud would be ok imo. How do do it legally is tricky, I like the lost mail idea as I can say quite truthfully that mail hasn't arrived here.

Boosted.

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Friday 6th July 20:54

[judas]

Boosted LS1 said:

One could report that important mail hasn't been received at one's address to the post office. So that if a NIP gets posted there could be doubt it ever arrived. Don't the PO lose billions of letters or are they just envelopes with cash/cards in them?

Alas, if only that was the case. The authorities merely need to prove that the NIP was sent. Receipt of it is entirely irrelevant. This, if nothing else, shows the system up for the travesty it is.

With our rule-obsessed government, do not make the mistake of confusing the law with justice - they are becoming increasingly separate concepts. The law has become a stick with which to keep the populace cowed and submissive, and quite handily for our profligate masters, a useful source of extra revenue.

[skymaster]

I think around the mid 90s an act of parliment was brought in to facilitate using 1st class post for NIPs as oppsed to special delivery. Imagine if they still used special delivery these days. The Royal Mail would be totally minted!! £4.30 X ???? Million.

There must have been at least a few hundred cases by now of NIPs going missing in the post. I send out thousdands of items 1st class each year and run at just under 1% loss for items that go missing forever.

I have heard theories that suggest if you simply burn the NIP that there is a good chance you will hear nothing more of it. If you did get summoned you could just say that you never received the original NIP. Or.... if they decided to send out a replacement one after 6 weeks you can contest it using the 14 day rule.

Their whole system would fall apart if everyone that got an NIP just binned it. Theres no way the police and courts could handle the millions of cases so most of them would end up being dropped!

[flemke]

SS2. said:

s2art said:

I mentioned it before but by registering the car you use with your spouse and vice versa, you should be able to take advantage of the law that prevents a spouse from being compelled to testify against their partner. That is the spouse fulfills her duty in informing the police of the driver but the evidence would be unadmissable in court.
NOTE IANAL and this needs to be confirmed.

Correct in so far as the spouse's evidence couldn't be used, but not for the reasons you suggest - it has little to do with the compellability or otherwise of
spouses.

If the ECHR has in its wisdom just concluded that the compulsion to reply to a 172 is not self-incriminating, then one presumes that neither would it be considered to be incriminating of one's spouse.

SS2. said:

For instance, if a wife were to receive a NIP and complete her s.172 form which nominated her husband, then hubby would receive his own NIP / s.172 request in due course. If he were to ignore the s.172 request, he would probably be summoned for failing to provide driver details. Its highly unlikely that he would be summoned for the alleged speeding offence.

However, if he was to be summoned for the speeding, then his wife's s.172 form on which she nominated him would be of negligible evidential value to the prosecution. To convict, they would require either a confession from the husband, or a statement proporting to be signed by the husband that he was the driver at the time of the alleged offence. The wife's statement that hubby was driving would not be enough for the prosecution to secure hubby's conviction.

How would this differ from putting one's own name on a 172?
By doing so, one is not confessing to the alleged offence (according to the nonsensical law), but one is inevitably charged with the offence, to which almost every accused is subsequently found, or agrees that he or she is, guilty.

[SS2.]

flemke said:

How would this differ from putting one's own name on a 172?
By doing so, one is not confessing to the alleged offence (according to the nonsensical law), but one is inevitably charged with the offence, to which almost every accused is subsequently found, or agrees that he or she is, guilty.

The key lies in Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 which permits a signed confession response (by the accused) to be admissible evidence of driver identity. It is this piece of legislation which miraculously transforms the supposedly innocuous 'information' supplied on the s.172 form into 'evidence' which then comprises 50% of the prosecution's case against the accused.

RTOA 1988 said:

12.—(1) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies—

(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 172(2) of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and

(b) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,

the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.

So a wife's nomination of her husband does not comprise sufficient evidence to secure conviction. The husband's s.172 form signed by him confirming that he was the driver, however, proves driver identity to the required criminal standard.

Edited by SS2. on Friday 6th July 21:56

[flemke]

SS2. said:

flemke said:

How would this differ from putting one's own name on a 172?
By doing so, one is not confessing to the alleged offence (according to the nonsensical law), but one is inevitably charged with the offence, to which almost every accused is subsequently found, or agrees that he or she is, guilty.

The key lies in Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 which permits a signed response (by the accused) to be admissible evidence of driver identity. It is this piece of legislation which miraculously transforms the supposedly innocuous 'information' supplied on the s.172 form into 'evidence' which then comprises 50% of the prosecution's case against the accused.

RTOA 1988 said:

12.—(1) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies—

(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 172(2) of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and

(b) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,

the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.

So a wife's nomination of her husband does not comprise sufficient evidence to secure conviction. The husband's s.172 form signed by him confirming that he was the driver, however, proves driver identity to the required criminal standard.

Thanks for the explanation.
I'm being thick about this (as per normal), but I am unable to see the distinction between naming oneself and naming one's spouse, in terms of both barriers to incrimination and the government's ability to make its case.

Cheers.

[SS2.]

flemke said:

Thanks for the explanation.
I'm being thick about this (as per normal), but I am unable to see the distinction between naming oneself and naming one's spouse, in terms of both barriers to incrimination and the government's ability to make its case.

Cheers.

Its all about Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988..

Nomination of another person as driver, be this by spouse or otherwise, does not comprise sufficient proof (to the required criminal standard) of driver identity. For instance, the fact that Mrs Flemke may nominate you as the driver at the time of an alleged offence will not, on its own, provide sufficient evidence to see you convicted for an alleged speeding offence. Mrs F's nomination of you will merely result in you receiving your own, personalised NIP.

And this is where S12 RTOA 1988 rears its ugly head.. It is only once you complete the form (or a letter), and thus provide a signed statement confirming that you were the driver, that sufficient proof of driver identity (as defined by S12 RTOA) exists.

Edited by SS2. on Friday 6th July 22:23

[David_s]

flemke said:

SS2. said:

flemke said:

How would this differ from putting one's own name on a 172?
By doing so, one is not confessing to the alleged offence (according to the nonsensical law), but one is inevitably charged with the offence, to which almost every accused is subsequently found, or agrees that he or she is, guilty.

The key lies in Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 which permits a signed response (by the accused) to be admissible evidence of driver identity. It is this piece of legislation which miraculously transforms the supposedly innocuous 'information' supplied on the s.172 form into 'evidence' which then comprises 50% of the prosecution's case against the accused.

RTOA 1988 said:

12.—(1) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies—

(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 172(2) of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and

(b) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,

the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.

So a wife's nomination of her husband does not comprise sufficient evidence to secure conviction. The husband's s.172 form signed by him confirming that he was the driver, however, proves driver identity to the required criminal standard.

Thanks for the explanation.
I'm being thick about this (as per normal), but I am unable to see the distinction between naming oneself and naming one's spouse, in terms of both barriers to incrimination and the government's ability to make its case.

Cheers.

I think, from reading others posts, that there is more of an obligation for the registered keeper to know who is driving and less of an obligation on the driver subsequently nominated. So, if your wife is the registered keeper and fills in the NIP to say that you were driving, you can say 'it wasn't me and I have no idea who was driving' without having to spend so much time on research.

I wonder what would happen if I received a NIP, was absolutely 100% sure that my wife was driving at the time of the offence and indicated so on the form, but when she received her NIP she was also 100% certain in her own mind that it was me who had been driving and indicated so as well. No doubt by either party, no further research required, we were both 100% certain that the other person had been driving at the time of the offence. The registered keeper would have discharged his responsibility by naming the person he knew to be driving, the person named would have discharged hers by doing the same. In the absence of other proof, how would the courts decide who was wrong and hence guilty? Obviously, bedroom privileges may be withdrawn during the procedure (but when she had suffered enough I would restore them)....

[s2art]

SS2. said:

flemke said:

Thanks for the explanation.
I'm being thick about this (as per normal), but I am unable to see the distinction between naming oneself and naming one's spouse, in terms of both barriers to incrimination and the government's ability to make its case.

Cheers.

Its all about Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988..

Nomination of another person as driver, be this by spouse or otherwise, does not comprise sufficient proof (to the required criminal standard) of driver identity. For instance, the fact that Mrs Flemke may nominate you as the driver at the time of an alleged offence will not, on its own, provide sufficient evidence to see you convicted for an alleged speeding offence. Mrs F's nomination of you will merely result in you receiving your own, personalised NIP.

And this is where S12 RTOA 1988 rears its ugly head.. It is only once you complete the form (or a letter), and thus provide a signed statement confirming that you were the driver, that sufficient proof of driver identity (as defined by S12 RTOA) exists.

Edited by SS2. on Friday 6th July 22:23

So, if Mr Flemke writes back saying 'not me guv', what happens?