Gatso NIP - finally let of with a warning!!

[zoom_jones]

So anyway I'm delighted! Suffice to say that the NIP I received some months ago for an alleged 36 in a 30 has been turned into just a warning!

I couldn't remember who was driving and so requested the photo. I received that and it showed nothing. So I requested the second Gatso photo and the next letter was the warning! Make of that what you will.

Anyway, it really has made my day.

I have a Road Angel now so hopefully I can avoid any of these incidents in the future.

I'm just so chuffed!

[puggit]

Yay...woooo!

Another one goes in the bin

[deltaf]

Well played!

[nonegreen]

No, wait, this is not right. You are accepting a newly invented verdict of 'a bit guilty here'. If I were you I should demand a public apology and ask for resignations. Just who do these wits think they are. This is not a result it is what we fought WW2 against. Heads should roll and pensions should be lost.....

[malin]

nonegreen said:

No, wait, this is not right. You are accepting a newly invented verdict of 'a bit guilty here'. If I were you I should demand a public apology and ask for resignations. Just who do these wits think they are. This is not a result it is what we fought WW2 against. Heads should roll and pensions should be lost.....

Well 36 in a 30 is exceeding the speed limit......

Not by much, probably not dangerous, almost certainly slower than many, but what is wrong with a warning?

[deltaf]

nonegreen said:

No, wait, this is not right. You are accepting a newly invented verdict of 'a bit guilty here'. If I were you I should demand a public apology and ask for resignations. Just who do these wits think they are. This is not a result it is what we fought WW2 against. Heads should roll and pensions should be lost.....

Well i suppose youre right, and seeing as theyve dropped the unprovable charges against him, now would be the best time to counter charge them.

[zoom_jones]

Thanks for the tips guys! but I think I'm just going to leave it!

I'm just happy to avoid the 3 points.

I am left to wonder about why they dropped it in favour of a warning. I can only think of 2 possible reasons:

1) They were not able to obtain a second picture which I believe is required to secure conviction.

2) Their admin is so overloaded with individuals contesting their NIP's that they simply don't have the resource to process all of them through the courts.

interesting..

[mongoose]

zoom_jones said:

i am left to wonder about why they dropped it in favour of a warning. I can only think of 2 possible reasons: 1) They were not able to obtain a second picture which I believe is required to secure conviction. 2) Their admin is so overloaded with individuals contesting their NIP's that they simply don't have the resource to process all of them through the courts. interesting..

good for you mate,nice to hear you got let off.i know just how you feel,as i got let off mine recently.the more people that contest in this way,the better thats for sure.dont let the bs grind you down,grind them down instead

[jeffreyarcher]

zoom_jones said:

I am left to wonder about why they dropped it in favour of a warning. I can only think of 2 possible reasons:

I realise that this is extremely unlikely, but there is a third. That is, that they decided to do what the law actually says rather than mount a prosecution against you, secure in the knowledge that the bent[*] magistrates will back them up by insisting on the accused demonstrating exceptional diligence rather than only the reasonable diligence required by law.
[*] The magistrates' Courts are in the partnership and therefore benefit from the fixed penalty income; therefore the magistrates have a vested interest in people not contesting the charges.