Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

The actions amount to the offence or not.
It's either a PtCoJ or not.
It's either an Obstruction or not.
If you have the offence & you have the evidence required to deal with somebody for that offence, you'd deal with it.
Especially if it's a serious offence (irrespective of what led to the serious offence being committed).

It is certainly out of control, is what it is. I very much doubt the particular cases mentioned here are what these offences were originally intended for, it is overzealous persecution of a particular group very much for political reasons, so lets look at the bigger picture here. Let these guys get away with it and the entire middle class will start playing the system far more than they do now, and speeding revenue will fall dramatically... These are great cases for sending a message that is for sure. For how much longer we will tolerate these abuses remains to be seen.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

There are 47 million of us in the UK & I don't see many marching to your drum beat call for action.
How's it going? How many have you got signed up to your call for action & what action are you going to take?

Lol, with such cases already getting such good press coverage and stirring up legitimate outrage, it seems I don’t have to do much at all.

That said if everyone fought their tickets at every opportunity rather than simply bowing down due to the fear of the system these cases are intended to create, would see the courts get backed up for months, even more so than they are now. Take away their ability to prosecute every silly minor motoring infraction due to limited resources and they’d have no option but to focus on real crimes imo.

[anonymous-user]

Schmed said:

vonhosen said:

There are 47 million of us in the UK & I don't see many marching to your drum beat call for action.
How's it going? How many have you got signed up to your call for action & what action are you going to take?

Lol, with such cases already getting such good press coverage and stirring up legitimate outrage, it seems I don’t have to do much at all.

That said if everyone fought their tickets at every opportunity rather than simply bowing down due to the fear of the system these cases are intended to create, would see the courts get backed up for months, even more so than they are now. Take away their ability to prosecute every silly minor motoring infraction due to limited resources and they’d have no option but to focus on real crimes imo.

Lol indeed. You’re on a motoring forum and your views are in a minority even here! As to your wizard wheeze how to solve the ‘problem’, just get that organised when you’ve brought down fuel prices by boycotting BP, Esso etc in turn.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Schmed said:

vonhosen said:

There are 47 million of us in the UK & I don't see many marching to your drum beat call for action.
How's it going? How many have you got signed up to your call for action & what action are you going to take?

Lol, with such cases already getting such good press coverage and stirring up legitimate outrage, it seems I don’t have to do much at all.

So where, when & what's the action?
When will we have change?
It's alright claiming it's a coming (with no evidence or timescale to support that).

Schmed said:

That said if everyone fought their tickets at every opportunity rather than simply bowing down due to the fear of the system these cases are intended to create, would see the courts get backed up for months, even more so than they are now. Take away their ability to prosecute every silly minor motoring infraction due to limited resources and they’d have no option but to focus on real crimes imo.

Again.
If my aunty.............

Lot of questions for one evening, Vonhosen. “Tell me your plans: Actions, change, timescales” all sound to me like the language of the police state... Hypothetically if something was in the pipeline do you really think the specifics would be announced on a public forum?

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

The issue here is that many do not consider PCoJ an appropriate response. You and others want to focus entirely on the PCoJ, whereas those that don't agree with the use of PCoJ draw attention to the original offence.

That’s just plain wrong. PCoJ was not a “response” it was the crime committed. How many times does this have to be said? What “original offence” are you claiming was committed and he should have been prosecuted for?

[anonymous-user]

Roman Rhodes said:

Schmed said:

vonhosen said:

There are 47 million of us in the UK & I don't see many marching to your drum beat call for action.
How's it going? How many have you got signed up to your call for action & what action are you going to take?

Lol, with such cases already getting such good press coverage and stirring up legitimate outrage, it seems I don’t have to do much at all.

That said if everyone fought their tickets at every opportunity rather than simply bowing down due to the fear of the system these cases are intended to create, would see the courts get backed up for months, even more so than they are now. Take away their ability to prosecute every silly minor motoring infraction due to limited resources and they’d have no option but to focus on real crimes imo.

Lol indeed. You’re on a motoring forum and your views are in a minority even here! As to your wizard wheeze how to solve the ‘problem’, just get that organised when you’ve brought down fuel prices by boycotting BP, Esso etc in turn.

Fuel prices ? I think we’ve got bigger problems here with the justice system to start with, one thing at a time lol.

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

Now I know the response will be "ah, but seeking to avoid the speeding conviction was PCOJ and that's very serious don't you know" but, in all honestly, a large proportion of the public would say that's nonsense in a situation like this and that you ought to view it in the context of the original offence.

So if I get prosecuted for dropping a bit of litter and a witness is asked to appear for the prosecution it’s OK if I send my mates round to threaten to burn their house down unless they withdraw? After all, the “original offence” is minor isn’t it?

[anonymous-user]

Boosted LS1 said:

^ Who says his views are in the minority? Are you qualified?

It's funny that we never see education being promoted.

Just IMO having read the thread.

Don’t people get offered speed awareness courses?

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

Roman Rhodes said:

cmaguire said:

The issue here is that many do not consider PCoJ an appropriate response. You and others want to focus entirely on the PCoJ, whereas those that don't agree with the use of PCoJ draw attention to the original offence.

That’s just plain wrong. PCoJ was not a “response” it was the crime committed. How many times does this have to be said? What “original offence” are you claiming was committed and he should have been prosecuted for?

In simple terms he tried to get away with speeding.
And that is exactly how many will view his offence.

How do you know he was speeding? The “original offence” was PCoJ.

Just because you (and “many”) don’t understand what happened isn’t a good reason not to prosecute.

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

Roman Rhodes said:

JNW1 said:

Now I know the response will be "ah, but seeking to avoid the speeding conviction was PCOJ and that's very serious don't you know" but, in all honestly, a large proportion of the public would say that's nonsense in a situation like this and that you ought to view it in the context of the original offence.

So if I get prosecuted for dropping a bit of litter and a witness is asked to appear for the prosecution it’s OK if I send my mates round to threaten to burn their house down unless they withdraw? After all, the “original offence” is minor isn’t it?

And I see those are two quite separate things albeit not a great example (after all, how many people a year get prosecuted for dropping litter and are only convicted in court with the help of evidence from a witness?!).

However, to come back to our original subject, perhaps a different way of looking at it is what course of justice was actually being perverted; if justice had taken its proper course would it have mattered or would it have been of little or no consequence either way? I'd say the latter in which case I don't see a prison sentence was a proportionate response.

So anyone PCOJ in order to avoid a speeding ticket should just be let off?

How about flytipping - that OK too?

[anonymous-user]

Schmed said:

Lot of questions for one evening, Vonhosen. “Tell me your plans: Actions, change, timescales” all sound to me like the language of the police state... Hypothetically if something was in the pipeline do you really think the specifics would be announced on a public forum?

Yes, it'd be some mass undetected organised rebellion

LetsTryAgain said:

roachcoach said:

That being said (as I've already posted) with stuff like this, you're going to have the proverbial book, desk, chair and anything else to hand flung at you and the fool has no-one to blame but himself.

It's a bit like punching the queen and expecting to have the same punishment as punching Bob down the pub - that's not how it works in this country and you don't have to like it but that is the reality.

You're right there.
Or that imbecile Prescott punching someone for having an egg thrown at him.

Prescott was clearly self-defence. Poor comparison.

cmaguire said:

Politics on that one, not this one though.

Because the reality is most people don't care. They use vehicles to get from A to B for social and economic reasons. They aren't interested in 'making progress' / petrol head things, or what may or not be the most appropriate speed for the circumstances.

[anonymous-user]

S172 is an abomination and the cornerstone of the entire scamera revenue raising business model. That the fundamental right not to self incriminate (which, let’s be honest here, licenced activity or not it clearly is), has been removed from us is probably the most outrageous point of all, not to mention the severe misuse (again) of offences such as PCoJ if people dare to not comply with it.

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

Roman Rhodes said:

So anyone PCOJ in order to avoid a speeding ticket should just be let off?

How about flytipping - that OK too?

Why don't you try to find an alternative 'crime'; that actually meets the criteria as comparable.
I.E. victimless

Who are the victims of flytipping? Are there more (or any) people killed by flytipping versus people killed by speeding vehicles (even ones where speed is the only factor)?

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

Roman Rhodes said:

cmaguire said:

Roman Rhodes said:

So anyone PCOJ in order to avoid a speeding ticket should just be let off?

How about flytipping - that OK too?

Why don't you try to find an alternative 'crime'; that actually meets the criteria as comparable.
I.E. victimless

Who are the victims of flytipping? Are there more (or any) people killed by flytipping versus people killed by speeding vehicles (even ones where speed is the only factor)?

Are any people actually killed by speeding though; surely the offence is almost certainly going to be one of dangerous driving is there's a fatality involved?

Speaking personally I find the visual and environmental damage caused by flytipping to be far more annoying and offensive than someone doing 70mph on an NSL across somewhere like the North Yorkshire Moors. I suspect many others feel the same way but which offence do you reckon is more likely to be prosecuted?

"Are any people actually killed by speeding though?" Is that a serious question? If I'm driving past a school at 100mph and kill the lollypop lady 'speeding' might not be the charge but it is clearly speeding that has led to the charge and the speeding has taken a victim's life. So yes, people are very much killed by speeding. Sometimes speed is a contributory factor, sometimes it is the only factor.

Being annoyed and offended by flytipping is not as important as someone being killed by a speeding driver so, quite rightly, speeders are more likely to be prosecuted. Add to this the fact that detection of speeding is far easier than detecting who has flytipped and how or why should it be any other way?

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

Roman Rhodes said:

"Are any people actually killed by speeding though?" Is that a serious question? If I'm driving past a school at 100mph and kill the lollypop lady 'speeding' might not be the charge but it is clearly speeding that has led to the charge and the speeding has taken a victim's life. So yes, people are very much killed by speeding.

Woah, hold on a minute...

"Speeding" is only the most serious offence being committed if the speed is in excess of the limit, but the driving is within the standard that would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

If the driving is below that standard, then "speeding" ceases to be the offence. Careless or dangerous is. If they lead to a death, then there's death by careless, death by dangerous.

Does that mean "speeding" is victimless? No.
Does that mean "speeding" should go enforced, or be dropped completely? No.
Does that mean that somebody taking deliberate steps to avoid being detected while "speeding" should not be charged with PtCoJ? No.

Roman Rhodes said:

Sometimes speed is a contributory factor, sometimes it is the only factor.

Yes, "speed in excess of the limit" can be the/a contributory factor to collisions, including fatals. But so can "excessive speed within the limit" - in fact, that's a factor more of the time. But simply "not looking wtf they're going" is by far the most common...

I don't disagree with any of that. My point was simply that speed, rather than the definition of the 'crime' of speeding, can create victims. I'm starting from the viewpoint that speed limits are there to reduce the number of dangerous situations arising. Clearly it is possible to drive 'safely' (but illegally with regard to speed) over the limit just as it is possible to drive legally (with regard to speed) below the limit but 'dangerously' with regard to the conditions.

[anonymous-user]

Steviesam said:

I am a simple person, but I thought that the CPS did things "in the public interest".

I could be wrong (probably am), but I would guess that the majority of the public would prefer that the teenager in the link above who brutally attacked a 52 year old woman requiring plastic surgery went to prison, rather than a middle finger waving speeder who tried to get away with it.

I know you always have some self righteous response to people like me who are thicker than you, but really, police then wonder why their popularity is at an all time low.

I think the simple answer is that neither the CPS or the police decide the sentence. So whilst your views on the relative sentences may be valid, you're blaming the wrong body. The CPS and police have worked very well in both cases as the have successfully prosecuted two criminals.

[anonymous-user]

Steviesam said:

I am a simple person, but I thought that the CPS did things "in the public interest".

I could be wrong (probably am), but I would guess that the majority of the public would prefer that the teenager in the link above who brutally attacked a 52 year old woman requiring plastic surgery went to prison, rather than a middle finger waving speeder who tried to get away with it.

I know you always have some self righteous response to people like me who are thicker than you, but really, police then wonder why their popularity is at an all time low.

The CPS / court distinction has been explained, but the bit in bold is also wrong.

There's no evidence across trust / confidence / satisfaction measurements that police 'popularity' is at an all time low. It pretty much remains steady over time.

I'd speculate you think your world view applies on a much grander scale that you think.

[anonymous-user]

jm doc said:

Finally, several of the Judges who ruled on the matter dissented from the verdict, even then.

It wasn't several, it was 15 / 2.

[anonymous-user]

jm doc said:

vonhosen said:

jm doc said:

Anyway, PtCoJ, isn't that what Police Officers do every time they break the speed limit (not in the course of their duty) and don't report themselves??

Where is the perverting?

How would you describe it then? They're job is to uphold the law is it not? When they break a law shouldn't they self report and hand themselves in? Otherwise aren't they deliberately preventing the course of justice from taking place?

What 'course of justice' is in existence at the time of the act?

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

Roman Rhodes said:

JNW1 said:

Roman Rhodes said:

cmaguire said:

Roman Rhodes said:

So anyone PCOJ in order to avoid a speeding ticket should just be let off?

How about flytipping - that OK too?

Why don't you try to find an alternative 'crime'; that actually meets the criteria as comparable.
I.E. victimless

Who are the victims of flytipping? Are there more (or any) people killed by flytipping versus people killed by speeding vehicles (even ones where speed is the only factor)?

Are any people actually killed by speeding though; surely the offence is almost certainly going to be one of dangerous driving is there's a fatality involved?

Speaking personally I find the visual and environmental damage caused by flytipping to be far more annoying and offensive than someone doing 70mph on an NSL across somewhere like the North Yorkshire Moors. I suspect many others feel the same way but which offence do you reckon is more likely to be prosecuted?

"Are any people actually killed by speeding though?" Is that a serious question? If I'm driving past a school at 100mph and kill the lollypop lady 'speeding' might not be the charge but it is clearly speeding that has led to the charge and the speeding has taken a victim's life. So yes, people are very much killed by speeding. Sometimes speed is a contributory factor, sometimes it is the only factor.

It was a serious question and I'd actually go further and say nobody is actually killed by speeding alone; it's bad driving that causes accidents and fatalities and, while excessive speed can certainly exacerbate the consequences, speed alone never killed anybody IMO. It's the poor judgement which results in the incorrect choice of speed that's the real issue and that's why sometimes 100mph on a stretch of motorway is perfectly safe whereas at others - when there's thick fog for example - 70mph is downright dangerous.

Judging by your posts on this thread you don't seem very good at picking examples to illustrate your point but how on earth could driving past a school at 100mph when children are being escorted across the road ever be considered "just" speeding? Surely that's dangerous driving in anyone's book and a good illustration of the point I've just made (i.e. it's the poor judgement of your hypothetical driver that's the issue, not speed per se).

I was just making a simple point:

Some are arguing that a PCoJ charge was inappropriate because speeding is a trivial matter. I asked whether they should just be let off and whether the same would apply to someone who had been flytipping. Flytipping doesn't kill people, speeding can kill people - so flytipping, by that measure, must be even more trivial than speeding. Your belief that nobody is killed by speeding is risible. By your logic, the woman in this case http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/25/young-woman-died-car... just needed to be a better driver so that she could get the car round the bend at 69mph? It doesn't matter whether someone is charged with dangerous driving, reckless driving or whatever if the cause of the accident is excessive speed. Therefore your response to my exaggerated example "how on earth could driving past a school at 100mph when children are being escorted across the road ever be considered "just" speeding?" is irrelevant (apart from the fact that no-one said it anyway).

Why do you think we have speed limits?