Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf
Discussion
vonhosen said:
PixelpeepS3 said:
the sting in the tail for me is the law that states the police can't ask you to do anything that could incriminate yourself, except ask you who was driving and then punish you with a more harsh a penalty than the offence if you DON'T answer...?!
Because driving is a licenced activity. Everybody isn't free to do it.The Highest (European) Courts have ruled on it.
Sec 172 is not an admission of guilt & is a proportionate requirement within the licenced activity.
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.
Schmed said:
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.
Priceless.vonhosen said:
Your opponents appear better organised, more passionate & committed. Pro higher limits etc are very fringe one man bands lost in background noise.
This bit, about sums it up. Usual people campaign on TV for safety and a thread will open up here with the usual shouting but nothing coherent to counter the claims in the mainstream press.Schmed said:
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.
Well, just don't speed, then none of this will apply to you, you then beat the draconian police state Big Brother Stasi abominable legal system which infringe your god given human rights. Honestly, talk about first world problems.TooMany2cvs said:
The Selfish Gene said:
Since Xmas I've caught 3 scum in the act of burglarising my house and I've been threated with a gun (probably) at 10pm
Have you considered moving somewhere less s
t?That way the area would be less s**t as you put it and the poster wouldn’t have to move.
What a revelutionary idea hey?
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.How about flytipping - that OK too?
I.E. victimless
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: 13 pages in and I can't help but think the officer in the article summed it up perfectly.
That sums it up really, he took the piss and they can't have that. Officer said:
If you want to attract our attention, repeatedly gesturing at police camera vans with your middle finger while you’re driving a distinctive car fitted with a laser jammer is an excellent way to do it.
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.How about flytipping - that OK too?
I.E. victimless
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?
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.How about flytipping - that OK too?
I.E. victimless
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?
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?
Schmed said:
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.
It wasn't brought in for cameras, it's been around a hell of a lot longer.it's not self incrimination. Sec 172 doesn't mean you are guilty of an offence, its complying with the requirements of the licenced activity. NIPs don't mean you are guilty either. They are there so you can be aware of (to aid your ability to defend if need be) an allegation. It's a protective measure for you. An allegation doesn't mean you are guilty, it can be unfounded.
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. 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?
Really?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?
Why is it these daft extremes that never happen are dragged out of the ether every time the subject is speed?
vonhosen said:
It wasn't brought in for cameras, it's been around a hell of a lot longer.
it's not self incrimination. Sec 172 doesn't mean you are guilty of an offence, its complying with the requirements of the licenced activity. NIPs don't mean you are guilty either. They are there so you can be aware of (to aid your ability to defend if need be) an allegation. It's a protective measure for you. An allegation doesn't mean you are guilty, it can be unfounded.
By nominating yourself as the driver you are effectively incriminating yourself in most cases.it's not self incrimination. Sec 172 doesn't mean you are guilty of an offence, its complying with the requirements of the licenced activity. NIPs don't mean you are guilty either. They are there so you can be aware of (to aid your ability to defend if need be) an allegation. It's a protective measure for you. An allegation doesn't mean you are guilty, it can be unfounded.
Is 'no comment' an acceptable response to the 172?
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...MB140 said:
Maybe the police should do the job there paid for and police the area. Be an active visual deterrent rather than a call centre service dishing out crime numbers and wiping there hands of the situation.
That way the area would be less s**t as you put it and the poster wouldn’t have to move.
What a revelutionary idea hey?
Maybe the people who are making the area sThat way the area would be less s**t as you put it and the poster wouldn’t have to move.
What a revelutionary idea hey?
t should respect their community so there would be no need for a police presence?People behaving, what a revolutionary idea hey?
ElectricPics said:
Maybe the people who are making the area st should respect their community so there would be no need for a police presence?
People behaving, what a revolutionary idea hey?
Maybe the people making the area st should respect their community so there would be no need for a police presence?People behaving, what a revolutionary idea hey?
t by commiting crime don’t actual live in the community and are just there to commit crime. Even if the majority of people in the community are behaving it only takes a few criminals to make the whole area s
t. In fact I would wager the majority of crime in a given area is carried out by a very small minority of repeat offenders, who the police fail to catch and get convicted, mainly due to them being to busy in there crime reference number distribution call centers.
Your not a member of the crime number distribution center brigade by any chance. You strike me as a copper with your attitude.
Blaming the majority for the action of the minority. I mean really should everybody move out of a s
t area because a minority of people cause all the stness. 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...vonhosen said:
Steviesam said:
vonhosen said:
Schmed said:
Proportionality I think is what most people have a problem with - particularly with regard to minor motoring offences like speeding.
Out of interest you can smack someone over the head whilst robbing them, leaving them for dead but that doesn't get you a custodial sentence. Try to evade speeding tickets and you'll do hard time :
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16179256...disgustingsentence_given_to_robber_who_attacked_her_mum/
It's not about the offence (speeding or whatever), it's about the attack on the system of justice.Out of interest you can smack someone over the head whilst robbing them, leaving them for dead but that doesn't get you a custodial sentence. Try to evade speeding tickets and you'll do hard time :
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16179256...disgustingsentence_given_to_robber_who_attacked_her_mum/
Brainwashed.
A f****ng monkey can tell that is wrong.
Less sentient beings than monkeys could see that.
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.
Steviesam said:
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.
One doesn't preclude the other Steve.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff