Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf

[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.

[The Selfish Gene]

MB140 said:

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 st?

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?

to be fair - in both of the crimes I was a victim of, the police were absolutely excellent albeit after the event. I know they don't have a crystal ball, but closing the local police station and less of the police about visually definitely increases the risk of crimes being committed.

Once it had happened though - in both cases they were swarming in minutes and thoroughly excellent.

I actually like the police a lot. The traffic rules are the problem I have. AS others have said. Unreasonable speed limits, draconian measures to ensure we comply.

It gets to the point where everybody just ignores the limits everywhere - and quite frankly i'd quite like people to do 30mph down my road where the children play.

I just think that 50 in what should clearly be 70s is ridiculous. The variable limits are badly thought out and cause more risk and problems than they ever solve.

Motorway should be increased also - as it takes forever to get anywhere with people bumbling along at 70

Edited by The Selfish Gene on Thursday 26th April 12:30

[JNW1]

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).

[The Selfish Gene]

ElectricPics said:

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 st should respect their community so there would be no need for a police presence?

People behaving, what a revolutionary idea hey?

in this case - they weren't local - both crimes committed by people that have travelled to the area.

[The Rookie]

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.

Cool, so abolish it and then I can crash into your car and drive off in the safe knowledge you can’t track me as driver so I won’t have to recompense you at all, have at it hoss.

Noting that S172 has existed in various incarnations since the 1930’s.

[jm doc]

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.

The European court ruled that it was only a regulatory matter and as such should not be viewed in the same way as criminal offences. However they did not consider the punishments for non-compliance or false compliance in reaching that verdict despite the fact this clearly puts it beyond a routine licencing or regulatory matter in the case of speeding. In addition the punishment for non compliance has been significantly increased and now exceeds that of the offence being investigated (for speeding).

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

[jm doc]

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?

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

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.
Is 'no comment' an acceptable response to the 172?

You aren't incriminating yourself you are complying with your obligation for the licenced activity.
I've nominated myself tons of times. Didn't mean I was guilty of an offence.
I was however fulfilling my obligations under the licensed activity.
Of course if I didn't want to be subject of that I could have taken my pedal cycle, the train, the bus or walked instead. they aren't licenced activities.

[vonhosen]

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?

You need to look up what perverting is, because that's not it.

[vonhosen]

jm doc said:

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.

The European court ruled that it was only a regulatory matter and as such should not be viewed in the same way as criminal offences. However they did not consider the punishments for non-compliance or false compliance in reaching that verdict despite the fact this clearly puts it beyond a routine licencing or regulatory matter in the case of speeding. In addition the punishment for non compliance has been significantly increased and now exceeds that of the offence being investigated (for speeding).

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

Blah de blah.
So now you are against majority verdicts
Knock yourself out and put all the considerations you want before the court. You can move the goalposts wherever you want as far as I'm concerned in your attempts to score, i'm really not concerned.

[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.

[Greendubber]

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?

Look up lawful exemptions.

[The Mad Monk]

MB140 said:

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.

Doesn't sound as though you were busy when your class studied English language and grammar.

[ElectricPics]

MB140 said:

Maybe the people making the area st 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 st.

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 st area because a minority of people cause all the stness.

Couldn't agree more about the repeat offenders especially where burglary is involved.

I'm not a copper, not even close, but that doesn't stop me having an attitude about scumbags.

Blaming a majority for the actions of a minority? It's not exactly uncommon for that minority of repeat offenders to be shielded by the majority, especially when the police try to get information and evidence for them to prosecute the repeat offenders you say they fail to catch.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

You aren't incriminating yourself you are complying with your obligation for the licenced activity.
I've nominated myself tons of times. Didn't mean I was guilty of an offence.
I was however fulfilling my obligations under the licensed activity.
Of course if I didn't want to be subject of that I could have taken my pedal cycle, the train, the bus or walked instead. they aren't licenced activities.

A vehicle is recorded exceeding the speed limit at a speed where prosecution will automatically occur.
The registered keeper is asked to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence.
How is that anything other than incriminatory?
Refuse to say and get done over anyway.
Talk about a stacked deck.

[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?

[andy_s]

cmaguire said:

A vehicle is recorded exceeding the speed limit at a speed where prosecution will automatically occur.
The registered keeper is asked to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence.
How is that anything other than incriminatory?
Refuse to say and get done over anyway.
Talk about a stacked deck.

You can't see a teeny weeny flaw in not having to identify the driver of the vehicle you are responsible for after an offense is committed....?

If you want to unstack that deck, get a pushbike and stick it to the man, job jobbed

[cmaguire]

andy_s said:

You can't see a teeny weeny flaw in not having to identify the driver of the vehicle you are responsible for after an offense is committed....?

If you want to unstack that deck, get a pushbike and stick it to the man, job jobbed

In principle I agree with you, but that expectation is a green light for easy convictions for all manner of trivial transgressions to the point it could be argued it encourages the authorities to look for them in the first place because it is so easy.
In what other scenario are you expected to snitch on yourself or someone else because if you don't you get punished anyway? Smacks of bully-boy tactics.