Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf
Discussion
cmaguire said:
Next time you are out try to count the number of people speeding. Not those running over lollipop ladies, or any of your other links, but the 99.99999999% or thereabouts of incidents which constitute the massive norm. People doing 35 in a 30 or 83 on a Motorway or 47 in a 40 etc
There will be so many you'll lose count, and it really doesn't matter. Near enough everybody is doing it, even the ones that get all uptight about others doing it differently to them.
It must be trivial or there wouldn't be so many doing it.
Can you explain how many people doing something makes that thing trivial?There will be so many you'll lose count, and it really doesn't matter. Near enough everybody is doing it, even the ones that get all uptight about others doing it differently to them.
It must be trivial or there wouldn't be so many doing it.
Cat said:
The Selfish Gene said:
I believe it makes it 'trivial' because it shows the law up for being incorrect, or outdated.
i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
According to the lunchtime news today a large percentage of people, particularly young people, in some areas are ignoring the rules on carrying offensive weapons. So by your logic carrying offensive weapons is trivial or prohibiting possession is out of date?i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
Cat
jm doc said:
La Liga said:
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?The Selfish Gene said:
TooMany2cvs said:
The Selfish Gene said:
Simply though - I'd reduce the number of road users and increase the standard of driving for those that are left.
I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
Ummm... <scratches head>I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
It already is a privilege not a right... It has been for, well, ever since driving licences started to be issued and could be withdrawn.
k wit can get qualified for a few hundred quid.I'm talking about 15/20k worth of training and an IQ level higher than a vegetable.
jm doc said:
La Liga said:
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?jm doc said:
Neither you, VH or LL have answered the question though, just simply asserted that "it's not PtCoJ". Tell that to the people they are handing out speeding tickets to and see what they say.
I was specific with it not being 'a course of justice'. PCoJ said:
The course of justice begins when:
An event has occurred, and it is reasonable to expect that an investigation will follow; or
Investigations which might bring proceedings have actually started; or
Proceedings have started or are about to start.
None of the above apply. An event has occurred, and it is reasonable to expect that an investigation will follow; or
Investigations which might bring proceedings have actually started; or
Proceedings have started or are about to start.
It could be framed as misconduct in terms of internal proceedings, but it ain't no crime.
The Selfish Gene said:
rubbish. Any old fk wit can get qualified for a few hundred quid.
I'm talking about 15/20k worth of training and an IQ level higher than a vegetable.
Mobility is fundamental to our economy. k wit can get qualified for a few hundred quid.I'm talking about 15/20k worth of training and an IQ level higher than a vegetable.
Making driving prohibitively hard / expensive would harm that.
The overall road safety strategy is successful when measuring reduced deaths / harm.
The Selfish Gene said:
La Liga said:
obility is fundamental to our economy.
Making driving prohibitively hard / expensive would harm that.
The overall road safety strategy is successful when measuring reduced deaths / harm.
I don't agree - there are buses, trains, taxis and soon there will be automated cars...... nobody is banning people from being mobile.Making driving prohibitively hard / expensive would harm that.
The overall road safety strategy is successful when measuring reduced deaths / harm.
Just improving driver training and thus safety - how can that ever be a bad thing?
I mean - that's what everyone harps on about with randomly chosen speed limits
Improving standards is good, but it needs to be balanced against the social and economic needs.
As I say, road deaths and harm have only gone in one direction for sometime, so the overall strategy is working.
JNW1 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
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?
In terms of the PCOJ aspect, I think there's a question as to whether it's an appropriate use of that particular charge to pursue what was in the first instance a trivial offence. I think in these speeding cases it's being used to make a point but that's probably no great surprise given the investment North Yorkshire have made in their camera fleet. 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?
However, even accepting it's an appropriate use of the charge - and in fairness the police and the judiciary obviously think it is - my question on whether the resultant sentence was proportionate still remains. Is adding criminals like this to our over-crowded prison population really a sensible response when we know people who present more of a threat to people and/or property often get away with non-custodial sentences? Can't see it personally, surely community service, a hefty fine and more points on the licence would have been more appropriate?
As for my belief that nobody is killed by speeding, we'll have to agree to disagree on that I'm afraid. In terms of the example you quote, that's actually a perfect illustration of how poor judgement causes accidents and - sadly in this case - a fatality. The problem seemed to be quite simply the inability of the driver to assess what speed was appropriate for the conditions; sounds like the fact she was running late impaired her judgement but whatever the reason it was her judgement that was at fault and caused the accident. Of course excessive speed made the consequences worse but the cause was driver error, not speed per se.
Why do I think we have speed limits? Probably because a lot of drivers can't be trusted to make sensible judgements of what's appropriate but in reality they (the limits) are just a blunt instrument which address only symptoms not causes; their ever wider enforcement through technology appears to be having no effect on safety which probably illustrates what a blunt instrument they are. The real cause of problems on our roads is incompetent drivers but that's far more difficult to solve (and hence instead we appear to have a process whereby we're all being gradually dumbed-down to the level of the lowest common denominator).
Para 1: Do you mean speeding when you say "pursue what was in the first instance a trivial offence". I haven't seen anything that says he was speeding. What he did was use a jammer that tampered with evidence that would demonstrate whether he was speeding or not (if he wasn't speeding then he's an even bigger muppet). That tampering with the evidence is what resulted in the charge of PCoJ.
Para 3: All nonsense I'm afraid. The "poor judgement" and "driver error" was driving too fast - they were breaking the speed limit. If they hadn't, no accident would have occurred.
The Selfish Gene said:
does it? So the social and economic needs are more important than the deaths on the road?
interesting.
Where did I say that? interesting.
I said there needs to be a balance. A balance between the risk of harm and the reward of social and economic benefit.
The Selfish Gene said:
I'd argue (as we are being told) that we need to clamp down. My solution would drastically and immediately massively cut road deaths. Unless that's not really what it's all about, and really we are more interested in making money from motorists and not solving the problem.
Or alternatively we may be close to a saturation point where we're unlikely to make significant reductions as we're now consistently below 2000 road deaths, of which a good % will be pedestrian / cyclist error (as they make up a 3rd of deaths), reducing the scope for driver improvement further. The Selfish Gene said:
I solve problems for a living. What is currently happening is not solving any problems. It's using a set of outdated rules with an agenda to make money from a vilified demographic.
Apart from that long-term downtrend in road deaths against a backdrop of more vehicles and more miles travelled. cmaguire said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Para 3: All nonsense I'm afraid. The "poor judgement" and "driver error" was driving too fast - they were breaking the speed limit. If they hadn't, no accident would have occurred.
In your opinion.I expect I, along with numerous other people could negotiate that road perfectly safely in a similar car at a significantly higher speed than she was doing.
It was poor judgement on her part and her ability wasn't up to it.
Cue the predictable driving God BS response(s).
Roman Rhodes said:
cmaguire said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Para 3: All nonsense I'm afraid. The "poor judgement" and "driver error" was driving too fast - they were breaking the speed limit. If they hadn't, no accident would have occurred.
In your opinion.I expect I, along with numerous other people could negotiate that road perfectly safely in a similar car at a significantly higher speed than she was doing.
It was poor judgement on her part and her ability wasn't up to it.
Cue the predictable driving God BS response(s).
jm doc said:
La Liga said:
PCoJ said:
The course of justice begins when:
An event has occurred, and it is reasonable to expect that an investigation will follow; or
Investigations which might bring proceedings have actually started; or
Proceedings have started or are about to start.
None of the above apply.An event has occurred, and it is reasonable to expect that an investigation will follow; or
Investigations which might bring proceedings have actually started; or
Proceedings have started or are about to start.
Email the CPS and ask them if you still think it's the case. See what they say.
jm doc said:
You just want to have your cake and eat it, don't you. Dishing out all those speeding tickets to all and sundry, pursuing anyone who dares to try and avoid a ticket and jailing them, pontificating and obfuscating when members of the public dare to object on sites like this, but merrily carrying on breaking the law without any regard for the utter hypocrisy involved.
If an on / off-duty police officer is caught committing a road traffic offence, then they should / will be dealt with the same way as a non-police officer. jm doc said:
Still avoiding the issue as ever. The point is, why isn't he reporting himself?
He isn't under an obligation to, just as you're not. The Selfish Gene said:
all fair comment La Liga
although I would dispute the stats on the downtrend being as a result of tax cameras.
the old line always trotted out still stands for me
If there is a death on a road, and a camera goes up, and the next year there isn't a death, that isn't a 100% reduction in deaths due to the camera.
That's half flippant, but my point is there are very many ways to make it look like something is improving to fit the master plan. (I do it every single day)
.........I'd need much more evidence to agree with the cameras doing any safety improvement whatsoever.
The cause is going to be a complex mix, which is why I use 'overall road safety strategy' when talking about it. although I would dispute the stats on the downtrend being as a result of tax cameras.
the old line always trotted out still stands for me
If there is a death on a road, and a camera goes up, and the next year there isn't a death, that isn't a 100% reduction in deaths due to the camera.
That's half flippant, but my point is there are very many ways to make it look like something is improving to fit the master plan. (I do it every single day)
.........I'd need much more evidence to agree with the cameras doing any safety improvement whatsoever.
The encompasses everything including aspects there are indisputable such as greatly improved vehicle safety and design, as well as faster, better trauma care etc.
Wills2 said:
La Liga said:
he cause is going to be a complex mix, which is why I use 'overall road safety strategy' when talking about it.
The encompasses everything including aspects there are indisputable such as greatly improved vehicle safety and design, as well as faster, better trauma care etc.
But the overall strategy doesn't seem to take in account the capabilities of a modern car whatsoever we have "smart" motorways reducing the speed limit for no reason at all despite the fact that a modern car is so much more capable than when the 70mph limit was introduced, we have councils turning NSL roads into 50 and 40mph roads etc.... The encompasses everything including aspects there are indisputable such as greatly improved vehicle safety and design, as well as faster, better trauma care etc.
Cars get safer but speed limits reduce, it doesn't make sense.
You only have to witness how just about everyone ignores a 20mph speed limit zone to understand that people are just ignoring regulations that they deem to be poor, when will you guys wake up to it.
Car safety only helps so much. Human error, reaction time etc are constants. Whether there'd at least the same number of deaths if limits probably can't be known unless it's tried.
jm doc said:
They formed an opinion but he saw them and slowed down. Is that perverting the course of justice?
They formed an opinion which was wrong, but the laser jammer stopped confirmation, how can an innocent man pervert the course of justice?
You have stated many times that lying isn't PtCoJ so we can disregard that comment and of course it follows that if he was innocent he is entitled to possess a jammer and destroy it if he so wishes at any time.
If you aren't speeding, you are de facto not committing any offence and there is no course of justice to pervert. In fact it could be argued that charging an innocent man with PtCoJ is actually in itself an act which perverts the course of justice. It's undoubtedly perverse.
Apologies for the poor formatting.
Remember you can attempt (either way / indictable) offences, including attempting the impossible. They formed an opinion which was wrong, but the laser jammer stopped confirmation, how can an innocent man pervert the course of justice?
You have stated many times that lying isn't PtCoJ so we can disregard that comment and of course it follows that if he was innocent he is entitled to possess a jammer and destroy it if he so wishes at any time.
If you aren't speeding, you are de facto not committing any offence and there is no course of justice to pervert. In fact it could be argued that charging an innocent man with PtCoJ is actually in itself an act which perverts the course of justice. It's undoubtedly perverse.
Apologies for the poor formatting.
4rephill said:
The Selfish Gene said:
........So if you were transporting a heart to save a live from London to Edinburgh at 3am.........and had the correct level of training - and were responsible with any road users that you happened upon..........you'd be ok with that average wouldn't you?.....
How could anyone be "ok" with that? 
If it's a life saving organ needing to be transported from London to Edinburgh, what fugnugget would arrange for the organ to be transported by road when it would be far quicker to get it there by air?
He may ride a scooter and live with his Mum but that is irrelevant.
JNW1 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Pretty much agree with that except:
Para 1: Do you mean speeding when you say "pursue what was in the first instance a trivial offence". I haven't seen anything that says he was speeding. What he did was use a jammer that tampered with evidence that would demonstrate whether he was speeding or not (if he wasn't speeding then he's an even bigger muppet). That tampering with the evidence is what resulted in the charge of PCoJ.
Para 3: All nonsense I'm afraid. The "poor judgement" and "driver error" was driving too fast - they were breaking the speed limit. If they hadn't, no accident would have occurred.
Yes, I suppose I was assuming the reason a camera was on him in the first place was because he was suspected of speeding - as has been the case in other PCoJ instances that have been highlighted - but perhaps it was only on him because he was gesturing at the van (in which case you're right, that makes him an even bigger idiot). Para 1: Do you mean speeding when you say "pursue what was in the first instance a trivial offence". I haven't seen anything that says he was speeding. What he did was use a jammer that tampered with evidence that would demonstrate whether he was speeding or not (if he wasn't speeding then he's an even bigger muppet). That tampering with the evidence is what resulted in the charge of PCoJ.
Para 3: All nonsense I'm afraid. The "poor judgement" and "driver error" was driving too fast - they were breaking the speed limit. If they hadn't, no accident would have occurred.
As for my paragraph 3 being nonsense, don't agree I'm afraid. Leaving aside unforeseeable acts of god I'd contend there are only two reasons an accident happens, driver error or a failure of some sort on the vehicle. Nonsense. Never heard of kids running out in front of vehicles or any number of other avoidable incidents that can befall a driver resulting in an accident? Presumably you’re equally unaware of the much lower survival rates of pedestrians hit by cars as the speed increases? 40mph is much more likely to cause death than 30mph if a car/person impact happens. You could perhaps argue severe weather as well - such as running into an unexpected bank of fog - but even then I'd argue a competent driver should be able to adjust to the conditions and if they don't it's driver error that causes any accident.
To take the example you used, driver error resulted in excess speed which sadly caused a fatal accident; however, that excess speed didn't just happen, it was a direct consequence of the actions of the person behind the wheel who unfortunately got it wrong. So for me excess speed is down to driver error and the ever increasing enforcement of speed limits won't solve that; what it might do is make the consequences of error less severe if accidents happen at lower speeds but I'm seeing nothing in any of the official accident statistics to prove that. For example, the camera van fleet in North Yorkshire appears to have achieved the square root of bugger all in terms of reducing serious injuries and fatalities...
It is patently obvious that there are no ‘victims’ of the vast majority of speeding (ignoring pollution arguments) but to try and stretch that to saying there are NEVER victims of speeding by recategorising it as driver error (e.g. some idiot saying I reckon I could have got round that bend at 69mph even though the road limit is 50mph so therefore the person who didn’t and died is a victim of driver error, not speeding) is laughable.
ghe13rte said:
In the incidents that led to the PCoJ the normal course would be:
1. Operator sees vehicle and wishes to measure speed
2. Speed measured
3. Speed higher than that allowed save evidence then prosecute, or
4. Speed lower than that allowed do nothing.
However in this case 3 or 4 could not be achieved. 3 and 4 being the normal course of justice but not being possible resulted in a different investigation and course of justice.
If a normal course of actions is diverted to another abnormal course then “perverted” is a term that the law use for that.
The actions of Mr Hill alone caused the police to divert or have their normal administration of justice in the measurement of the speed of Hill’s vehicle changed hence the Course of Justice was Perverted by Hill.
Hope that is simple enough for the simple.
Succinctly put but I fear some still won’t get it!1. Operator sees vehicle and wishes to measure speed
2. Speed measured
3. Speed higher than that allowed save evidence then prosecute, or
4. Speed lower than that allowed do nothing.
However in this case 3 or 4 could not be achieved. 3 and 4 being the normal course of justice but not being possible resulted in a different investigation and course of justice.
If a normal course of actions is diverted to another abnormal course then “perverted” is a term that the law use for that.
The actions of Mr Hill alone caused the police to divert or have their normal administration of justice in the measurement of the speed of Hill’s vehicle changed hence the Course of Justice was Perverted by Hill.
Hope that is simple enough for the simple.
ghe13rte said:
Roman Rhodes said:
ghe13rte said:
In the incidents that led to the PCoJ the normal course would be:
1. Operator sees vehicle and wishes to measure speed
2. Speed measured
3. Speed higher than that allowed save evidence then prosecute, or
4. Speed lower than that allowed do nothing.
However in this case 3 or 4 could not be achieved. 3 and 4 being the normal course of justice but not being possible resulted in a different investigation and course of justice.
If a normal course of actions is diverted to another abnormal course then “perverted” is a term that the law use for that.
The actions of Mr Hill alone caused the police to divert or have their normal administration of justice in the measurement of the speed of Hill’s vehicle changed hence the Course of Justice was Perverted by Hill.
Hope that is simple enough for the simple.
Succinctly put but I fear some still won’t get it!1. Operator sees vehicle and wishes to measure speed
2. Speed measured
3. Speed higher than that allowed save evidence then prosecute, or
4. Speed lower than that allowed do nothing.
However in this case 3 or 4 could not be achieved. 3 and 4 being the normal course of justice but not being possible resulted in a different investigation and course of justice.
If a normal course of actions is diverted to another abnormal course then “perverted” is a term that the law use for that.
The actions of Mr Hill alone caused the police to divert or have their normal administration of justice in the measurement of the speed of Hill’s vehicle changed hence the Course of Justice was Perverted by Hill.
Hope that is simple enough for the simple.
What I can believe is that those who appear not to understand simply don’t want to accept the fact and prefer to only believe what they would like the facts to be. I understand that is termed “delusional”.
Meanwhile a nutter brandishes a knife at another driver.
the press said:
The horrific video was sent to West Midlands Police via Twitter to which a superintendent responded - branding the incident as "unacceptable".
Superintendent Jane Bailey also vowed to hunt the drivers and bring them to justice.
Let's see if they catch the guy......I don't hold out much hope. Probably in the same realms as PTCOJ whilst speeding Superintendent Jane Bailey also vowed to hunt the drivers and bring them to justice.
JNW1 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
See bold above. You’re being obtuse trying to argue that speeding can’t have victims. Do you really believe that speeding without accident = victimless and speeding with accident (and victim) = always “driver error”? What “error” did the driver commit when he was doing 40 in a 30 and a child ran out in front of him? The child dies but would have survived if they’d been hit at 30.
It is patently obvious that there are no ‘victims’ of the vast majority of speeding (ignoring pollution arguments) but to try and stretch that to saying there are NEVER victims of speeding by recategorising it as driver error (e.g. some idiot saying I reckon I could have got round that bend at 69mph even though the road limit is 50mph so therefore the person who didn’t and died is a victim of driver error, not speeding) is laughable.
Sorry but are you seriously asking what error a driver committed by doing 40 in a 30? I'd have thought it was obvious to a blind man but since you clearly need help understanding being 33% over the speed limit in a built-up area where it's highly likely children will be around is driver error (and illegal).It is patently obvious that there are no ‘victims’ of the vast majority of speeding (ignoring pollution arguments) but to try and stretch that to saying there are NEVER victims of speeding by recategorising it as driver error (e.g. some idiot saying I reckon I could have got round that bend at 69mph even though the road limit is 50mph so therefore the person who didn’t and died is a victim of driver error, not speeding) is laughable.
As for all this driving god "I could have got round that bend going faster" stuff, I've never mentioned any of that so you're either making it up to justify your argument or attributing comments made by others to me (can't be bothered to re-read the thread to establish which).
And I'm sticking to my guns on the cause of accidents; it's one or a combination of driver error, car failure or (in extreme cases) an act of god. In itself speed never killed anyone; the inappropriate use of speed may well have done but what makes the speed inappropriate? Poor judgement by the driver (i.e. driver error).
Edited by JNW1 on Saturday 28th April 22:24
I didn’t attribute any comment to you - not my fault you can’t be bothered to read the thread. The only thing it would attribute to you is talking utter nonsense in a failed (and pointless) attempt to somehow pretend that “speed never killed anyone”!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff