Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf
Discussion
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
ghe13rte said:
Greendubber said:
cmaguire said:
Greendubber said:
No ones putting cars in the catagory of offensive weapons. The point being made is that lot of offences are 'victimless' as far as no one person is a victim but technically the victim is 'Regina'
Much the same as PCOJ, which people referred to as a victimless crime (it may or may not have been you though)
Or it may not have been anybody, as my recollection has speeding cited as the victimless crime.Much the same as PCOJ, which people referred to as a victimless crime (it may or may not have been you though)
He was perverting justice and I can't see how that fits the definition of a victimless crime. Maybe those who are saying it is don't know what one is.
If he wasn't speeding how was he perverting the course of justice? Genuine question Von.
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.
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.
Just ignore them whenever possible, that's your only option bar succumbing to their demands.
Wills2 said:
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....
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.
That's nothing to do with the Police or the CPS, it's nothing to do with this case either, complain to the council, local authority or government. I happen to agree there's an elements of manifestation of virtue signalling, vote grabbing and mild hysteria, but it's nothing to do with the system set up to enforce those limits. In some cases it's justified to catr for the lowest common denominator and we've discussed how it's difficult to change that. I'm as frustrated as you but objectively it makes hardly any difference to our real lives except we can't go as fast as we think we can. Going as fast as you like isn't the objective of road safety policy, it's to get the most people from a to b as safely as possible. 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.
In my village they introduced a 20 limit recently, it's ridiculous in my opinion but was due mainly to a few t
ts doing 40 past the school and 50 down the middle of the village. These sorts of people are the ones to point the finger at, perhaps not those who have a responsibility for collective safety. As I've said before, if they don't react and someone is hurt despite the warnings - who will be blamed...? Leave the limit at 30 and put in a speed camera and there'll be similar bleatings and so on we go. Watchagonnado? Motoring isn't really seen as a recreational activity, certainly not on the public roads, so what do you expect.
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.
andy_s said:
That's nothing to do with the Police or the CPS, it's nothing to do with this case either, complain to the council, local authority or government. I happen to agree there's an elements of manifestation of virtue signalling, vote grabbing and mild hysteria, but it's nothing to do with the system set up to enforce those limits. In some cases it's justified to catr for the lowest common denominator and we've discussed how it's difficult to change that. I'm as frustrated as you but objectively it makes hardly any difference to our real lives except we can't go as fast as we think we can. Going as fast as you like isn't the objective of road safety policy, it's to get the most people from a to b as safely as possible.
In my village they introduced a 20 limit recently, it's ridiculous in my opinion but was due mainly to a few tts doing 40 past the school and 50 down the middle of the village. These sorts of people are the ones to point the finger at, perhaps not those who have a responsibility for collective safety. As I've said before, if they don't react and someone is hurt despite the warnings - who will be blamed...? Leave the limit at 30 and put in a speed camera and there'll be similar bleatings and so on we go. Watchagonnado? Motoring isn't really seen as a recreational activity, certainly not on the public roads, so what do you expect.
You do realise those 'tIn my village they introduced a 20 limit recently, it's ridiculous in my opinion but was due mainly to a few t
ts doing 40 past the school and 50 down the middle of the village. These sorts of people are the ones to point the finger at, perhaps not those who have a responsibility for collective safety. As I've said before, if they don't react and someone is hurt despite the warnings - who will be blamed...? Leave the limit at 30 and put in a speed camera and there'll be similar bleatings and so on we go. Watchagonnado? Motoring isn't really seen as a recreational activity, certainly not on the public roads, so what do you expect.ts' will still be doing 40 past the school and 50 through the village?The only people affected (i.e. inconvenienced) by that crap will be those that didn't need addressing in the first place.
cmaguire said:
You do realise those 'tts' will still be doing 40 past the school and 50 through the village?
The only people affected (i.e. inconvenienced) by that crap will be those that didn't need addressing in the first place.
I do happen to know that, thanks for the patronising tone though. ts' will still be doing 40 past the school and 50 through the village?The only people affected (i.e. inconvenienced) by that crap will be those that didn't need addressing in the first place.
cmaguire said:
andy_s said:
I do happen to know that, thanks for the patronising tone though.
So why do it then?king explained that above, try reading it - honestly you come across like you think I/we are responsible for the situation, you don't read what the reasons and explanations are and you don't even attempt to try to see things from a bigger perspective apart from your own selfish one. Engage your brain and everything will become clear, if you're going to incessantly bang on about something at least have the decency to do it to the right people and do some research and thinking before you spout off. Christ, raise the bar chap, you sound like a broken record.
andy_s said:
cmaguire said:
andy_s said:
I do happen to know that, thanks for the patronising tone though.
So why do it then?king explained that above, try reading it - honestly you come across like you think I/we are responsible for the situation, you don't read what the reasons and explanations are and you don't even attempt to try to see things from a bigger perspective apart from your own selfish one. Engage your brain and everything will become clear, if you're going to incessantly bang on about something at least have the decency to do it to the right people and do some research and thinking before you spout off. Christ, raise the bar chap, you sound like a broken record.
I'm not the one that makes the rules.
The whole 'Speed Kills', and therefore slowing everybody down is the cure for everything, is entirely flawed and a solution for and by simpletons.
Your example shows that they can't even implement their daft model properly.
vonhosen said:
If he wasn't speeding how was he perverting the course of justice? Genuine question Von.
vonhosen said:
Presumably they'd started amassing evidence, having satisfied the first part in forming opinion that he was speeding. He frustrated the second required part of evidence gathering by interfering with, jamming, the measuring device. When required to identify the driver he lied saying it wasn't him/his vehicle. He attempted to destroy evidence & add to that foundation lie that it wasn't him/his vehicle by removing & destroying the jammer. His use of the jammer on three separate occasions demonstrated an intent to frustrate the process of justice.
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.
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.
jm doc said:
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.
They don't have to be able to prove you committed another offence. They have to prove that you frustrated the investigation of the matter by PtCoJ.Apologies for the poor formatting.
The course of justice doesn't always end in a conviction, if you are rightfully acquitted justice is served.
PtCoJ isn't therefore about being able to prove guilt for another offence, it's about perverting the due process.
We have to be able to rely on the process as intended & people can't be allowed to
with it, by destroying evidence, colluding to provide false alibis or make false allegations to set others up etc. The court were satisfied that this man's intent was to interfere in the investigative process & that he actively partook in that whether another offence could be proven or not. They'll never know the truth because of his external unlawful interference.
PtCoJ is to protect an assault on the process & he was doing that irrespective of what else he was/wasn't doing.
Don't
with the system.You can lawfully beat it but all means, but don't
it.jm doc said:
They formed an opinion but he saw them and slowed down. Is that perverting the course of justice?
No.jm doc said:
They formed an opinion which was wrong, but the laser jammer stopped confirmation, how can an innocent man pervert the course of justice?
If the intent & act was to with the investigative process.jm doc said:
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.
Lying ie saying 'it wasn't me' when it was, isn't PtCoJ.But if you were to lie by providing a false alibi for somebody that would be (there is a collusion to obstruct/divert the investigative process).
In that case you haven't committed the offence being investigated, but you have
with the investigative process by attempting to divert it, as this guy did.If you lie to hide the truth & divert the investigation falsely to another innocent who is arrested as a result, that would be.
Their signal has been jammed. They investigate. He lies that it wasn't him/his vehicle to try & misdirect the investigation. He destroys evidence to support that misdirection. He is trying to
the process & the court were satisfied that was the case.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.
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
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.
They don't have to be able to prove you committed another offence. They have to prove that you frustrated the investigation of the matter by PtCoJ.Apologies for the poor formatting.
The course of justice doesn't always end in a conviction, if you are rightfully acquitted justice is served.
PtCoJ isn't therefore about being able to prove guilt for another offence, it's about perverting the due process.
We have to be able to rely on the process as intended & people can't be allowed to
with it, by destroying evidence, colluding to provide false alibis or make false allegations to set others up etc. The court were satisfied that this man's intent was to interfere in the investigative process & that he actively partook in that whether another offence could be proven or not. They'll never know the truth because of his external unlawful interference.
PtCoJ is to protect an assault on the process & he was doing that irrespective of what else he was/wasn't doing.
Don't
with the system.You can lawfully beat it but all means, but don't
it.jm doc said:
They formed an opinion but he saw them and slowed down. Is that perverting the course of justice?
No.jm doc said:
They formed an opinion which was wrong, but the laser jammer stopped confirmation, how can an innocent man pervert the course of justice?
If the intent & act was to with the investigative process.jm doc said:
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.
Lying ie saying 'it wasn't me' when it was, isn't PtCoJ.But if you were to lie by providing a false alibi for somebody that would be (there is a collusion to obstruct/divert the investigative process).
In that case you haven't committed the offence being investigated, but you have
with the investigative process by attempting to divert it, as this guy did.If you lie to hide the truth & divert the investigation falsely to another innocent who is arrested as a result, that would be.
Their signal has been jammed. They investigate. He lies that it wasn't him/his vehicle to try & misdirect the investigation. He destroys evidence to support that misdirection. He is trying to
the process & the court were satisfied that was the case.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.
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:
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.
Yes, that’s a good account of what seems to have happened. I still say that taxpayers money is being wasted sending him to jail though. I would say community service and a sizeable fine would have been better and saved much needed prison space for violent and more serious criminals.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.
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”.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff