So they do work then!

[herewego]

Hedders said:

vonhosen said:

Hedders said:

vonhosen said:

But that's got nothing do with him being surprised that giving someone your points is PtCoJ & that it is potentially a custodial offence.

I guess it is because he saw the fines simply as a new form of tax as he didn't consider himself to be doing anything dangerous.

The government don't care if you get someone elese to pay your tax, so long as it is paid.

It doesn't matter who stumps up the money for the fine (I've signed the cheque for the other half's parking ticket, that's no offence) it's the points you can't give to someone else. But come on, he knew that could get him in trouble.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 13:11

I honestly don't think he thought he could get in trouble for it. I concede that he knew it was 'wrong' but wrong in an 'oops i just crept over the speed limit' type of way rather than 'I just did something i could be put in prison for and potentially lose everything i have ever worked for'.

I find it hard to believe that any normal person would not do the same thing in order to protect their family, and that is why the law is wrong.

Speed limits are there to protect everybodies families. What are you saying is wrong with the law? Points? Isn't this the most effective way to reduce speeding that we have? How would you control it?

[Hedders]

How would i enforce it?

I would have carried on doing what we were doing that gave us among the safest roads in the world.

Well trained police, stopping those who stood out out from the crowd. I would get rid of ALL electronic speed enforcement. we simply do not need it.

[vonhosen]

Hedders said:

vonhosen said:

Hedders said:

vonhosen said:

But that's got nothing do with him being surprised that giving someone your points is PtCoJ & that it is potentially a custodial offence.

I guess it is because he saw the fines simply as a new form of tax as he didn't consider himself to be doing anything dangerous.

The government don't care if you get someone elese to pay your tax, so long as it is paid.

It doesn't matter who stumps up the money for the fine (I've signed the cheque for the other half's parking ticket, that's no offence) it's the points you can't give to someone else. But come on, he knew that could get him in trouble.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 13:11

I honestly don't think he thought he could get in trouble for it. I concede that he knew it was 'wrong' but wrong in an 'oops i just crept over the speed limit' type of way rather than 'I just did something i could be put in prison for and potentially lose everything i have ever worked for'.

I find it hard to believe that any normal person would not do the same thing in order to protect their family, and that is why the law is wrong.

There is a far simpler way to avoid getting yourself into these situations to protect your licence & it's one I prefer. It involves not saying I was only 15mph over the limit & adhering to them instead.

[vonhosen]

Hedders said:

How would i enforce it?

I would have carried on doing what we were doing that gave us among the safest roads in the world.

Well trained police, stopping those who stood out out from the crowd. I would get rid of ALL electronic speed enforcement. we simply do not need it.

Couldn't keep doing what was done before because of forced changes. Police officers were needed for other things (in response to calls from the public), were being taken for other things & there is no money for more trafpol. Hard choices made & the result a void that is filled by cameras.

[Funk]

oldsoak said:

If you live within the law, what possible reason could you have for worrying? Only when you step over that line between lawful and unlawful would you have any cause to worry...unless of course you are so paranoid as to believe that every BiB is 'out to get you'...

I think that cases where devices that are PROVEN to be unreliable (such as the LTI 20.20) are used to form the basis of either being primary or secondary evidence then we all have to start to worry.

If someone breaks into your house and then - for whatever reason - exits through a 2nd storey window, dying in the process then the fact you can be held accountable for it is shocking. IF (and I stress the 'if') the person was a known burglar and was unlawfully in someone else's home in the middle of the night, then they should get whatever's coming to them; if they have no desire to be attacked/maimed/disfigured/thrown from a 2nd storey window then they shouldn't be breaking into houses. Had they NOT broken into the house, the homeowner wouldn't ever have had anything to do with the burglar. They truly bring any shit down upon themselves when they choose to violate the sanctity of another persons' home.

If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time - despite being innocent - it could go very badly for you. As I've been reading elsewhere on this forum about Peter Ward's shocking treatment, this is more often not about truth and justice and more about 'chalking up a win'.

This country is spiralling downward so fast it's untrue.

[Seesure]

Having read the original link it says that the driver was done for perverting the course of justice...

As an error came up on the laser gun what evidence is there to say he was actually breaking the law.

Therefore if he hasn't broken any law what is he perverting.

Since when have laser diffusers become illegal? I know there was a plan to make them illegal through a road traffic act but as yet this has not had Parlimentary sign off.

[vonhosen]

Seesure said:

Having read the original link it says that the driver was done for perverting the course of justice...

As an error came up on the laser gun what evidence is there to say he was actually breaking the law.

Therefore if he hasn't broken any law what is he perverting.

Since when have laser diffusers become illegal? I know there was a plan to make them illegal through a road traffic act but as yet this has not had Parlimentary sign off.

They have primary evidence of speeding, the officers opinion. That is the only evidence they need of speeding to go with a perverting charge, because it's the perverting that stopped the required secondary evidence for speeding being gained. If it had been gained there would have been no perverting if it was fitted or not.

They aren't illegal per se (as of yet) as in just having them fitted where you aren't speeding at that time. But where they are involved to avoid being caught & prosecuted where there is evidence of speeding, then they can be shown to be used as part of a perverting the course of justice.

[Hedders]

vonhosen said:

Couldn't keep doing what was done before because of forced changes. Police officers were needed for other things (in response to calls from the public), were being taken for other things & there is no money for more trafpol. Hard choices made & the result a void that is filled by cameras.

well, if i was in charge different choices would have been made. But you would have to be in charge of everything, not just the police

[Seesure]

[quote=vonhosen
They have primary evidence of speeding, the officers opinion. That is the only evidence they need of speeding to go with a perverting charge, because it's the perverting that stopped the required secondary evidence for speeding being gained. If it had been gained there would have been no perverting if it was fitted or not.
quote]

Cheers VH, it still seems a very grey area, does that mean it is only Police Officers that can present primary evidence of speeding and not the civilian operators for the SCAMERA Partnerships?

[vonhosen]

Funk said:

oldsoak said:

If you live within the law, what possible reason could you have for worrying? Only when you step over that line between lawful and unlawful would you have any cause to worry...unless of course you are so paranoid as to believe that every BiB is 'out to get you'...

I think that cases where devices that are PROVEN to be unreliable (such as the LTI 20.20) are used to form the basis of either being primary or secondary evidence then we all have to start to worry.

Have they been PROVEN to be unreliable where used as per the manufacturers guidelines & in line with circumstances for which they gained type approval ?

Funk said:

If someone breaks into your house and then - for whatever reason - exits through a 2nd storey window, dying in the process then the fact you can be held accountable for it is shocking. IF (and I stress the 'if') the person was a known burglar and was unlawfully in someone else's home in the middle of the night, then they should get whatever's coming to them; if they have no desire to be attacked/maimed/disfigured/thrown from a 2nd storey window then they shouldn't be breaking into houses. Had they NOT broken into the house, the homeowner wouldn't ever have had anything to do with the burglar. They truly bring any shit down upon themselves when they choose to violate the sanctity of another persons' home.

That's not what the law says.
You can't be judge & juror and meet out to someone what they think they should have coming to them.
You are allowed to defend yourself, your family & your property from immeadiate danger. You can't commit a crime yourself just because you think you've been a victim of one yourself. Your response must be within the law or you become a criminal yourself. The current laws in respect of self defence are fine & adequate. They don't need changing & are entirely reasonable.

Funk said:

If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time - despite being innocent - it could go very badly for you. As I've been reading elsewhere on this forum about Peter Ward's shocking treatment, this is more often not about truth and justice and more about 'chalking up a win'.

This country is spiralling downward so fast it's untrue.

Being innocent but losing out by being in the wrong place at the wrong time is called being a victim isn't it ?
Whether Peter really was a victim or not we'll never now & it's not been tested. He pleaded guilty to the offence.

[vonhosen]

Seesure said:

vonhosen said:

They have primary evidence of speeding, the officers opinion. That is the only evidence they need of speeding to go with a perverting charge, because it's the perverting that stopped the required secondary evidence for speeding being gained. If it had been gained there would have been no perverting if it was fitted or not.

Cheers VH, it still seems a very grey area, does that mean it is only Police Officers that can present primary evidence of speeding and not the civilian operators for the SCAMERA Partnerships?

It would appear that civilian operators can give primary evidence of speeding.

[TripleS]

streaky said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Hedders said:

Seeing as most of the population is now considered to be a criminal or atleast a suspect, i think more people than you might expect would be prepared to break laws these days.

I come from a fairly respectable background but i am constantly suprised by my families ever changing attitude to laws, and the people who make and enforce them.

Who considers them that? I don't. My colleagues I work with don't. I doubt any officer posting here thinks that either. The vocal minority with interests want you to think that and it makes a good media story but I know no police officer who think that anymore than the 120,000 active criminals are criminals. ...

In a speech to councillors in Flintshire, Chief Constable of North Wales and sometime APCO Head of Road Policing, Richard Brunstormfurher, branded drivers who get caught for speeding 3 times as 'dangerous criminals'.

Streaky

After his 'drifting a knife into somebody' comment, and now this, I should have thought it was quite clear that the fellow is seriously unbalanced. He just seems to have no sense of proportion.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Hedders]

vonhosen said:

It would appear that civilian operators can give primary evidence of speeding.

Is there a test you have to pass to prove you have the gift of built in radar or is it a mystical power that is bestowed on anyone that works for an scamming outfit?

Edited by Hedders on Sunday 12th August 16:20

[vonhosen]

Hedders said:

vonhosen said:

It would appear that civilian operators can give primary evidence of speeding.

Is there a test you have to pass to prove you have the gift of built in radar or is it a mystical power that is bestowed on anyone that works for an scamming outfit?

No test, it's opinion not fact, it has to be supported by other evidence in order to be sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

[Funk]

vonhosen said:

Funk said:

I think that cases where devices that are PROVEN to be unreliable (such as the LTI 20.20) are used to form the basis of either being primary or secondary evidence then we all have to start to worry.

Have they been PROVEN to be unreliable where used as per the manufacturers guidelines & in line with circumstances for which they gained type approval ?

I would say that there is a huge question mark over the accuracy and validity gained from these cameras and their withdrawal from use in a number of US states seems to support the theory that the technology is unreliable. It's interesting that the CPS don't appear to have ever allowed a case to reach the stage where the units themselves are tested or examined for fear of it becoming known just how iffy their 'evidence' may be.

vonhosen said:

Funk said:

If someone breaks into your house and then - for whatever reason - exits through a 2nd storey window, dying in the process then the fact you can be held accountable for it is shocking. IF (and I stress the 'if') the person was a known burglar and was unlawfully in someone else's home in the middle of the night, then they should get whatever's coming to them; if they have no desire to be attacked/maimed/disfigured/thrown from a 2nd storey window then they shouldn't be breaking into houses. Had they NOT broken into the house, the homeowner wouldn't ever have had anything to do with the burglar. They truly bring any shit down upon themselves when they choose to violate the sanctity of another persons' home.

That's not what the law says.
You can't be judge & juror and meet out to someone what they think they should have coming to them.
You are allowed to defend yourself, your family & your property from immeadiate danger. You can't commit a crime yourself just because you think you've been a victim of one yourself. Your response must be within the law or you become a criminal yourself. The current laws in respect of self defence are fine & adequate. They don't need changing & are entirely reasonable.

I agree with you about 'Martial Law', however when the judicial process seems to make such a farce of the punishments meted out and the fact that it also tries to prosecute a member of public who was defending themselves or their home is unbelievable. What happens when a burglar enters someone elses' home should be irrelevant, as should whether the burglar emerges walked or being carried. Were the homeowner to chase down the road shooting them is another matter.

vonhosen said:

Funk said:

If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time - despite being innocent - it could go very badly for you. As I've been reading elsewhere on this forum about Peter Ward's shocking treatment, this is more often not about truth and justice and more about 'chalking up a win'.

This country is spiralling downward so fast it's untrue.

Being innocent but losing out by being in the wrong place at the wrong time is called being a victim isn't it ?
Whether Peter really was a victim or not we'll never now & it's not been tested. He pleaded guilty to the offence.

Funny how often the 'victims' seem to the be the ones on he sh*tty end of the stick whilst the perpetrators walk away with seemingly inappropriate punishments though, isn't it?

[vonhosen]

Funk said:

vonhosen said:

Funk said:

I think that cases where devices that are PROVEN to be unreliable (such as the LTI 20.20) are used to form the basis of either being primary or secondary evidence then we all have to start to worry.

Have they been PROVEN to be unreliable where used as per the manufacturers guidelines & in line with circumstances for which they gained type approval ?

I would say that there is a huge question mark over the accuracy and validity gained from these cameras and their withdrawal from use in a number of US states seems to support the theory that the technology is unreliable. It's interesting that the CPS don't appear to have ever allowed a case to reach the stage where the units themselves are tested or examined for fear of it becoming known just how iffy their 'evidence' may be.

But they haven't been PROVEN to be unreliable (in the circumstances I described) as you claimed ?

Funk said:

vonhosen said:

Funk said:

If someone breaks into your house and then - for whatever reason - exits through a 2nd storey window, dying in the process then the fact you can be held accountable for it is shocking. IF (and I stress the 'if') the person was a known burglar and was unlawfully in someone else's home in the middle of the night, then they should get whatever's coming to them; if they have no desire to be attacked/maimed/disfigured/thrown from a 2nd storey window then they shouldn't be breaking into houses. Had they NOT broken into the house, the homeowner wouldn't ever have had anything to do with the burglar. They truly bring any shit down upon themselves when they choose to violate the sanctity of another persons' home.

That's not what the law says.
You can't be judge & juror and meet out to someone what they think they should have coming to them.
You are allowed to defend yourself, your family & your property from immeadiate danger. You can't commit a crime yourself just because you think you've been a victim of one yourself. Your response must be within the law or you become a criminal yourself. The current laws in respect of self defence are fine & adequate. They don't need changing & are entirely reasonable.

I agree with you about 'Martial Law', however when the judicial process seems to make such a farce of the punishments meted out and the fact that it also tries to prosecute a member of public who was defending themselves or their home is unbelievable. What happens when a burglar enters someone elses' home should be irrelevant, as should whether the burglar emerges walked or being carried. Were the homeowner to chase down the road shooting them is another matter.

I disagree.
What happens in the house does matter.
The law in respect of unlawful assaults applies in your house just as it does anywhere else. Where someone suffers serious injuries or death in your house as a trespasser, the Police still have a duty to investigate the circumstances. If you have behaved within the law you should have nothing to fear. If you have taken retribution of your own back you should.
In certain circumstances an intruder could receive fatal injuries & that be entirely justified in self defence (it's happened on numerous occasions), but where you simply punish the individual yourself where there is no immediate threat then you risk prosecution (that's also happened on numerous occasions).

Funk said:

vonhosen said:

Funk said:

If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time - despite being innocent - it could go very badly for you. As I've been reading elsewhere on this forum about Peter Ward's shocking treatment, this is more often not about truth and justice and more about 'chalking up a win'.

This country is spiralling downward so fast it's untrue.

Being innocent but losing out by being in the wrong place at the wrong time is called being a victim isn't it ?
Whether Peter really was a victim or not we'll never now & it's not been tested. He pleaded guilty to the offence.

Funny how often the 'victims' seem to the be the ones on he sh*tty end of the stick whilst the perpetrators walk away with seemingly inappropriate punishments though, isn't it?

But that's because our system isn't just about punishment. It doesn't have a polarised "Old Testament" (eye for an eye) or "New testament" (Forgive) outlook. It's somewhere between & then there is also the question of trying to rehabilitate etc. It's a compromise trying to satisfy many people who want different things from it.

[headlesshorseman]

will the last person out of the great britain < ha> please turn the lights off

[Helluvaname]

Does anyone know if the 'defence' works where one claims not to know the device interfers with speed guns, AND one has a laser operated garage door opener installed at home to 'justify' the reason for having the device installed on the car?

[jshell]

Funk said:

If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time - despite being innocent - it could go very badly for you. As I've been reading elsewhere on this forum about Peter Ward's shocking treatment, this is more often not about truth and justice and more about 'chalking up a win'.

This country is spiralling downward so fast it's untrue.

Yup. Just ask that poor git Barry George who was jailed for killing Jill Dando! Convicted on a single piece of soot, flawed witness testimony and massaging of the stats! Horrific that was.

[Helluvaname]

Anyone have any thoughts on the question in my last post above?