Would this work
Discussion
Right. I've had an idea
Reading through the ABD website about the right to silence when it comes to speeding tickets (NIP's) about how the police/courts shouldn't be allowed to force us to incriminate ourselves if flashed by a one armed bandit.
The idea is more applicable to motorbikes rather than cars but I'm sure it could be adopted.
Anyway here it is.
If you are sent an NIP saying that you were caught on your motorbike doing XXmph in a XX zone then simply write back to them saying you don't think it was you aand you request the photos to see.
Whether or not they give you the photos is irrelevant.
Before you go to court take the endcan off your bike and fit the original can on. Then go round to your mates and borrow his helmet and leathers. Give him your leathers to make sure they are out of your house (just in case....)
Turn up in court saying that you are very sure that the bike that was flashed must be a clone ie. some unscrupulous bikers has copied your plate and stuck it on a bike that looks similar.
In defence offer up your bike, now with different endcan and your leathers and helmet.
Thus the onus is now on the authorities to PROVE that it IS you in the photo.
With any luck the CPS will go weak at the knees and throw your case out of court before it sets them back any serious amount of money.
Would this work? Or am I talking bolloks? I fully intend to get a motorbike soon(ish) but I don't intend to get nailed by a one armed bandit, but it can happen to the best of us....
Andy
>>> Edited by andytk on Wednesday 8th January 22:43
Reading through the ABD website about the right to silence when it comes to speeding tickets (NIP's) about how the police/courts shouldn't be allowed to force us to incriminate ourselves if flashed by a one armed bandit.
The idea is more applicable to motorbikes rather than cars but I'm sure it could be adopted.
Anyway here it is.
If you are sent an NIP saying that you were caught on your motorbike doing XXmph in a XX zone then simply write back to them saying you don't think it was you aand you request the photos to see.
Whether or not they give you the photos is irrelevant.
Before you go to court take the endcan off your bike and fit the original can on. Then go round to your mates and borrow his helmet and leathers. Give him your leathers to make sure they are out of your house (just in case....)
Turn up in court saying that you are very sure that the bike that was flashed must be a clone ie. some unscrupulous bikers has copied your plate and stuck it on a bike that looks similar.
In defence offer up your bike, now with different endcan and your leathers and helmet.
Thus the onus is now on the authorities to PROVE that it IS you in the photo.
With any luck the CPS will go weak at the knees and throw your case out of court before it sets them back any serious amount of money.
Would this work? Or am I talking bolloks? I fully intend to get a motorbike soon(ish) but I don't intend to get nailed by a one armed bandit, but it can happen to the best of us....
Andy
>>> Edited by andytk on Wednesday 8th January 22:43
haha yup itwasntme.
That is my point though if everyone fought their tickets them the authorities might get the message and GIVE UP.
If we're really lucky then speed cameras may be rendered illegal by the ECHR. (never thought I'd see a sensible ECHR ruling.....)
If the EC decide that we do infact have the right to silence then the speed cameras as we know them will become ineffective cos everyone will simply say it wasn't me guv and you can't prove otherwise.
It means we'll have to go back to the good old days of cops pulling us over. And there's nowt wrong with that.
Andy
That is my point though if everyone fought their tickets them the authorities might get the message and GIVE UP.
If we're really lucky then speed cameras may be rendered illegal by the ECHR. (never thought I'd see a sensible ECHR ruling.....)
If the EC decide that we do infact have the right to silence then the speed cameras as we know them will become ineffective cos everyone will simply say it wasn't me guv and you can't prove otherwise.
It means we'll have to go back to the good old days of cops pulling us over. And there's nowt wrong with that.
Andy
Right. I've had an idea
Reading through the ABD website about the right to silence when it comes to speeding tickets (NIP's) about how the police/courts shouldn't be allowed to force us to incriminate ourselves if flashed by a one armed bandit.
The idea is more applicable to motorbikes rather than cars but I'm sure it could be adopted.
Anyway here it is.
If you are sent an NIP saying that you were caught on your motorbike doing XXmph in a XX zone then simply write back to them saying you don't think it was you aand you request the photos to see.
Whether or not they give you the photos is irrelevant.
Before you go to court take the endcan off your bike and fit the original can on. Then go round to your mates and borrow his helmet and leathers. Give him your leathers to make sure they are out of your house (just in case....)
Turn up in court saying that you are very sure that the bike that was flashed must be a clone ie. some unscrupulous bikers has copied your plate and stuck it on a bike that looks similar.
In defence offer up your bike, now with different endcan and your leathers and helmet.
Thus the onus is now on the authorities to PROVE that it IS you in the photo.
With any luck the CPS will go weak at the knees and throw your case out of court before it sets them back any serious amount of money.
Would this work? Or am I talking bolloks? I fully intend to get a motorbike soon(ish) but I don't intend to get nailed by a one armed bandit, but it can happen to the best of us....
Andy
>>> Edited by andytk on Wednesday 8th January 22:43
Couple of things....the self incrimination doctrine, was thought to be covered under the Human Rights Act. I don't believe anyone has been successful applying this to speeders yet.
Your cunning masterplan to disguise yourself and/or the bike might just work, but it would not take a great detective any time at all to put two and two together and smell a scam. You only need raise an element of doubt to avoid conviction though, but the risk is a criminal conviction for Perjury with the associated jail sentence. Do you wan't to risk this?
Bear in mind that magistrtaes have heard all this before and are wise enough to know when someone is pulling their plonker..
You asked if you were talking bollocks, well you may be, but it's not an original thought... the disguise I mean...
>> Edited by **999** on Thursday 9th January 11:18
and this money comes from TAX. Just a point.
alan
In hypothecation areas the money comes from the fines they are hitting us with. There's a real feeding frenzy with the scamera partnerships, desparate to spend as much as possible on their own bloated bureacracy or equipment so as not to have to give the odd £ 2 million over to central govt like Northamptonshire.
I would have no qualms about people doing this - this has nothing to do with safety or justice - and is even costing lives - the partnerships are the enemy
**999** said:
Couple of things....the self incrimination doctrine, was thought to be covered under the Human Rights Act. I don't believe anyone has been successful applying this to speeders yet.
I believe the case is still pending. If it turns out that we DO have the right to silence then in effect all gatsos will become scrap metal overnight.
Of course there is FAR too much revenue generation at stake for the government to allow this to happen so I fully expect them to ignore the ruling and bring in some pissy legal framework to get round it somehow.
Thus throwing away the right to silence which has been the cornerstone of our legal system in this country for hundreds of years. But that OK cos obviously speeders are the scum of the earth and this has nothing whatsoever to do with money.
Still the best form of defence against speed scameras is a used tyre and a gallon of super U. If they don't get the film then they can't send you a fine.
Andy
...is "that case" still rumbling on?
It had it's first hearing while was at the CPS over a year ago, and was causing much consternation with the lawers there.
They were getting pretty pi$$ed off with defence lawers who kept finding spurious reasons for adjurnment in the hope it would be resolved quickly (ch'yeh!... as if), and they could get their cases thrown out for bugger-all effort guess that gamble won't have paid off yet.
Would be nice to see the end of the dreaded Gatso though. They are possible the biggest PR gaff the Police and Goverment have ever made.
Mouse
It had it's first hearing while was at the CPS over a year ago, and was causing much consternation with the lawers there.
They were getting pretty pi$$ed off with defence lawers who kept finding spurious reasons for adjurnment in the hope it would be resolved quickly (ch'yeh!... as if), and they could get their cases thrown out for bugger-all effort guess that gamble won't have paid off yet.
Would be nice to see the end of the dreaded Gatso though. They are possible the biggest PR gaff the Police and Goverment have ever made.
Mouse
andytk said:
Thus throwing away the right to silence which has been the cornerstone of our legal system in this country for hundreds of years.
This has already happened and has been in the British statutes for some time now. You have a right to remain silent when questioned but there are certain circumstances where if you are given what, in law is referred to as a special warning about some material fact that would obviously incriminate you and you fail to give an explanation, then a jury or Magistrate can take this refusal or silence into consideration in considering your guilt.
Still the best form of defence against speed scameras is a used tyre and a gallon of super U. If they don't get the film then they can't send you a fine.
Andy
And all involving serious criminal offences with long jail sentences attached as is the case in Arson.
If it endangers life then it is life imprisonment!
madcop said:
And all involving serious criminal offences with long jail sentences attached as is the case in Arson.
If it endangers life then it is life imprisonment!
Yeah but they have to CATCH you. In RIDE magazine this month it was reported that 200+ gatso's have been destroyed in this country since they were introduced.
So far no one has been caught or convicted of damage to speed cameras.
200 wrecked and no one caught. I'll take those odds methinks.
I'm just tired of all this speeding bullshit. Can't we just go back to the bad old days where there were none. I find it hard to believe that if Gatso's were all pulled down overnight then road carnage would ensue. People used to be able to drive around without crashing every journey so what's changed.
Andy
Very big risk for a small gain though. It would be much easier and better for a good nights sleep to just slow down a bit 
How do you know that no one has been caught for damaging any of these instruments. I know of a case that is happening at the moment where someone torched one and they are seriously in the brown stuff over it!
How do you know that no one has been caught for damaging any of these instruments. I know of a case that is happening at the moment where someone torched one and they are seriously in the brown stuff over it!
danger mouse said: O/T: yay! The c'pn's back!
How d'you feel now your one crx lighter. A little deep down?
You'll live. Enjoy the shiny bits for the bike, guess that'll include an end-can.
Back for a limited period only - half an hour in the morning and ten minutes at lunchtime to deal with all my e-mails and internet stuff.
See Jap Chat for pointless "I miss my CRX" thread.
I am already end can positive
madcop said:
andytk said:
Thus throwing away the right to silence which has been the cornerstone of our legal system in this country for hundreds of years.
This has already happened and has been in the British statutes for some time now. You have a right to remain silent when questioned but there are certain circumstances where if you are given what, in law is referred to as a special warning about some material fact that would obviously incriminate you and you fail to give an explanation, then a jury or Magistrate can take this refusal or silence into consideration in considering your guilt.
Yeah, but all this misses the point. One of the basic premises of western (i.e. British/Canadian/US) law is that the if the government wants to convict a citizen of breaking a law, then the government is required to demonstrate which specific citizen broke which specific law to whatever standard of proof is appropriate.
The problem with speed cameras is fundamental. Taking a picture of a car in no way constitutes proof of who was driving. This is perhaps the main reason they would never be tolerated in the US.
If the government wants to convict me of speeding then they have to prove that I was the one actually speeding and they are absolutely prohibited from enlisting my help in doing so. They are also not entitled to convict me on the assumption that I was driving because I was the registered owner of the car.
To quote Robert Bolt from his play 'A Man for All Seasons': "The law requires more than an assumption, the law requires a fact"
It horrifies me that British drivers (and voters) have stood still for this gross abuse of governmental power and not systematically ejected everyone who supported such an offense against reason and tradition.
JonGwynne said:
If the government wants to convict me of speeding then they have to prove that I was the one actually speeding and they are absolutely prohibited from enlisting my help in doing so. They are also not entitled to convict me on the assumption that I was driving because I was the registered owner of the car.
You are absolutely right and that is why they have a master plan to get you to confess or receive the same penalty you would have for the offence for which they cannot otherwise prove. The Section 172 notice is the weapon in their armour to do so.
Either give the authorities the evidence by an admission or face the penalties for refusing to do so. A sort of legalised blackmail if you like.
To quote Robert Bolt from his play 'A Man for All Seasons': "The law requires more than an assumption, the law requires a fact"
Or a refusal to disclose a fact which has the same outcome as disclosing it in the first place.
It horrifies me that British drivers (and voters) have stood still for this gross abuse of governmental power and not systematically ejected everyone who supported such an offense against reason and tradition.
Along with all the other gross abuse of power with both personal and party benefits. But that is politics and with the present lot there is such a huge majority that they can do almost anything they want to us! (until the next time they require an X on a piece of paper)
**999** said:
Right. I've had an idea
Reading through the ABD website about the right to silence when it comes to speeding tickets (NIP's) about how the police/courts shouldn't be allowed to force us to incriminate ourselves if flashed by a one armed bandit.
The idea is more applicable to motorbikes rather than cars but I'm sure it could be adopted.
Anyway here it is.
If you are sent an NIP saying that you were caught on your motorbike doing XXmph in a XX zone then simply write back to them saying you don't think it was you aand you request the photos to see.
Whether or not they give you the photos is irrelevant.
Before you go to court take the endcan off your bike and fit the original can on. Then go round to your mates and borrow his helmet and leathers. Give him your leathers to make sure they are out of your house (just in case....)
Turn up in court saying that you are very sure that the bike that was flashed must be a clone ie. some unscrupulous bikers has copied your plate and stuck it on a bike that looks similar.
In defence offer up your bike, now with different endcan and your leathers and helmet.
Thus the onus is now on the authorities to PROVE that it IS you in the photo.
With any luck the CPS will go weak at the knees and throw your case out of court before it sets them back any serious amount of money.
Would this work? Or am I talking bolloks? I fully intend to get a motorbike soon(ish) but I don't intend to get nailed by a one armed bandit, but it can happen to the best of us....
Andy
>>> Edited by andytk on Wednesday 8th January 22:43
Couple of things....the self incrimination doctrine, was thought to be covered under the Human Rights Act. I don't believe anyone has been successful applying this to speeders yet.
Your cunning masterplan to disguise yourself and/or the bike might just work, but it would not take a great detective any time at all to put two and two together and smell a scam. You only need raise an element of doubt to avoid conviction though, but the risk is a criminal conviction for Perjury with the associated jail sentence. Do you wan't to risk this?
Bear in mind that magistrtaes have heard all this before and are wise enough to know when someone is pulling their plonker..
You asked if you were talking bollocks, well you may be, but it's not an original thought... the disguise I mean...
>> Edited by **999** on Thursday 9th January 11:18
there is curntly a case going to the ECHR as we speek
and iv hav used it as well as other ploys to get speed tickets bined
never payed one yet.
fight the ****ers all the way is my advice
madcop said:
andytk said:
Thus throwing away the right to silence which has been the cornerstone of our legal system in this country for hundreds of years.
This has already happened and has been in the British statutes for some time now. You have a right to remain silent when questioned but there are certain circumstances where if you are given what, in law is referred to as a special warning about some material fact that would obviously incriminate you and you fail to give an explanation, then a jury or Magistrate can take this refusal or silence into consideration in considering your guilt.
Still the best form of defence against speed scameras is a used tyre and a gallon of super U. If they don't get the film then they can't send you a fine.
Andy
And all involving serious criminal offences with long jail sentences attached as is the case in Arson.
If it endangers life then it is life imprisonment!
mad point taken ith arosson but who cares ,dot get court but as for danger
do explaing how burnning a cam is a a bloody danger to any one
any way just tie a bin bag over it and they can even charge you with criminal damage.
outlaw said:
mad point taken ith arosson but who cares ,dot get court but as for danger
do explaing how burnning a cam is a a bloody danger to any one
any way just tie a bin bag over it and they can even charge you with criminal damage.
I didn't mention that burning a Camera was likely to endanger life but that causing any damage by fire which is likely to do so is life imprisonment.
It dosen't state whos' life has to be endangered and if you had a little mishap with your accelerant and it happened to get you, well, who knows....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff