Speed Cameras 100%? Reaction
Discussion
I e-mailed David Jamieson and copied in WM Camera Partnership, basically stating that I felt WM Partnership had lied to him as I know of a camera I pass every day that does not follow guidelines.
I complained about the very camera several months ago (it's blocked by a roadsign) and was told that 'many sites are under review' but was also told 'we cant say if the site in question is one of those'.
Anyhow, no reply from Mr.Jamieson - no shock there, but did get a reply from the WM Partnership saying that the site is not in use and they are forwarding my e-mail to the Police to 'ascertain any laible implications held within your document'.
So I complain about them and they threaten me with legal action!!! It beggars belief. I'm wondering if there may be any motoring or even national newspaper journalists interested in this story. I kind of hope they try and prosecute me because I will kick up the biggest stink ever known.
Phil.
I complained about the very camera several months ago (it's blocked by a roadsign) and was told that 'many sites are under review' but was also told 'we cant say if the site in question is one of those'.
Anyhow, no reply from Mr.Jamieson - no shock there, but did get a reply from the WM Partnership saying that the site is not in use and they are forwarding my e-mail to the Police to 'ascertain any laible implications held within your document'.
So I complain about them and they threaten me with legal action!!! It beggars belief. I'm wondering if there may be any motoring or even national newspaper journalists interested in this story. I kind of hope they try and prosecute me because I will kick up the biggest stink ever known.
Phil.
Ted,
I was just going to delete the thread before you replied. They have confirmed I have misunderstood the e-mail, which was ambiguous. They meant that the camera in question would be investigated.
I do feel suitably silly, although stand firm that the camera breaches guidelines.
I would be grateful if you could remove this thread for fear of repurcussions.
Phil.
I was just going to delete the thread before you replied. They have confirmed I have misunderstood the e-mail, which was ambiguous. They meant that the camera in question would be investigated.
I do feel suitably silly, although stand firm that the camera breaches guidelines.
I would be grateful if you could remove this thread for fear of repurcussions.
Phil.
Tell them you'll see them in court, and will invite the media to specate.
What on earth are they going to charge you with? Although I'm not a lawyer I'm sure you will be entitled to a public apology for the "slur on your good name".
Surely this should also be investigated as a misuse of public funds??
John
What on earth are they going to charge you with? Although I'm not a lawyer I'm sure you will be entitled to a public apology for the "slur on your good name".
Surely this should also be investigated as a misuse of public funds??
John
Perhaps you should read it sir.
The chap merely pointed out that the camera seemed to be in breach of the guidelines. The response from the "partnership" (if reported correctly) is an attempt to bully the complainant without any basis in law, a misuse of Police time, and should be exposed to the Orwellian act that it is.
I bet if it was you, you'd be pi$$ed off...
The chap merely pointed out that the camera seemed to be in breach of the guidelines. The response from the "partnership" (if reported correctly) is an attempt to bully the complainant without any basis in law, a misuse of Police time, and should be exposed to the Orwellian act that it is.
I bet if it was you, you'd be pi$$ed off...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff