Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf

[anonymous-user]

More utter insanity from our backward judicial system. You’d get less for killing someone. Seriously. What the actual fk ! Police state. This PCoJ utter nonsense insanity has to end.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/c...

[anonymous-user]

Black_S3 said:

Drumroll said:

Oh and by the way if this was a police State You certainly wouldn't be making comments like yours.

Tell that to the Saudi Paralympic team.

Genuinely, why? What happened with them? All a quick google shows is some dodgy jokes wky-Franky Boyle made in 2012.

[anonymous-user]

jmorgan said:

jimbo761 said:

Thank goodness, splendid work and good to see resources being employed like this to take these hardened criminals off the streets.

How far down the hardened criminal scale do we start to go after people?

Indeed, it's brilliant logic.

"Hey, there are a few unsolved murders. Let's not do any other less serious work!"

[anonymous-user]

Dhol01 said:

Unrealistically low speeds limits combined with officious and overbearing enforcement equals cop haters.

It also equals 'cop lovers' when you see how many people contact the police about enforcing excess speed enforcement.

Not that it matters as trust / confidence in the police etc doesn't really change much over time.

[anonymous-user]

Dhol01 said:

If your priorities matched those of the taxpayer / voter then you might have more people on side and willing to fund the police. I cannot remember anyone ever saying let’s give the police more funding to buy more speed vans and cameras.
Food for thought?

I’m a taxpayer/voter and I think the Police do a good job in difficult circumstances and am very pleased they managed to secure this conviction. The majority of people I know feel pretty much the same.
I’ve had speeding tickets over the years and currently have 3 points.
Sorry.

[anonymous-user]

All this effort not to get a speeding ticket. We all know that you can st load of points and still carry on driving. I never understand why people go to all this stupid effort.

[anonymous-user]

PCoJ is totally out of proportion when used to prosecute minor driving offences, as is a custodial sentence in this case (imo!). BY the same rhetoric does whoever painted the speed scameras yellow to warn people also deserve a custodial sentence for perverting the course of justice ? And what about flashing oncoming drivers to warn them about speed traps ? I said it at the beginning of this thread and will say it again now: we are in a police state. The lefties will only be happy once all cars are banned and they can finally control all movement, i.e. where we go and when we go by their bus and train timetables: the car epitomises the spirit of individual freedom, hence why they all hate them so much. The aim of most recent motoring "safety" policy is clearly to make driving as unpleasant as possible to "discourage" it as much as possible. We need to fight back. I agree perhaps the guy in this case is not a pleasant fellow, but this persecution of motorists is really getting out of hand.

[anonymous-user]

Proportionality I think is what most people have a problem with - particularly with regard to minor motoring offences like speeding.

Out of interest you can smack someone over the head whilst robbing them, leaving them for dead but that doesn't get you a custodial sentence. Try to evade speeding tickets and you'll do hard time :

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16179256...disgustingsentence_given_to_robber_who_attacked_her_mum/

[anonymous-user]

The Selfish Gene said:

So that leaves the jammer.............so is 8 months custodial appropriate for using a scammer? I think that seems a bit heavy handed. Hence my comment to pursue this to this level........they must have already had a problem with the guy.

Must they? Or did they merely pursue an investigation?

The Selfish Gene said:

Or they like wasting money when the crime rate is massively high - and all this guy is ultimately doing is being a bit of a cocky tt really.

Is it massively high?

Dhol01 said:

OK Greendubber and Von Hosen. The point that I was making is that he has obviously seen your silly little van (evidenced by him giving you the finger on 3 occasions). Whilst he is obviously not the brightest individual (but in good company with you two), he would have to be a moron to do so whilst speeding. Other than that, I obviously have no evidence...but neither do you.
You constantly bleat on about safety vans being safety and being nothing to do with revenue...but we all know that is cobblers. As to unlimited resources regarding policing of speed. Look at the continual roll out of so called “smart motorways”. What does that lot cost with gantry’s and cameras festooned over them? Millions. Supposedly to make our journey quicker and safer...but that is cobblers also. You have a perfectly good road that is safe for 70mph one minute but then artificially restricted the next,.......policed by a ticket from you lot.
As I said, Sanctimonious. Banging on about safety and you knowing what is better for us than we do. This bloke has been taught a lesson by you and the rest of us take heed.
Not personal at all...but when faced with smug, bovine and self congratulatory claptrap...someone has to say otherwise.
Constant cry from police - lack of resources, give us more money. Maurauding gangs on mopeds throwing acid, hundreds of knife murders...but that is a bit too tricky to deal with.
Much safer to sit in a white box preying on the unsuspecting.
Regarding keep posting pictures of your dinner. Do you work part time in a fish and chip shop to make ends meet?

I like the patronising post when you don't understand the financial fundamentals.

Smart motorways have nothing to do with police funding.

The 'safety camera' infrastructure pays for itself and doesn't detract from core police funding.

[anonymous-user]

julian64 said:

vonhosen said:

PtCoJ is not about addressing disrespect for individual laws, it's not a demand of respect on individual laws.
That's why it isn't terribly important what the original offence was, it's a serious offence whatever the original offence was.
It's because it undermines the whole legal process. It's an attack on the very fabric of justice, rather than the individual offence from which it originated.
I'm not in the legal process, I'm outside it. I don't have to win hearts & minds.

Are you really saying that you would apply PCOJ to any crime no matter how trivial based upon the criminal lying to police abut their involvement?

Littering? Making funny faces at a police officer? Is it immediate PCOJ if they run or possible double PCOJ charges if they lie and then run when the jig is up. Maybe life sentence for littering if they lie, then run, then throw the evidence away 'triple PCOJ'.

And I would be very surprised if you are outside the legal process with your views..

If you'd looked up what PCOJ is then you (probably) wouldn't have posted that. No, he clearly isn't saying any of those things - presumably because he knows what PCOJ is and you don't.

[anonymous-user]

The Selfish Gene said:

well yes - let's be pedantic - is the crime rate massively high.............I think it is in London yet. Massively high.

Since Xmas I've caught 3 scum in the act of burglarising my house and I've been threated with a gun (probably) at 10pm

So - whether the crime rate is massively high, or the only other two crimes in the world over and above the guy not speeding getting 8 months - then they should have focussed all efforts on the two crimes that actually had a victim.

I don't think North Yorkshire Police's policing area extends to London.

It's a fallacy to say that lesser things shouldn't be dealt with because there are more serious matters occurring. There are undetected murders, so why deal with anything else below? Any threshold could be chosen, but it ignores the reality of policing demand and what the police are there to do and deal with.

Prosecuting someone for using a jammer could also well save resources / time / money in the longer-term. If people realise they can do it without risk of prosecution, then more people may fit jammers it until it gets to a scale where it requires much greater resources / time / money to manage. This is unmeasurable, but we have seen related things in the past e.g. Humberside stopped pursuits for a time in the early 00s (IIRC) and they had serious issues with people failing to stop / driving standard offences.

[anonymous-user]

Dhol01 said:

I will bet that I know more about financial fundamentals than you.

It would appear not.

Dhol01 said:

ISmart motorways have nothing to do with police funding.

But they rely on you to issue the tickets. All speed cameras. Total surveillance. Police.

So? You were citing how much they cost which is irrelevant for the police.

Dhol01 said:

The 'safety camera' infrastructure pays for itself and doesn't detract from core police funding.

Nothing to do with safety then ? Thanks for confirming what we all knew...revenue.

My comment was within a financial context, since you decided to add, "Constant cry from police - lack of resources, give us more money", which has no practical relevance to smart motorways nor the safety camera infrastructure. Nor does it have any relevance on the more serious crimes you cite.

I suspect because that somewhat undermined your point, that's why you've decided to misrepresent what I said. I made no comment on safety or a lack of safety, I merely highlighted your crude and incorrect blurring of funding.

[anonymous-user]

I assume the jammer has caused error readings on the cameras within the van and triggered the investigation. He's ultimately been interviewed and admitted fitting a device.

Admissions with the corroboration of the error readings is sufficient. The lies he also told may have also supported the offence, depending how he told them i.e. were they in response S.172 request or during 'informal' enquiries.

He would have also said where he disposed of the jammer. Where else would that information come from?

[anonymous-user]

Bigends said:

La Liga said:

I assume the jammer has caused error readings on the cameras within the van and triggered the investigation. He's ultimately been interviewed and admitted fitting a device.

Admissions with the corroboration of the error readings is sufficient. The lies he also told may have also supported the offence, depending how he told them i.e. were they in response S.172 request or during 'informal' enquiries.

He would have also said where he disposed of the jammer. Where else would that information come from?

Assuming he erased all trace of the jammer from his car, denied ever owning one and left it up to the Police to decide why his car gave odd readings - where do you think this would have gone?

It's a good question and demonstrates why, when under investigation, you say nothing and take legal advice.

Would three (assuming there were) error signals (possibly on different devices) along with the gestures, and potentially an inference being drawn through refusing to answer questions be enough?

I guess it would partly depend on the specificity of the error readings. Could they could be caused by something else that'd introduce reasonable doubt?

My view is if there are three separate occasions on different devices, then there'd be a good chance, but I may well be wrong.

Steviesam said:

I cant believe you even have an answer that tries to defend this clear idiocy.

Brainwashed.

A f****ng monkey can tell that is wrong.

Yes, you're right, everyone else must be wrong.

[anonymous-user]

The Selfish Gene said:

JM said:

Dhol01 said:

The point that I was making is that he has obviously seen your silly little van (evidenced by him giving you the finger on 3 occasions). Whilst he is obviously not the brightest individual, he would have to be a moron to do so whilst speeding.

So why bother with the jammer if he wasn't speeding?

not the same as having evidence he was speeding though is it?

I think the point is they couldn't obtain the evidence due to the jammer. Error readings are likely what caused the investigation to begin.

His gestures alone aren't going to start a PCoJ investigation. They'd probably get ignored as I imagine a few people do that sort of thing without the speeding / jamming.

[anonymous-user]

jm doc said:

I can't believe that you can't see the incredible damage to the judicial sytem this sort of story causes when everyday we read of major criminal acts including attacks on people and their property routinely are not investigated, or not punished in anyway as severely as this.

I agree that this guy was a complete dk but that is wholly irrelevant when the police will chase and prosecute you for PtCoJ for flashing your lights at someone approaching a speed trap.

They must lack any measure of sentience by your definition

Can you describe "the incredible damage to the judicial system" and the practical affect it has had?

[anonymous-user]

Obstruction is still a criminal offence. That fact he was even taken to court for flashing his lights beggars belief. I am astounded there are people on here who attempt to defend it. We are in a police state. Obstruction, PCoJ, SP30 whatever they attempt to call it, all are merely thumbscrews with two objectives, raising revenue and discouraging driving by any means necessary to make it as unpleasant as possible.

It is out of control and they are walking a fine line in my view, at some point, even the notoriously passive UK public will start to take notice. We need to fight back.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Schmed said:

Obstruction is still a criminal offence. That fact he was even taken to court for flashing his lights beggars belief. I am astounded there are people on here who attempt to defend it. We are in a police state. Obstruction, PCoJ, SP30 whatever they attempt to call it, all are merely thumbscrews with two objectives, raising revenue and discouraging driving by any means necessary to make it as unpleasant as possible.

It is out of control and they are walking a fine line in my view, at some point, even the notoriously passive UK public will start to take notice. We need to fight back.

He was taken to court because he committed the offence. If it wasn't an offence he wouldn't have been taken to court.
People get taken to court for all different kinds of obstruction of Police officers in the execution of their duty. Why should they ignore this one?

If you read the article it appears he was taken to court rather than given a caution due to arguing with the officer who allegedly threatened him with PCoJ.

That such things can possibly even be offences beggars belief. Out of control. Police state.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Schmed said:

vonhosen said:

Schmed said:

Obstruction is still a criminal offence. That fact he was even taken to court for flashing his lights beggars belief. I am astounded there are people on here who attempt to defend it. We are in a police state. Obstruction, PCoJ, SP30 whatever they attempt to call it, all are merely thumbscrews with two objectives, raising revenue and discouraging driving by any means necessary to make it as unpleasant as possible.

It is out of control and they are walking a fine line in my view, at some point, even the notoriously passive UK public will start to take notice. We need to fight back.

He was taken to court because he committed the offence. If it wasn't an offence he wouldn't have been taken to court.
People get taken to court for all different kinds of obstruction of Police officers in the execution of their duty. Why should they ignore this one?

If you read the article it appears he was taken to court rather than given a caution due to arguing with the officer who allegedly threatened him with PCoJ.

That such things can possibly even be offences beggars belief. Out of control. Police state.

That you think PtCoJ or Obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty shouldn't be offences is what beggars belief.

Both are completely out of proportion when used for minor motoring offences, that is what really beggars belief.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

There will be a mixture of covert & overt speed enforcement.
All overt or all covert is not as sensible as a mixture of both.

So both covert and overt enforcement are OK when they do it, yet for us passive detection is OK but active is not ? Talk about loading the dice !

Jammers have been around for years, definitely a lot out there. When can we expect the house to house early morning raids and car seizures ? PtCoJ is, after all, a serious offence.