The 'willing to go to jail to avoid speeding' thread |
The 'willing to go to jail to avoid speeding' thread |
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Maybe rather than keep starting posts we can put them into one as a warning to others
Two speeding events, not his van honest guvnor, jailed for 6 months. And from the archives under the status of legendary Andy Roo (ex of this parish) Chris Huhne and the ex Mrs Huhne And a future volunteer it seems This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:50 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 01:25
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
Can't blame them in some cases. Indeed. I don't mind PCoJ being used when there is an actual attempt to pervert (not merely frustrate) the course of justice; to dispose of evidence (or hypothetically even re-activate ECU speed limiters on the QT) Whether it ultimately proceeds to prosecution, or whether the driver decides to accept their culpability and accept the offer of a course as an alternative, is irrelevant. The fact is that this **** was deliberately disrupting equipment that was being used to acquire evidence of drivers breaking the law. It certainly wasn't some innocent mistake. I wasn't questioning its relevancy, I was more questioning the absurdity of the entire situation. A non-criminal resolution versus time in the clink - all because of a light source. You make an interesting point regarding disrupting equipment - just how far of a leap is it to jump from this to apps such as Waze, where one can - almost in real time - see where users have noticed enforcement activity? Or dare I even say it, the suggestion of the 'unsigned' route? The devices apparently have legal uses, so it is not illegal to fit them to a vehicle. But in any case, as we have discussed many times before, the act that is PCoJ must follow the event which was or was likely to result in an investigation, so the fitting of the device could not have been PCoJ. I suppose the argument could have been that PCoJ act was the "use" of the device following the "event" of speeding (assuming they could prove the speeding without the defeated speed detection device), which was reasonably expected to result in an investigation. Indeed. And then I come to remember that inchoate offences are a thing :/ |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:21 |