PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

The 'willing to go to jail to avoid speeding' thread
The Rookie
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,812
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 >  
Start new topic
Replies (120 - 139)
Advertisement
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 19:29
Post #121


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,905
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 17:27) *
Same could be said of any employee really in many businesses really. Just because she’s a “paralegal” doesn’t mean she’s qualified in the all and “should have known better” which is how I read the reference.

There are many businesses where you don't need any formal qualifications at all, but employers (and their clients / customers) won't want you if you've got a recent conviction for fraud or other dishonesty offences. That's how I saw it, more than the "should have known better" angle, but I take your point.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 21:00
Post #122


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,886
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 20:29) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 17:27) *
Same could be said of any employee really in many businesses really. Just because she’s a “paralegal” doesn’t mean she’s qualified in the all and “should have known better” which is how I read the reference.

There are many businesses where you don't need any formal qualifications at all, but employers (and their clients / customers) won't want you if you've got a recent conviction for fraud or other dishonesty offences.

I agree.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TryOut
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 12:07
Post #123


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,734



...and still they come:

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/woman...rse-of-justice/

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 12:34
Post #124


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,898
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (TryOut @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 13:07) *

I can quite believe it was a device to help parking...


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 12:51
Post #125


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,137
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 13:34) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 13:07) *

I can quite believe it was a device to help parking...


Absolutely.
Means you can get to the parking spot quicker rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 8 May 2019 - 04:52
Post #126


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,812
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Interesting background to the company selling the device.
https://www.laserjammertests.com/laserpropark.htm


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Thu, 9 May 2019 - 23:42
Post #127


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



I don't understand. The effectiveness of these devices has been repeatedly vouched for by no less an authority than Traffic Constable Andy Forth of the North Yorkshire Police, Traffic Bureau. They clearly work as advertised. The company should be rolling in dough (rather than having been struck off in 2009)...

--Churchmouse

This post has been edited by Churchmouse: Thu, 9 May 2019 - 23:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 30 May 2019 - 13:55
Post #128


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,812
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Six months (not suspended) for deliberately naming someone who wasn't the driver and persisting in lies all the way to court.
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-n...peeding-2916942


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 13:24
Post #129


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 224
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Another one

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-70...t-CCTV-act.html


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 20:16
Post #130


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,137
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (ohnoes @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 14:24) *



That one deserved extra time for stupidity.
No fixed cameras on the Heartlands Parkway so would have been a camera van copping him head on.
Clear photo almost guaranteed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madbasshunter
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 22:22
Post #131


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 320
Joined: 13 May 2011
From: Devon
Member No.: 46,634



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 21:16) *
QUOTE (ohnoes @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 14:24) *



That one deserved extra time for stupidity.
No fixed cameras on the Heartlands Parkway so would have been a camera van copping him head on.
Clear photo almost guaranteed.


Where was a dove when he needed it rolleyes.gif

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/28...-obscures-face/




--------------------
POPLA BPA BPA Ltd BPA AOS AOS PPC PCN PE CEL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 14:58
Post #132


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 21:16) *
QUOTE (ohnoes @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 14:24) *



That one deserved extra time for stupidity.
No fixed cameras on the Heartlands Parkway so would have been a camera van copping him head on.
Clear photo almost guaranteed.

If drivers can now be reliably identified from photographs in such cases, maybe there's longer any justification for a s.172...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 17:22
Post #133


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,905
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 15:58) *
If drivers can now be reliably identified from photographs in such cases, maybe there's longer any justification for a s.172...

--Churchmouse

Even if it's not an absolute necessity (the police could pull driving licence photos etc...), by far the most practical and cost effective way to identify the driver is a s172 letter.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 03:46
Post #134


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,812
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 15:58) *
If drivers can now be reliably identified from photographs in such cases, maybe there's longer any justification for a s.172...

--Churchmouse

I'm sure if I crash into your car and do a runner you'd be quite happy there was no S172 for the Police to use to trace me as the driver? S172 predates the use of speed/traffic light cameras and will likely post date great photo's from those of the driver as well. Not withstanding we have no national database of driver photo's and the amount of effort and time and cost involved would be disproportionate anyway. Not your best thought out comment.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 03:48


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 09:22
Post #135


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,460
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 04:46) *
Not withstanding we have no national database of driver photo's

Not unless you count the one that DVLA insist on populating for photocard licences, and that the police have access to.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:36
Post #136


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,905
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:22) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 04:46) *
Not withstanding we have no national database of driver photo's

Not unless you count the one that DVLA insist on populating for photocard licences, and that the police have access to.

But it's an incomplete database: many people drive on EU licences, old paper licences etc...


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 11:03
Post #137


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,812
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:22) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 04:46) *
Not withstanding we have no national database of driver photo's

Not unless you count the one that DVLA insist on populating for photocard licences, and that the police have access to.

I should have been clearer, they have a file of them, but its not a database that is searchable (using a photo and searching for a match)


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 11:51
Post #138


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 12:03) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:22) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 04:46) *
Not withstanding we have no national database of driver photo's

Not unless you count the one that DVLA insist on populating for photocard licences, and that the police have access to.

I should have been clearer, they have a file of them, but its not a database that is searchable (using a photo and searching for a match)

LOL. Facial recognition software is probably not a thing...

I was actually trying to get someone to provide the rationale used in Francis so I didn't have to look it up.

--Churchmouse

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 19:02
Post #139


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,618
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 12:51) *
I was actually trying to get someone to provide the rationale used in Francis so I didn't have to look it up.


Assuming that you are referring to Francis v DPP (2004), off the top of my head it was that it was clearly Parliament's intention that s. 172 RTA 1988 and s. 12(1) RTOA 1988 be used in conjunction and that a signature was somehow 'information' within the meaning of s. 172.

If you are referring to O'Halloran and Francis v the UK, the rationale was somewhat more irrational.


--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 14 Jun 2019 - 12:16
Post #140


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 20:02) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 12:51) *
I was actually trying to get someone to provide the rationale used in Francis so I didn't have to look it up.


Assuming that you are referring to Francis v DPP (2004), off the top of my head it was that it was clearly Parliament's intention that s. 172 RTA 1988 and s. 12(1) RTOA 1988 be used in conjunction and that a signature was somehow 'information' within the meaning of s. 172.

If you are referring to O'Halloran and Francis v the UK, the rationale was somewhat more irrational.


Thanks, I was wondering to what extent the court's justification for ignoring ECHR Article 6 had been based on a government argument that it was not technologically possible to identify the culprit by photograpic means. I now see that the government had argued that "there was no obvious generally effective alternative to the power contained in section 172 and without such a power it would be impossible to investigate and prosecute traffic offences effectively," but it doesn't appear that the court had actually based any of its reasoning on that particular argument. In fact, the court ignored several other arguments as well, including the one which had noted that other European jurisdictions had found ways to prosecute bad drivers without violating Article 6, implying that the UK's approach was clearly not justified by necessity.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 18th July 2019 - 16:21
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.