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: 56,200 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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 19:29
Post
#121
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 21:00
Post
#122
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
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. |
|
|
Tue, 7 May 2019 - 12:07
Post
#123
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 601 Joined: 7 May 2019 Member No.: 103,734 |
|
|
|
Tue, 7 May 2019 - 12:34
Post
#124
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
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, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 7 May 2019 - 12:51
Post
#125
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
I can quite believe it was a device to help parking... Absolutely. Means you can get to the parking spot quicker |
|
|
Wed, 8 May 2019 - 04:52
Post
#126
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Thu, 9 May 2019 - 23:42
Post
#127
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 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 |
|
|
Thu, 30 May 2019 - 13:55
Post
#128
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 31 May 2019 - 13:24
Post
#129
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 288 Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,810 |
-------------------- PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1 Enfield 1/1 Hackney 3/4 Ealing 0/1 LCC 1/1 CoL 1/1 PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum: UKPC 1/1 TPS 1/1 ECP 0/1 Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75% |
|
|
Fri, 31 May 2019 - 20:16
Post
#130
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
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. |
|
|
Fri, 31 May 2019 - 22:22
Post
#131
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 341 Joined: 13 May 2011 Member No.: 46,634 |
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 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/28...-obscures-face/ -------------------- POPLA BPA BPA Ltd BPA AOS AOS PPC PCN PE CEL
|
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 14:58
Post
#132
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
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 |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 17:22
Post
#133
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 03:46
Post
#134
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 09:22
Post
#135
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
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 __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 10:36
Post
#136
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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... -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 11:03
Post
#137
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 11:51
Post
#138
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
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 |
|
|
Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 19:02
Post
#139
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
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
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 - 12:16
Post
#140
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 14:48 |