Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: west yorks scammers
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
nigel_bytes
From : Philip Gwynne <philip.gwynne@bradford.gov.uk>
Sent : 13 September 2004 07:55:29
To : "'nigel_bytes@hotmail.com'" <nigel_bytes@hotmail.com>
Subject : safety cameras

| | | Inbox


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment : wordversionSCaNsummer04.doc (0.10 MB)

Dear Nigel,

You wrote:
a few simple questions for you, How many square miles, metres,kms, etc
within your safety cameras are you responsible for ?
how many motorists exceeding the speed limit actually had accidents ?
is it legal for magistrates to be partners in you camera partnership ?,
this is surely a conflict of interest
As i understand the law the european court of human rights have already
decided that self incrimination is a breach of human rights and yet you try
to withold vital evidence i.e the full session video-which is crucial
evidence from motorists before a visit to the magistrates court.
I myself would fight you all the way and expose all the lies.
No need for a reply as i know it is a complete waste of time confronting
you with any questions


You ask questions yet do not want replies - could it be because the answers
might dislodge your misconceptions?

1. The full list of current and planned camera-ed lengths of
road in West Yorkshire is freely available on our website.
2. Travelling at excess or inappropriate speed is the single
biggest cause of death and injury on the roads of West Yorkshire. However,
exceeding the speed limit is a punishable offence regardless of whether an
accident ensues
3. The magistrates are not members of the partnership, the
magistrates courts service is, as this service is responsible for issuing
Notices of Intended Prosecution and for processing fines.
4. The European courts have ruled that signing a Notice of
Intended Prosecution as either the registered keeper or the driver is not a
breach human rights and is not self-incriminating. Failure to sign IS an
offence, however.
5. As speeding is a summary offence, the disclosure of evidence
rules do not apply. However, defendants can apply for copies of the
photographs.

Hope you find these answers useful. Here's some more info that it is hoped
will help you get the facts straight in future...

<<word version SCaN summer 04.doc>>

Philip J Gwynne MIPR MCIM

Im not sure what to reply to this email from the scammers-help plz
firefly
Aaahhhh, my old friend Phillip Gwynne!

Watch this space and tomorrow I'll post a letter I received from Mr Gwynne's boss telling him to change the web site as it was peddling duff information. This was as a result of a letter I sent to West Yorkshire.

Smug mode! icon_wink.gif
DW190
[quote]3. The magistrates are not members of the partnership, the
magistrates courts service is, as this service is responsible for issuing
Notices of Intended Prosecution


Total Bullshit.

Notices of Intended Prostitution are issued by the police by a person authorised by the Chief Officer of Police for the area concerned.
Bob_Sprocket
QUOTE
i.e the full session video-which is crucial
evidence from motorists before a visit to the magistrates court.
The 1991 road traffic act says.

QUOTE
(a) a record produced by a prescribed device, and

 (B) (in the same or another document) a certificate as to the circumstances in which the record was produced signed by a constable or by a person authorised by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed;


How can a few frames copied from the record produced by the prescribed device be admissible. A video recording is a document (this has been confirmed in anumber of test cases on copyright and other issues). I would contend that only the original document is admissible not edited highlights.

Now the RTA 1991 goes on to say something very interesting:

QUOTE
8 Nothing in subsection (1) or (6) above makes a document admissible as evidence in proceedings for an offence unless a copy of it has, not less than seven days before the hearing or trial, been served on the person charged with the offence


They have changed from using the term "record" to using the term "document". The original document is the whole tape and you are entitled to see it 7 days before the hearing otherwise no part of it is admissible IMHO.

I really think that we must push this again.

Best wishes

Bob
cjm99
QUOTE (Attorney Generals Guidlines)
applications.

SUMMARY TRIAL
43. The prosecutor should, in addition to complying with the obligations under
the CPIA, provide to the defence all evidence upon which the Crown
proposes to rely in a summary trial. Such provision should allow the
accused or their legal advisers sufficient time properly to consider the
evidence before it is called. Exceptionally, statements may be withheld for
the protection of witnesses or to avoid interference with the course of
justice.
MATERIAL RELEVANT TO SENTENCE
44. In all cases the prosecutor must consider disclosing in the interests of
justice any material which is relevant to sentence (eg. information which
might mitigate the seriousness of the offence or assist the accused to lay
blame in whole or in part upon a co-accused or another person).
APPLICABILITY OF THESE GUIDELINES
45. These guidelines should be adopted with immediate effect in relation to all
cases submitted in future to the prosecuting authorities in receipt of these
guidelines. They should also be adopted as regards cases already
submitted to which the Act applies, so far as they relate to stages in the
proceedings that have not yet been reached.



http://www.lslo.gov.uk/pdf/guidelines.pdf

Not much doubt that disclosure in summary trials are absolute requirements.

Chris
Andy L
QUOTE (nigel_bytes)
I myself would fight you all the way and expose all the lies.
No need for a reply as i know it is a complete waste of time confronting


Hi Nigel,

Mr Gwynne and I have reached the point where he no longer talks to me I have to make requests via my MP - how sad laugh.gif

I will send you a copy of a report I wrote for the ABD if you like that exposes their 'over 90% of Yorkshire folk support cameras' lie.

Andy
Captain A
QUOTE
4. The European courts have ruled that signing a Notice of
Intended Prosecution as either the registered keeper or the driver is not a
breach human rights and is not self-incriminating.


I have emailed asking which judgements have determined this. Will post any reply !
andypandy
Andy L

i live in leeds and would be interested to see your report. Would you please pm it to me
Andy L
Hi Andy and anyone else interested it can be downloaded from here

Political Root of Speeding Convictions

All comments good and bad welcome.

Andy
Clear Skies
QUOTE (nigel_bytes)
From : Philip Gwynne <philip.gwynne@bradford.gov.uk>
Sent : 13 September 2004 07:55:29
To : "'nigel_bytes@hotmail.com'" <nigel_bytes@hotmail.com>
Subject : safety cameras

| | | Inbox


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment : wordversionSCaNsummer04.doc (0.10 MB)

Dear Nigel,

You wrote:
a few simple questions for you, How many square miles, metres,kms, etc
within your safety cameras are you responsible for ?
how many motorists exceeding the speed limit actually had accidents ?
is it legal for magistrates to be partners in you camera partnership ?,
this is surely a conflict of interest
As i understand the law the european court of human rights have already
decided that self incrimination is a breach of human rights and yet you try
to withold vital evidence i.e the full session video-which is crucial
evidence from motorists before a visit to the magistrates court.
I myself would fight you all the way and expose all the lies.
No need for a reply as i know it is a complete waste of time confronting
you with any questions


You ask questions yet do not want replies - could it be because the answers
might dislodge your misconceptions?

1. The full list of current and planned camera-ed lengths of
road in West Yorkshire is freely available on our website.
2. Travelling at excess or inappropriate speed is the single
biggest cause of death and injury on the roads of West Yorkshire. However,
exceeding the speed limit is a punishable offence regardless of whether an
accident ensues
3. The magistrates are not members of the partnership, the
magistrates courts service is, as this service is responsible for issuing
Notices of Intended Prosecution and for processing fines.
4. The European courts have ruled that signing a Notice of
Intended Prosecution as either the registered keeper or the driver is not a
breach human rights and is not self-incriminating. Failure to sign IS an
offence, however.
5. As speeding is a summary offence, the disclosure of evidence
rules do not apply. However, defendants can apply for copies of the
photographs.

Hope you find these answers useful. Here's some more info that it is hoped
will help you get the facts straight in future...

<<word version SCaN summer 04.doc>>

Philip J Gwynne MIPR MCIM

Im not sure what to reply to this email from the scammers-help plz



Nigel, me thinks this man is under pressure.. no one responds like that unless they have a problem..

suggest u keep writing, not only to him, chief constable, police authority chief executive of the local county council . Every time he winges at you, hit him...

Eventually , just like any dog, his B*lls will be so sore, he will do as he is told, more importantly politely . It's a good game, that can last for years, ..enjoy..


rgds
bill
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.