Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] NIP - A338 Wessex Way, Bournemouth
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
JRP1414
Abc
Jlc
GSV is a useful tool but you'd need to collect your own evidence if any signage was 'deficient'. Repeaters would be required and there is a system of street lighting in place.

Regardless of this, the s172 request has to be responded to. Unless the driver is unequivocally named then the underlying offence is mostly irrelevant.

The timestamps won't be atomic so they could be out of sync slightly.

If the driver is not named unequivocally then it is highly likely the matter will go to court. If you can show that with reasonable diligence the driver couldn't be named then you may be found not guilty.

If you want to go this route then the bar is quite high but not impossible. You should ask for photo's to assist in the identification of the driver - they don't have to supply but often do. Depending on the type of capture then there might be a nice frontal. The photo's are to identify the offence and the vehicle and aren't strictly there to identify the driver.

Given this is a fairly low-level speeding offence the outcome would be a course or fixed penalty at worst (3 points/£100). Consider carefully as failing to furnish is 6 points, large fine and insurance-bashing endorsement code if found guilty.
BaggieBoy
There is a 40 MPH GATSO at the location stated, looks perfectly visible on Streetview to me. And it wouldn't matter if ur wasn't.
Pete D
Please explain why you are the partner of the RK but the NIP is in your name. Regards Peter
Logician
QUOTE (Pete D @ Mon, 8 Jun 2015 - 17:11) *
Please explain why you are the partner of the RK but the NIP is in your name. Regards Peter


I would not read too much into that, the OP writes "we have received a NIP..." which of course is nonsense, it is addressed to one or the other of them and could well be his partner. This is the sort of thing that can cause great difficulty if the wrong partner replies; the person to whom the NIP was addressed needs to reply.

JRP1414
Abc
douglasb
What did you buy with the credit card. Who was driving just before you stopped to make that purchase? Did you change drivers in the 15 minutes before making the purchase?

An obscured camera also isn't a get-out. It doesn't need to be plainly visible.
Jlc
QUOTE (JRP1414 @ Mon, 8 Jun 2015 - 20:34) *
So are we saying the camera doesn't have to be plainly visible for the detection to be valid? Is it not considered covert surveillance if the camera is concealed in some way? Isn't that the reason they're painted bright yellow? I'm not being argumentative, just querying...

The camera doesn't need to be visible at all. Indeed, you (or the other driver) probably just missed it.

Some were painted yellow many years back to try and placate members of the public. (To try and disguise the cash cow feelings)

You should be able to take the course locally.
southpaw82
Covert surveillance by a big grey box on a pole in a public place is an interesting concept! Still, more amusing than the usual "entrapment" arguments we see.
JRP1414
Abc
squaredeal
QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 8 Jun 2015 - 21:03) *
You should be able to take the course locally.

Dorset are not in the National scheme, so any course offered there has to be attended there.
The Rookie
QUOTE (JRP1414 @ Mon, 8 Jun 2015 - 22:41) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 8 Jun 2015 - 21:22) *
Covert surveillance by a big grey box on a pole in a public place is an interesting concept! Still, more amusing than the usual "entrapment" arguments we see.


You laugh, but to use a council CCTV system for directed surveillance on an individual or premises requires authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). It might be a big grey camera on a big grey pole in a public place, but if you're using it covertly to capture evidence of a particular offence, it's covert surveillance and if you don't have that RIPA authorisation, the evidence can be ruled inadmissible.

And all totally irrelevant for a speed camera that takes single snapshots of a single vehicle detected over the limit, which is clearly not directed surveillance!
southpaw82
QUOTE (JRP1414 @ Mon, 8 Jun 2015 - 22:41) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 8 Jun 2015 - 21:22) *
Covert surveillance by a big grey box on a pole in a public place is an interesting concept! Still, more amusing than the usual "entrapment" arguments we see.


You laugh, but to use a council CCTV system for directed surveillance on an individual or premises requires authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). It might be a big grey camera on a big grey pole in a public place, but if you're using it covertly to capture evidence of a particular offence, it's covert surveillance and if you don't have that RIPA authorisation, the evidence can be ruled inadmissible.

I'm glad I have you round here to explain that to me rolleyes.gif

Directed surveillance? No, because no individual is targeted, merely any vehicle that meets certain parameters (i.e. is speeding on a discrete section of road).

Dear apple, meet orange.
Jlc
QUOTE (squaredeal @ Tue, 9 Jun 2015 - 00:42) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 8 Jun 2015 - 21:03) *
You should be able to take the course locally.

Dorset are not in the National scheme, so any course offered there has to be attended there.

Indeed, my geography was bad...
JRP1414
Can one of you moderators delete my account please?
The Rookie
That won't happen I don't think, but if you want to ask you use the report button bottom left of any of your posts.

Also all your posts can be accessed via Google cache, so your little 'Abc' trick is pointless I'm afraid.
JRP1414
I'm really not bothered about the posts, I was just hoping they would delete me.
The Rookie
The usual policy is not to and I'm not sure what purpose it would serve? Anyway, you can but ask.
JRP1414
I just have no interest being a member anymore. Unfortunately it has lived up to my expectations of being an 'advice' forum that has very little advice and a lot of p155 taking. It's sad really because it could be a fantastic forum but people with their pathetic sarcasm and belittling of other members' comments will just put people off joining.

I really thought twice about joining as I have experienced similar behaviour in other forums on unrelated topics, but I thought I would take the plunge and give it the benefit of the doubt. As I said, sadly it has proved me right.

Some of these members & moderators should take a long hard look at themselves and think about why the forum was originally founded and what it was set out to achieve. It was supposed to be about motorists working together to fight back at what can sometimes be an unfair legal system, stacked in favour of the wealthy. Making digs at other members' comments and suggestions is just pointless and achieves nothing.
Jlc
I thought my posts were highly helpful and not at all condescending. But I'm biased. wink.gif
The Rookie
For belittle, read correcting misconceptions perhaps?
Logician
QUOTE (JRP1414 @ Tue, 9 Jun 2015 - 09:25) *
I really thought twice about joining as I have experienced similar behaviour in other forums on unrelated topics, but I thought I would take the plunge and give it the benefit of the doubt. As I said, sadly it has proved me right.


Perhaps you should think about whether the rest of the world is wrong or whether you might be over-sensitive. I cannot see that anyone has done anything other than point out that your suggestions to form a defence will not work, and surely it is better to be told that here than find out the hard and now very expensive way in court.

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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.