Man jailed over speed camera lies

toady

Old-Salt
#2
You can even see this chap's bald pate in the speed camera piccy! Must have been his doppelganger then.

Are the UK going to start taking pics from the front of the vehicle as they do over here in Germany? Makes motorcycle driving much more permissive...

:)
 
#3
toady said:
You can even see this chap's bald pate in the speed camera piccy! Must have been his doppelganger then.

Are the UK going to start taking pics from the front of the vehicle as they do over here in Germany? Makes motorcycle driving much more permissive...

:)
They already do down my way!
 
#4
He said one successful prosecution had resulted in a fine of £11,000, while another person was jailed for three years.
WTF, whilst I do not condone what they are doing what the hell is happening. A truck driver ploughs his truck into a car because he was on the phone, killing the young woman in the car. He got 4 years. Someone else attempts to pervert the course of justice over a speeding fine/points and gets three years.

What a complete load of fcking blx. Fcking fcking arrse.

Pesonally at this current time I would like to take the magistrates and judges out of office and get rid of the lot of them. Twats of the highest magnitude.
 
#5
There are ways and means of avoiding speed cameras. Some legal, some rather illegal: I employ them all :)

There are however a few points this muppett should have remembered:

1. Don't get caught
2. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime
3. When caught, 'fess up straight away, no matter how painful the penalty




4. Use false plates and carry diplomatic ID at all times along with valid accreditation documents.
 
#6
dont send the paperowrk back - speeding max penalty 6pts and fine, failure to provide information 3pts and a fine. Discount for cash..
 
#7
Papa_Lazarou said:
dont send the paperowrk back - speeding max penalty 6pts and fine, failure to provide information 3pts and a fine. Discount for cash..
I presume you are quoting your own experience. No where in Section 21 of the RTA does it state you get this?.
 
#8
Sentancing guidelines for magistrates for speeding only, doesnt include more serious offences like dangerous drivign etc.
 
#9
My personal peg on it is that speed cameras are an exercise in revenue creation.
I don't condone dangerous driving, but there seems to be a complete lack of common sense. There are times when it is dangerous to do 20mph and times when it is safe to do 150.
The fact that the whole speed camera prosecution process denies you the right to silence (which is given to everyother criminal including rapists, murderers, and paedos) is completely wrong.
I'm all for cameras in genuine accident black spots and outside schools, in built up areas etc. But they still don't catch dangerous drivers/drunks etc. I know they aren't the most popular bods and they would need funding, but I think they should bring back more traffic cops.

As for the bloke getting 3 years, it's a bit harsh, but he should've sorted his admin out.
 
#10
Dread said:
There are ways and means of avoiding speed cameras. Some legal, some rather illegal: I employ them all :)

There are however a few points this muppett should have remembered:

1. Don't get caught
2. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime
3. When caught, 'fess up straight away, no matter how painful the penalty




4. Use false plates and carry diplomatic ID at all times along with valid accreditation documents.
Strongly reminiscent of the Idi Amin thread last year. This is how the redoubtable alias for Uganda's finest king and Royal Signals Captain got three months in chokey. Looks like he got off lightly.
 
#11
Tut tut, trying to avoid a speeding conviction by not owning up to being the driver. Whatever next eh.

A police force has been fined £500 because an officer refused to own up to a speeding offence.

An unmarked police car was caught speeding at 48mph in a 30mph zone on the A27 near Fareham, Hampshire - but no officer has been willing to admit to being the driver.

In court the Hampshire Police Authority pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to give information about the identity of the driver.

Solicitor Michael Woodford for the defence told the court that the vehicle had been allocated to CID officers at Fratton police station, but none of them had owned up to being the driver.
link
 
#12
This case has more than one level upon which it can be assessed.

1. The drivers right to silence and the right not to incriminate him/herself.

I wholeheartedly stand by this longstanding law, and was shocked when i caught the rather vague headlines. Initially i thought he had been charged for not confessing to driving the car, but upon further inspection, now see that he actively tried to lie to the court by blaming a 3rd party

2. The fact that the driver actively sought to lie to the court and pass the blame onto another party. (An act now known as 'point swapping')

This alone is what he should be tried for, and not for seeking not to incriminate himself.

Despite this it seems that some police chiefs want to deprive us of that age old liberty :roll:
 
#13
Redshaggydog said:
A truck driver ploughs his truck into a car because he was on the phone, killing the young woman in the car. He got 4 years. Someone else attempts to pervert the course of justice over a speeding fine/points and gets three years..
I saw that programme last night too. Outrageous driving, not using it, but 'fiddling' with the phone whilst driving. That young lass was a beautiful girl with everything to live for.

Watching the copper visit her mum's house was utterly devastating to watch. How he kept his cool afterwards is testament to his professionalism. He must have been in bits by the end of the day.

Then I had a big pang conscience. Mental note to self: turn the stupid thing off when in car FULL STOP.
 
#14
Ex_ex

Tut tut, trying to avoid a speeding conviction by not owning up to being the driver. Whatever next eh.

Quote:
A police force has been fined £500 because an officer refused to own up to a speeding offence.

An unmarked police car was caught speeding at 48mph in a 30mph zone on the A27 near Fareham, Hampshire - but no officer has been willing to admit to being the driver.

In court the Hampshire Police Authority pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to give information about the identity of the driver.

Solicitor Michael Woodford for the defence told the court that the vehicle had been allocated to CID officers at Fratton police station, but none of them had owned up to being the driver.
Well, well double standards. So why can not the Chief Constable of the force be taken to account for this, provide the culprit or go to jail?. After all they are the Police, should they not be squeaky clean, therefore someone should take the rap, not hide.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top