tiggers

Whilst I appreciate that Tony Blair's government and their policies may have some part in this surely the majoirty of the blame lies with the way the police and the courts have chosen to act or am I right in thinking that both the police and the magistrates personally telephoned Tony Blair to get his detailed instructions on how to proceed with this case

tiggers.

OllyK

I doubt there was a personal call, but the legal changes that have been implemented to allow such stupidity as banning somebody for driving when they are not in a car is a direct result of the changes to the law implemented by the government. The magistrates have a number of sentences that they can hand down when somebody is found guilty of a certain offence, they can't just do their own thing.

tiggers

No, but FFS they could actually use common sense.

The police could have cautioned him and sent him on his way (still wrong, but better than sending him to court).

The court could have cautioned him and sent him on his way.

Both of these actions are legal and within the law - both the police and the magistrates chose to act differently so unless they did phone Tony Blair for guidance (I was only joking BTW) I can't see that it is anything other than their fault - sorry to burst the anti-Blair bubble of this thread, but that's my 2 cents worth

Oh look - it's raining - that must be Tony Blair's fault as well

tiggers.

OllyK

tiggers - I couldn't agree more, there is a real lack of common sense here, but it would seem in light of so many other similar cases that the courts and the Police have been given a prod from on high to ensure that cases relating to driving and in particular speeding should incurr the more severe of the available penalties.

Likewise if the law hadn't been fudged by Government to the state where we have a law that effectively allows somebody to be prosecuted for doing anything a Policeman doesn't like, then they wouldn't have had a law available to them to even arrest him in the first place.

The Police and the Courts have been given the tools (the Law) and guidelines on how they should be used. I agree there is a lack of common sense, but the tools are being used within the guidelines provided. This suggests to me that we need to re-engineer the tools and the guidelines a little as well as trying to knock some common sense in to those who implement it.

tiggers

I guess you're right. I just have difficulty with people especially the likes of the police and the courts who don't stand up for what is sensible regardless of whatever other influences may be affecting them.

I remember the case of the pensioner being sent to prison for not paying all of his poll tax in the late 80's not because he didn't want to, but becaase he couldn't - can't understand how people can sleep at night when passing out sentences like that.

Again there were external government influences, but surely common sense should prevail.

tiggers.

OllyK

I wish! I think some of these people just go power mad and love to assert themseleves. Government (regardless of the party in power at the time) has a responsibility to monitor such things and ensure that the public (who they serve) is not abused. Sometimes I think governments forget why they are there.

tiggers

Well I can't disagree with you on that one.

tiggers.

OllyK

unclebuck

I'm afraid we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.

Now that they have proved that they can get away with starting wars etc on false pretences, the schemes being written up by ministers (as we debate this) to turn the UK into a socalist totalitarian dictatorship are well under way.

tiggers

Sounds terrible, still better that than 'Slimeball' Howard's crew though

OllyK

That's a bit of a suposition! We have experienced Blair et al so we KNOW what they are like, Howard hasn't been prime minister, let him have a go then start to bitch about him

fizzled

just heard the police lost the fish. get the helicopter out

fizzled

dont worry revenue camaras will pay for that b###s up to

jaf01uk

In our area the Procurator Fiscal has issued instructions to the police not to charge anyone for careless or wreckless driving for causing an accident unless someone is injured!! You can pull out in front of a car when it is 3 feet away and write off their car and as long as no-one is hurt you walk away scot free, knock for knock! But god help you if you do 68mph on a quiet bit of road, you'll be charged quicker than you can say "revenue collection" It's the hypocracy of it that annoys me,
Gary

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

I got zapped by a cop with a speed camera on that road in Farnborough few years ago there was a cop all in black standing under an overhanging tree in the shadow of it with his laser gun on a tripod. This was down towards the queens hotel near that ****ty car lot, there is a road on the left that has the pavement crossing it so cars can not go in or out of it, there is a weeping willow tree or summat there but under neath it is reall ydark even on a bright sunny day and that is where he was lurking.

Maybe someone should mail the url to this thread to the UKIP and see what they have to say on the matter.

Brendan Hughes

What, given that the UK has the lowest motorway limits in Europe?

Jerome

Hello mate. You've been zapped along there too!

As I said before, do not speed anywhere in Farnborough. They have loads of sneaky hiding places and methods. Their favourite stretch is from the Queens hotel roundabout to the pub roundabout by Farnborough Main train station.

drumsterphil

iTrader: (1)

I've been zapped there too!

jaf01uk

Thats illegal and if challenged in court would be thrown out, they have to be visible,
Gary

hedgehog

I don't believe it is illegal. The guidelines on visibility etc. are just guidelines and the fact that you didn't see the copper is unlikely to work well as a defence in court.

You: I'm sorry your worship but I was speeding because I didn't see the police officer.

Police officer: I was standing by the road fully visible to oncoming traffic when I used the magic laser tax collecting device to confirm my opinion that the defendant was speeding, your worship. If the defendant was unable to see me, and as he has admitted the speeding charge, I suggest that consideration is given to the fact that he may have been driving without due care and attention at the time of the offence.

I am afraid that all the guidelines you hear about are just guidelines and are not worth the paper they are written on. A good example of this is that, in theory, cameras should only be positioned where there is a record of accidents, including fatalities. In truth they are positioned where they can make most money and my reason for being so confident in making this statement is because there have been cases of brand new roads having cameras installed before they were opened. How can a brand new road have a history of fatalities? Try asking them that, they'll not be keen to answer and when they do they will point out that the guidelines are only guidelines and they are ignoring them in their dash for your cash.

Echo

Heard on the radio today that midlands police are producing a CD ROM showing all speed trap locations in order to reinforce the reasons for the cameras - to reduce speed related accidents. So, if the police themselves advertise a speed trap's location, what is the difference with a pensioner warning people? Should all the midlands police be baned for obstructing themselves?

This is one wierd country.

Mike

ajm

I stopped myself killing someone tonight.... should I be done for conspiracy to kill, or perversion of the course of justice? Either way, being a decent taxpayer, I am going to do the decent thing and hand myself in!

wiltshire_boy

Does any body else smell that stench? I think it's the smell of this countrys legal system turning to ****. When will the people with the real power in this country (ABC1's, nice middle class folk as personified by the majority of Scoobynet's subscribers - with notable exceptions ) realise that it is down to us (you!) to do something about the diabolical, incredulous, downright fantastical state that this country is in.

***** to "Kitten" and her ilk stating their half baked political beliefs on national TV, imagine if so called "respectable" folk, as personified by the righteous Mr. Harding, and you (us) lot started taking a stand. The problem with activists is that they have been so damn unattractive up till now. The revolution should be coming, who wants to be leader?

Roy,

fuelled by a Stella promotion in the Artichoke. Aye

wiltshire_boy

It may well also be televised but i bet the soundtrack is not what Mr. Scott Heron had in mind.

Love, peace and action revolutionaries.

"fight the powers that be"

wiltshire_boy

Bed now, ask me in the morning.

hedgehog

"There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down brothers on the instant replay."

The truth of the matter is that, at the behest of a huge administration white elephant paid for by our cash, pigs are now spending a lot of time shooting pictures of brothers and providing instant replays for the benefit of the courts.

I can certainly see how these actions could easily drive this country further and further to the extreme right, exactly the opposite effect Gill Scott Heron had in mind I suppose. One part of this persecution is the unrelenting attacks on the motoring public and I would ask you to bear in mind that 24 million motorists are also voters. Over the next few days political figures at various levels might be calling at your door to ask for your vote so be sure to start the fight back for the motorist by asking them hard questions. Make it clear you will be voting for the person who gives the correct answers:

Why is petrol so expensive? Motorists pay 36 billion into the country and get only 6 billion back. Real criminals pay nothing into the country and get better treatment than us.

Why do we keep putting in revenue generating cameras when the county with the highest density of them has seen a huge increase in fatalities and the national 60 year downward trend in road fatilities has reversed since the cameras went in?

Why arrest an old aged pensioner, and then remove his ability to drive to church and shops, for asking traffic to slow down?

Will you commit to disbanding the Camera Partnerships in view of the fact that the police and courts actually get a cut of the fines they hand out? Do you think this is immoral?

Will you remove all "traffic calming measures" in the area? The London Ambulance Service say that they cost them 500 lives per year, there is no evidence they have ever saved on life.

The DfT have just published a research document which reveals that about 3% of accidents are caused by speed in excess of the speed limit. As these are the only accidents cameras could help deter why do police put so many resources into lying about and fighting those speeding when 97% of the reasons for death on the roads are virtually ignored? Is this because the police get a cut from the fines?

Does it concern you that the Notice of Intended Prosecution demands that you incriminate yourself and removes your right to silence, both rights fundamental to our legal system for hundreds of years but which have been thrown aside in this dash for cash?

Your front doorstep may not be televised by it is the place to start the revolution where we fight back and reclaim at least some rights for the motorist.