PC Plod Problem............
10 October 2008, 08:00 AM
#61
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster, S. Yorks.
Posts: 21,415
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you want to go to court to prove a point then go and i honestly hope that if you do that you win, but as you've got a clean license 3 points don't mean anything for insurance, and the 60 notes are certainly less than its going to cost to have at least one day off work!, Sh*t i know but they know that the best thing to do for a number of reasons is to admit your wrong even if your right.
Aaron
Aaron
If that is a generalisation then then << applies.I have 3 points and expect my premium to suffer for it this year. Unless you have been driving for a while, or the 3 points are for a minor offence, I whole heartedly disagree with your statement!
10 October 2008, 06:34 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All that is needed is the PC's verbal evidnece that he was doing the speed limit and you overtook, hence speeding, that would see you with less than a 5% chance of creating some reasonable doubt.
People have been convicted on just the opinion of two coppers, although when it comes to the penalty (speed depenadant) then magistrates tend to err on the side of safety (low) - read Graham V DPP Graham, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 120 (Admin) (22 January 2003) .
Unless they make a major cockup in court you WILL be found guilty at at least speeding and you WILL be worse off than if you accepted the FPN.
He did NOT have to show you the video, he did NOT have to caution you (he only has to do that if he wants to use anything you say as evidence) and he doesn't have to issue a verbal NIP for speeding as he gave you an FPN (although he would for the other offences if he wants to prosecute - 'You will be reported for consideration of prosecution for the offences of ......).
There are a lot of 'barrack room lawyer' comments on here that are just plain wrong, so please go to Pepipoo and get some experienced advise!
Simon
People have been convicted on just the opinion of two coppers, although when it comes to the penalty (speed depenadant) then magistrates tend to err on the side of safety (low) - read Graham V DPP Graham, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 120 (Admin) (22 January 2003) .
Unless they make a major cockup in court you WILL be found guilty at at least speeding and you WILL be worse off than if you accepted the FPN.
He did NOT have to show you the video, he did NOT have to caution you (he only has to do that if he wants to use anything you say as evidence) and he doesn't have to issue a verbal NIP for speeding as he gave you an FPN (although he would for the other offences if he wants to prosecute - 'You will be reported for consideration of prosecution for the offences of ......).
There are a lot of 'barrack room lawyer' comments on here that are just plain wrong, so please go to Pepipoo and get some experienced advise!
Simon
Oh and as for the 'expert witness' thing nsld, the police have been accepted for years as 'expert' when it comes to whether someone is drunk, despite their being party to the original action. Why would speeding be any different?
10 October 2008, 07:37 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moved to the Darkside
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm... bollocks If that is a generalisation then then << applies.
I have 3 points and expect my premium to suffer for it this year. Unless you have been driving for a while, or the 3 points are for a minor offence, I whole heartedly disagree with your statement!
If that is a generalisation then then << applies.I have 3 points and expect my premium to suffer for it this year. Unless you have been driving for a while, or the 3 points are for a minor offence, I whole heartedly disagree with your statement!
Aaron
10 October 2008, 07:38 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster, S. Yorks.
Posts: 21,415
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as the statment you highlighted said "you've" as in the op, and in a earlier post by him he said he was driving trucks 3 yrs ago so i'm guessing he's been driving at least a little while before then too, and i thought an sp30 is a minor offence, and because most insurance companys know its easy to pick up 3 points. I thought my statement to the op was ok.
Aaron
Aaron
but as you've got a clean license 3 points don't mean anything for your insurance,
That's what I was referring to as the generalisation
10 October 2008, 07:52 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scarborough
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as the statment you highlighted said "you've" as in the op, and in a earlier post by him he said he was driving trucks 3 yrs ago so i'm guessing he's been driving at least a little while before then too, and i thought an sp30 is a minor offence, and because most insurance companys know its easy to pick up 3 points. I thought my statement to the op was ok.
Aaron
Aaron
as it happens ive had a driving license for 10 years,truck for 3 years and motorbike for 6 mths.
i wouldnt have thought it will affect my insurance (maybe £20 or so)
but have to be extra careful now cos even though ive been driving for so long the same "two year" rules apply when i passed my bike test!
if i get 6 points in the first two years i have to re-take the bike test,whether the points are on the bike,truck OR car!
only 3 left,and 18 mths to go..................
10 October 2008, 08:09 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nothin wrong with youe statement dude,we all entitled to our own opinion,thats wat a forums all about!
as it happens ive had a driving license for 10 years,truck for 3 years and motorbike for 6 mths.
i wouldnt have thought it will affect my insurance (maybe £20 or so)
but have to be extra careful now cos even though ive been driving for so long the same "two year" rules apply when i passed my bike test!
if i get 6 points in the first two years i have to re-take the bike test,whether the points are on the bike,truck OR car!
only 3 left,and 18 mths to go..................
as it happens ive had a driving license for 10 years,truck for 3 years and motorbike for 6 mths.
i wouldnt have thought it will affect my insurance (maybe £20 or so)
but have to be extra careful now cos even though ive been driving for so long the same "two year" rules apply when i passed my bike test!
if i get 6 points in the first two years i have to re-take the bike test,whether the points are on the bike,truck OR car!
only 3 left,and 18 mths to go..................
One thing to bear in mind though, is that despite the points only staying on your license for three years, insurance companies will keep you as a marked man for five.
10 October 2008, 08:18 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moved to the Darkside
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nothin wrong with youe statement dude,we all entitled to our own opinion,thats wat a forums all about!
as it happens ive had a driving license for 10 years,truck for 3 years and motorbike for 6 mths.
i wouldnt have thought it will affect my insurance (maybe £20 or so)
but have to be extra careful now cos even though ive been driving for so long the same "two year" rules apply when i passed my bike test!
if i get 6 points in the first two years i have to re-take the bike test,whether the points are on the bike,truck OR car!
only 3 left,and 18 mths to go..................
as it happens ive had a driving license for 10 years,truck for 3 years and motorbike for 6 mths.
i wouldnt have thought it will affect my insurance (maybe £20 or so)
but have to be extra careful now cos even though ive been driving for so long the same "two year" rules apply when i passed my bike test!
if i get 6 points in the first two years i have to re-take the bike test,whether the points are on the bike,truck OR car!
only 3 left,and 18 mths to go..................
Aaron
10 October 2008, 08:38 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scarborough
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 October 2008, 08:42 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scarborough
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you know, I've got three points on my license and it hardly made a difference to my insurance, if at all.
One thing to bear in mind though, is that despite the points only staying on your license for three years, insurance companies will keep you as a marked man for five.
One thing to bear in mind though, is that despite the points only staying on your license for three years, insurance companies will keep you as a marked man for five.
they tryed taking my no claims off me once when someone hit my car and i claimed from the other drivers insurance!
i was like "whoa there!" lol!
a "computer error" apparently..............
10 October 2008, 08:49 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scarborough
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 October 2008, 12:32 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: surrey
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have had a glance at that link and it states there were "2" officers present in that case.. thats fine and acceptable...
however in this case, in the 1st post he talks about "1" officer, so it would be his word against the defendant and his word without actual "evidence" is not enough to convict...
14 October 2008, 12:37 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI my supervisor is a SGT with 19yrs service..
i have had a glance at that link and it states there were "2" officers present in that case.. thats fine and acceptable...
however in this case, in the 1st post he talks about "1" officer, so it would be his word against the defendant and his word without actual "evidence" is not enough to convict...
i have had a glance at that link and it states there were "2" officers present in that case.. thats fine and acceptable...
however in this case, in the 1st post he talks about "1" officer, so it would be his word against the defendant and his word without actual "evidence" is not enough to convict...
14 October 2008, 07:23 PM
#77
Pop yourself down to any magistrates court, Mon to Fri 0945 to 4ish. Sit in on one of the courts and see for yourself.
14 October 2008, 10:18 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just consider what type of individual wants to be a magistrate and then consider how likely they are to believe your version of events over that of a serving police officer.
If you are a vicar then you may be the exception that proves the rule.
Kevin
14 October 2008, 10:29 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scarborough
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 October 2008, 11:01 PM
#80
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scarborough
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
everyone who has replied on this thread has valid points which are correct in a "normal" persons views.
we all know he was in the wrong doing what he did,we all know it wont be the first time,or the last time he will do it,along with most of his collegues.
but unfortunately unless you have a pot full of money,or certain people in your pocket,you cant stand up against "the justice system".
i had accepted this and went to take my licence into the police station on sat,only to realise id left the paper part at work because they had been doing security checks on all employees.
the deadline was 8pm sun nite,i tried to explain the situation to the desk officer and said i could get it there for 8am sharp mon (12 hours late) but she was very sharp and hostile and said tough im reporting you for failing to produce a licence and your going to court and started to fill the form out!
i stated i had another 36 hours till deadline and she eventually put the forms away.
annoyed by her rudeness i went back to speak to her the next day (sun)but found a different woman there,re-explained the situation and she was nice and understanding of what had happened and agreed to give me till 9am on mon morn to bring it in.i was happy it was sorted! but guess who was on the desk on mon morning.......
she went beserk!!!
literally shouting at me across the desk,wouldnt honour the agreement,went to get her supervisor who said to her because the other woman had said yes she had to,so eventually she took my licence AND signed my ticket to say she had taken it, BUT said she was still taking me to court for not producing it!!
what can you say to that?
the fact is,0.01% of police are good people who are honest and fair,but unfortunately
99.9 % of them are incompetent insecure idiots on a power trip.
thankyou all for you advice,and lets concentrate on wat makes us happy instead......
BROOOOOOOOOOOOOOM TISSSSH!
we all know he was in the wrong doing what he did,we all know it wont be the first time,or the last time he will do it,along with most of his collegues.
but unfortunately unless you have a pot full of money,or certain people in your pocket,you cant stand up against "the justice system".
i had accepted this and went to take my licence into the police station on sat,only to realise id left the paper part at work because they had been doing security checks on all employees.
the deadline was 8pm sun nite,i tried to explain the situation to the desk officer and said i could get it there for 8am sharp mon (12 hours late) but she was very sharp and hostile and said tough im reporting you for failing to produce a licence and your going to court and started to fill the form out!
i stated i had another 36 hours till deadline and she eventually put the forms away.
annoyed by her rudeness i went back to speak to her the next day (sun)but found a different woman there,re-explained the situation and she was nice and understanding of what had happened and agreed to give me till 9am on mon morn to bring it in.i was happy it was sorted! but guess who was on the desk on mon morning.......
she went beserk!!!
literally shouting at me across the desk,wouldnt honour the agreement,went to get her supervisor who said to her because the other woman had said yes she had to,so eventually she took my licence AND signed my ticket to say she had taken it, BUT said she was still taking me to court for not producing it!!
what can you say to that?
the fact is,0.01% of police are good people who are honest and fair,but unfortunately
99.9 % of them are incompetent insecure idiots on a power trip.
thankyou all for you advice,and lets concentrate on wat makes us happy instead......
BROOOOOOOOOOOOOOM TISSSSH!
15 October 2008, 01:22 AM
#81
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you have broken the law in not submitting in 7 days, there is case that that supports the fact that an 'offer' by the police has to be then honoured and no conviction should follow (known as 'H V Guidford crown court' H being a minor), beseides its arguable that the legal principle of 'de minimis' (the law is not concerned with trifles) applies in hat it was still surrenedered before a prosecution started so is it in the public interest to prosecute - clearly not!
Maybe they shpuld try reading the 'new drivers act' Results within legislation - Statute Law Database as its what THAT says that decides whether it happens or not!
Note the FIRST in BOLD!
Simon
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person’s probationary period is, subject to section 7, the period of two years beginning with the day on which he becomes a qualified driver.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person becomes a qualified driver on the first occasion on which he passes—
(a)
any test of competence to drive mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c) of section 89(1) of the M1 Road Traffic Act 1988;
(b)
any test of competence to drive conducted under the law of [F1 (i) another EEA State,
(ii)
the Isle of Man,
(iii)
any of the Channel Islands, or
(iv)
Gibraltar.]
(3) In subsection (2) “EEA State” means a State which is a contracting party to the EEA Agreement but until the EEA Agreement comes into force in relation to Liechtenstein does not include the State of Liechtenstein.
(4) In subsection (3) “EEA Agreement” means the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992 as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person becomes a qualified driver on the first occasion on which he passes—
(a)
any test of competence to drive mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c) of section 89(1) of the M1 Road Traffic Act 1988;
(b)
any test of competence to drive conducted under the law of [F1 (i) another EEA State,
(ii)
the Isle of Man,
(iii)
any of the Channel Islands, or
(iv)
Gibraltar.]
(3) In subsection (2) “EEA State” means a State which is a contracting party to the EEA Agreement but until the EEA Agreement comes into force in relation to Liechtenstein does not include the State of Liechtenstein.
(4) In subsection (3) “EEA Agreement” means the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992 as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993.
Simon
15 October 2008, 02:20 AM
#82
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you have broken the law in not submitting in 7 days, there is case that that supports the fact that an 'offer' by the police has to be then honoured and no conviction should follow (known as 'H V Guidford crown court' H being a minor), beseides its arguable that the legal principle of 'de minimis' (the law is not concerned with trifles) applies in hat it was still surrenedered before a prosecution started so is it in the public interest to prosecute - clearly not!
Maybe they shpuld try reading the 'new drivers act' Results within legislation - Statute Law Database as its what THAT says that decides whether it happens or not!
Note the FIRST in BOLD!
Simon
Maybe they shpuld try reading the 'new drivers act' Results within legislation - Statute Law Database as its what THAT says that decides whether it happens or not!
Note the FIRST in BOLD!
Simon
15 October 2008, 09:53 AM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: surrey
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yep thats correct!
15 October 2008, 03:19 PM
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 October 2008, 03:29 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it isn't, it's rubbish.
Further driving test passes are only at risk for foreign nationals who have an existing recognised driving licence that they exchange for a British one and then go on to take either a motorcyle/PSV/HGV test here. As this would be the first test that they had taken in this country then the provisions of the act would apply.
Originally Posted by The DVLA
New Drivers Act: Your driving licence is automatically revoked if you build up six or more penalty points within two years of passing your first driving test. This includes any penalty points you had before passing the test, which are still valid. You’ll have to reapply for your driving licence as a learner driver and resit your driving test.
Who does the act affect.
Who does the act affect.
15 October 2008, 05:09 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could also be read as meaning that if you have your licence revoked due to accruing 6 points and then have to retake your test, that the two year clock isn't restarted; i.e. forgetting about different classes of vehicle, despite accruing 6 points you will still have, say, eighteen months experience under your belt.
Otherwise some people would always have a 6-point licence despite years of driving experience, which is not what is intended by the law (although it might make sense).
Otherwise some people would always have a 6-point licence despite years of driving experience, which is not what is intended by the law (although it might make sense
).
15 October 2008, 05:56 PM
#88
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 8,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much crap information above mixed in with the good.
It used to be that:
The officer can arrest and push charges based on his experience of traffic speed alone. He then uses any evidence he sees fit to back up this allegation.
This is why the civilians using Speed cameras fell on its **** because the operator would have to have sufficient experience to realise a vehicle was exceeding a given speed.
Regarding the evidence, there is such a thing as disclosure, however they can expect you to attend the station to look at the evidence under control.
You need to read up on things, and maybe stop driving like a *****.
It used to be that:
The officer can arrest and push charges based on his experience of traffic speed alone. He then uses any evidence he sees fit to back up this allegation.
This is why the civilians using Speed cameras fell on its **** because the operator would have to have sufficient experience to realise a vehicle was exceeding a given speed.
Regarding the evidence, there is such a thing as disclosure, however they can expect you to attend the station to look at the evidence under control.
You need to read up on things, and maybe stop driving like a *****.
15 October 2008, 09:56 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scarborough
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much crap information above mixed in with the good.
It used to be that:
The officer can arrest and push charges based on his experience of traffic speed alone. He then uses any evidence he sees fit to back up this allegation.
This is why the civilians using Speed cameras fell on its **** because the operator would have to have sufficient experience to realise a vehicle was exceeding a given speed.
Regarding the evidence, there is such a thing as disclosure, however they can expect you to attend the station to look at the evidence under control.
You need to read up on things, and maybe stop driving like a *****.
It used to be that:
The officer can arrest and push charges based on his experience of traffic speed alone. He then uses any evidence he sees fit to back up this allegation.
This is why the civilians using Speed cameras fell on its **** because the operator would have to have sufficient experience to realise a vehicle was exceeding a given speed.
Regarding the evidence, there is such a thing as disclosure, however they can expect you to attend the station to look at the evidence under control.
You need to read up on things, and maybe stop driving like a *****.