mobile phone scam for drivers

Mathew

gav357 wrote: »

Dear Mathew.......as you have decided to call me out I will respond.....


I am a serving police officer with 8 yrs police service....

I worked in both the high court and the district courts (Scotland) for 8 months......

I do know what I am talking about......I do this for a living...I don't merely look up stuff on the net and take it as gospel.

You may have to pay court costs in a civil trial......road traffic legislation is criminal.....there are no court costs to pay...how stupid......To take things to an extreme, if you were charged with murder would you just plead guilty to avoid having a 6 week trial costing over a million pounds (yes they are that expensive) in case you were to pay the court costs.......

Wrong again, Courts order guilty defendant costs in criminal convictions, fact!! Examples of cases.
http://archive.halesowennews.co.uk/2008/3/13/94344.html]
If you still believe this not to be the case perhaps you should open you books!

Murder is a extreme example as you point out where the sentence is fixed by law ie..life, regardless of how the defendant was convicted. This is why seldom cases end to a guilty plea to Murder and result in trials.

I think that you should stick to watching the bill........

Ordinarily I wouldn't mind a battle of wits however as a matter of principle I don't fight unarmed opponents....

You were wrong about the fines enforceable by the courts and wrong about them being able to order court costs, which I repeat they can!

Have a nice day.

OP, regardless of all this a good site to visit where you will find all the answers to your questions is www.pepipoo.com

nickmack

gav357 wrote: »

road traffic legislation is criminal.....there are no court costs to pay...how stupid

Really? One of thousands of examples from a local newspaper, where not only are court costs awarded on top of the £60 speeding fine, but a victim surcharge of £15 in cases as well.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4036031.print

The Magistrates have the power to increase the fine and the penalty points and you may also be ordered to pay court costs. This is to help serve as a deterrent to prevent all the accused wasting the time of the court. Those who believe they genuinely have a case shouldn't be put off.

redux

gav357 wrote: »

You may have to pay court costs in a civil trial......road traffic legislation is criminal.....there are no court costs to pay...how stupid.......

It's somewhat arrogant for you to call people stupid when you don't appear to know much about courts awarding costs

As for your lectures about not accepting being accused of something you never did - this is pragmatically naive. It may happen more often than you realise that Police officers subtly alter or even falsify evidence.

I could bore you with details of a speeding offence I was convicted of, with absolutely no evidence at all presented against me, where the officer could not be brought to court on 3 occasions (he twice suddenly went sick on the days of the hearings - he's lying, a retired police sergeant friend commented when I told him), where my solicitor advised me to write to the Lord Chancellor (but I didn't bother) ...

... and after the unjustified ban was cancelled and the fine reduced, the judge still refused to decrease or cancel the costs "in the interests of justice."

nickmack wrote: »

Those who believe they genuinely have a case shouldn't be put off.

During the charade I experienced, I asked my solicitor what proportion of people pleading not guilty, or variations from the details of the accusation [so should be a Newton hearing], were still convicted. About 99 per cent, he said.

Mathew

Sense at last,

I was beginning to think it was just me who thought he was talking rubbish!

How Stupid indeed!

gav357

redux wrote: »

It's somewhat arrogant for you to call people stupid when you don't appear to know much about courts awarding costs

Ok, so I shouldn't call people stupid...I apologise for that....

As for court costs...it would appear to be different in England as in Scotland you pay the fine that is relevant to the offence committed...no added court costs.

As for your lectures about not accepting being accused of something you never did - this is pragmatically naive. It may happen more often than you realise that Police officers subtly alter or even falsify evidence.

Why on earth would you accept it if you never committed the offence???? I am not naive and yes I am aware that people (including cops) lie. I could also retire right now if I had a pound for every "innocent" person I had dealt with.

I could bore you with details of a speeding offence I was convicted of, with absolutely no evidence at all presented against me, where the officer could not be brought to court on 3 occasions (he twice suddenly went sick on the days of the hearings - he's lying, a retired police sergeant friend commented when I told him), where my solicitor advised me to write to the Lord Chancellor (but I didn't bother) ...

There must have been some evidence of some description or the incident would never have seen the light of day in a court. If it had went to court with little or no evidence then your lawyer should have contested that there was no case to answer and it would've been thrown out. The magistrates etc are accountable for their decisions and they have to be very wary of unsound convictions. You would never be found guilty of an offence with absolutely no evidence.

And the cop who never attended court was deemed lying on the say so of a retired cop you know....very scientific and evidence based...nice conclusion.

... and after the unjustified ban was cancelled and the fine reduced, the judge still refused to decrease or cancel the costs "in the interests of justice."


During the charade I experienced, I asked my solicitor what proportion of people pleading not guilty, or variations from the details of the accusation [so should be a Newton hearing], were still convicted. About 99 per cent, he said.

As for statistics, were you aware that 75% of all statistics are made up

The time wasters at court (I will be specific to Scotland this time) who plead not guilty despite all the evidence in the world saying they done it, often do so on their lawyers advice....and why is this....because the lawyer gets legal aid money every time he appears at court for a hearing. The courts time is not being wasted by genuine people with genuine complaints......

And the maximum sentence that is set out for every offence is not to deter people from taking their case to trial (as mentioned in a previous post)...it is there to deter people from committing the offence in the first place.

mobilejunkie

Theories are cheap; practice is what counts. The police and the courts are there for the people who get paid by them - and more than a tidy sum at that; not for the likes of the people they are supposed to serve. It costs a fortune to get "justice" - and as often than not you don't!

redux

gav357 wrote: »

There must have been some evidence of some description or the incident would never have seen the light of day in a court. If it had went to court with little or no evidence then your lawyer should have contested that there was no case to answer and it would've been thrown out. The magistrates etc are accountable for their decisions and they have to be very wary of unsound convictions. You would never be found guilty of an offence with absolutely no evidence.

I'll thank you to kindly withdraw your patronising and insulting accusation of me being a timewaster.

You seem to like arguing for argument's sake, but despite your insinuations what I have said is totally truthful, though obviously not complete in all its boring detail. No evidence whatsoever was adduced at any of three visits to court, magistrates once and county court twice.

mobilejunkie

Ah, yes - but Mr Plod will say the law is the law and he was breaking it. Not so keen on actually doing anything about real crime though - internet fraud is a no-go area for them, as is (in the main) any kind of fraud. Organisations like the police (who I used to respect) create their reputation by how they act - not what they say.

Mathew

redux wrote: »

I'll thank you to kindly withdraw your patronising and insulting accusation of me being a timewaster.

You seem to like arguing for argument's sake, but despite your insinuations what I have said is totally truthful, though obviously not complete in all its boring detail. No evidence whatsoever was adduced at any of three visits to court, magistrates once and county court twice.

I agree, How naive and arragant is this guy!. To think that he is the font of knowledge and dismiss peoples experiences as untruths as he is a Police Officer in Scotland, where the law and court system is incomparable to England and Wales.

gav357

redux wrote: »

I'll thank you to kindly withdraw your patronising and insulting accusation of me being a time waster.

You seem to like arguing for argument's sake, but despite your insinuations what I have said is totally truthful, though obviously not complete in all its boring detail. No evidence whatsoever was adduced at any of three visits to court, magistrates once and county court twice.

Did I actually call you a timewaster....NO!!

Did I imply you were a timewaster...NO!! If you wish to misconstrue things and twist words then that is up to you. Any one with an ounce of common sense and eyes that work will see that I have NEVER called you anything....It would appear to be yourself who wants to argue as your twisting things to suit.....

I merely pointed out that if there was NO EVIDENCE then there would have been no case to answer.....Having no further evidence led in court is a completely different thing.

As for your comment Mathew of the law being completely different in Scotland as that in England and Wales...this is incorrect and naive.....Do you drive on an English driving Licence...NO. Its a UK licence...the exact same as mine.....

Are the laws of the road radically different in Scotland to that in England..NO.

The road traffic act 1988, which makes up most of the road traffic legislation in the UK.......is UK wide ie applies in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK!!!! And driving whilst using a mobile telephone is covered by the RTA88.....So it has relevance right across the UK......

But then you would have known this as you probably googled it, or some lawyer once told you or you heard it from a guy who knew a guy who did this thing once......How can I possibly compete with that?????

And as for the comments of me being in Scotland.....did anyone in this thread at any time say the advice given, or the alleged offence referred to England???? NO....Was any locus given for the alleged offence...NO. Is it assumed to have taken place in England.....appears so.

So, yes my advice may relate mainly to Scotland, well spotted.

I will concede, and have done already, that the courts system in England is different and my experiences (as I pointed out in my posts) were in Scottish courts. So all the advice I gave including about NO COURT COSTS was true!!

Did I ever say that your experience at court was "an untruth".....NO!! I pointed out the fact you were telling someone that if they lose a trial they are stonewall guaranteed to pay a higher fine is a load of bollox. It may have happened to you but this does not mean it is a universal occurance....

You will be glad to know that I am no longer going to entertain this thread as clearly google, a chip on the shoulder etc beats doing this for a living hands down. Also the oh so predictable anti police comments are starting to appear....."why did you stop me officer...shouldn't you be out catching rapists and murderers...blah, blah, blah".

It is clear that there is not going to be any reasoning with you, so farewell......