Lancashire, it must be really nice

penguingirl

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Also at our base in German we used to have a blackboard at the exit with the location of any speed traps in the area on it. The Bundespolezei were not pleased when they found out.

Where I used to work we'd get an email sent to the entire hospital if there was one outside (which there was every few months)

LincolnshireYokel

mikey72 wrote: »

Not really a relevant case. He didn't flash, and the traffic, which wasn't speeding, was behind him. Michael Thompson in Grimsby, was found guilty, cost him £440. "wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty" for flashing at trafiic to slow them down.

But then the quoted case DPP vs Glendinning, ruled that since the police cannot show the oncoming cars were committing an offence, then no interference of an officer occurred. You can only interfere if you prevent an officer from dealign with a crime or a suspect.

Furthermore, since the police themselves put up warning signs, then drivers are already forewarned, and the flashers do nothing but warn of a hazard up front, which is perfectly legal.

The point here is that Lancashire Police know all about this, and so charging them with 'misue of headlights' is nothing less than a comtemptuous attempt to circumvent a High Court ruling.

If i were any of the drivers given such an FPN, i'd see Lancs Police in court. DPP vs Glendinning is absolutely relevant here. The traffic cop himself admits this is about speed cameras and not headlights:

Lancashire traffic officer PC Antony Gray said: ‘Potentially they are putting lives at risk. Flashing your lights at someone may make them slow down for a second, but it will not make them change their habits. Speeding motorists need to be spoken to so they will seriously consider their irresponsible driving.’

When we have a Police Force deliberately trying to circumvent a High Court Ruling then you KNOW it stinks of fish.

poppasmurf_bewdley

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

Lancashire traffic officer PC Antony Gray said: ‘Potentially they are putting lives at risk. Flashing your lights at someone may make them slow down for a second, but it will not make them change their habits. Speeding motorists need to be spoken to so they will seriously consider their irresponsible driving.’

When we have a Police Force deliberately trying to circumvent a High Court Ruling then you KNOW it stinks of fish.

This quote was given in the Daily Mail Online a day or so ago. I wrote there that when I was done for speeding, I was neither spoken to nor were my documents checked. All they wanted was the cheque.

It's all about money (but then we already know that, don't we).

mikey72

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

But then the quoted case DPP vs Glendinning, ruled that since the police cannot show the oncoming cars were committing an offence, then no interference of an officer occurred. You can only interfere if you prevent an officer from dealign with a crime or a suspect.

Furthermore, since the police themselves put up warning signs, then drivers are already forewarned, and the flashers do nothing but warn of a hazard up front, which is perfectly legal.

The point here is that Lancashire Police know all about this, and so charging them with 'misue of headlights' is nothing less than a comtemptuous attempt to circumvent a High Court ruling.

If i were any of the drivers given such an FPN, i'd see Lancs Police in court. DPP vs Glendinning is absolutely relevant here. The traffic cop himself admits this is about speed cameras and not headlights:

Lancashire traffic officer PC Antony Gray said: ‘Potentially they are putting lives at risk. Flashing your lights at someone may make them slow down for a second, but it will not make them change their habits. Speeding motorists need to be spoken to so they will seriously consider their irresponsible driving.’

When we have a Police Force deliberately trying to circumvent a High Court Ruling then you KNOW it stinks of fish.

The case I quoted, Michael Thompson, who was found guilty of wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty and was well after the lorry driver case, which as I pointed out, was a totally different scenario, and didn't involve oncoming cars , but did show video evidence that no cars where speeding past the lorry, if you read it through properly.

LincolnshireYokel

penguingirl wrote: »

Where I used to work we'd get an email sent to the entire hospital if there was one outside (which there was every few months)

yes, when i used to be out and about when I worked in local goverment IT, anyone spotting a speed trap would phone it back, within 5 minutes the entire City and County Council would know about it.

sarahg1969

mikey72 wrote: »

The case I quoted, Michael Thompson, who was found guilty of wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty and was well after the lorry driver case, which as I pointed out, was a totally different scenario, and didn't involve oncoming cars , but did show video evidence that no cars where speeding past the lorry, if you read it through properly.

The Thompson case was also only heard by Magistrates and despite a lot of encouragement, particularly citing Glendinning, Mr Thompson would not appeal.

Anyway, Lancs Police have not penalised drivers for obstructing them (presumably as it's not a quick, cheap win), but for misusing their lights. What a load of nonsense.

LincolnshireYokel

sarahg1969 wrote: »

The Thompson case was also only heard by Magistrates and despite a lot of encouragement, particularly citing Glendinning, Mr Thompson would not appeal.

Anyway, Lancs Police have not penalised drivers for obstructing them (presumably as it's not a quick, cheap win), but for misusing their lights. What a load of nonsense.

yes, its a blatant and clear attempt to circumvent the High Court. Appalling.

mikey72

sarahg1969 wrote: »

The Thompson case was also only heard by Magistrates and despite a lot of encouragement, particularly citing Glendinning, Mr Thompson would not appeal.

Anyway, Lancs Police have not penalised drivers for obstructing them (presumably as it's not a quick, cheap win), but for misusing their lights. What a load of nonsense.

Maybe his legal advice disagreed with the encouragement, as the cases had so little in common? As has been said in this thread, why not just let speeding motorists take their chance with the police? How many other types of criminals does the average person warn the police are coming? Speeding seems to be one of the few offences that is not only deemed socially acceptable, but even encouraged for some reason.

Obukit

mikey72 wrote: »

How many other types of criminals does the average person warn the police are coming?

It's about the punishment fitting the crime. If you read the courts pages of your local paper, ne'er do wells who shoplift or assault someone tend to get about the same fine as if you are caught speeding - indeed, often they only get a "conditional discharge" for the first offence.

Get caught speeding and it's £60, plus three points which will cost you at least another £60 in insurance premiums for the next five years. Of course if you're unlucky and get caught too many times you lose your licence, and thus job. All for quite possibly going 79mph on the motorway.

Meanwhile the dopey sods trundling along at 40mph, driving around without insurance or drink driving don't get caught because they can't put some monkey in the back of a van to catch them.

It's very easily done to - here in Oxfordshire they position the mobile vans right at the start of speed limits, so if you brake a little slow from 60mph and pass the terminal sign at 35mph - ZAP - speeding ticket in the post, even if three seconds later you were going at 30mph.

LincolnshireYokel

Obukit wrote: »

It's about the punishment fitting the crime. If you read the courts pages of your local paper, ne'er do wells who shoplift or assault someone tend to get about the same fine as if you are caught speeding - indeed, often they only get a "conditional discharge" for the first offence.

Get caught speeding and it's £60, plus three points which will cost you at least another £60 in insurance premiums for the next five years. Of course if you're unlucky and get caught too many times you lose your licence, and thus job. All for quite possibly going 79mph on the motorway.

Meanwhile the dopey sods trundling along at 40mph, driving around without insurance or drink driving don't get caught because they can't put some monkey in the back of a van to catch them.

It's very easily done to - here in Oxfordshire they position the mobile vans right at the start of speed limits, so if you brake a little slow from 60mph and pass the terminal sign at 35mph - ZAP - speeding ticket in the post, even if three seconds later you were going at 30mph.

Speeding is cash cow, and we are in a position that more than 50% of the population have a speeding conviction. Now you have to ask, if a law results in more than 50% of the population being criminalised, then there must be something wrong with the law, since the implication that our society has a majority of criminals is clearly nonsense.

Furthermore, speeding law has been written such that it tramples all over deomocratic process. Take the S.172 notice, the form that compels you to name the driver, ie forces you under threat of imprisonment to confess to a crime without you being cautioned, or without the benefit of the advice of a Duty Solicitor. Not only does that walk all over you supposed right to silence, it walks all over you ECHR right to protection from self incrimination.

Furthermore, you have the fact that the operation and devices used to check speed have been shown by various independant experts to be erroneous and inaccurate, but the courts, who of course are in on the scam - the scamerati consists of the police, the councils, and the magistrates association - refuse to accept such evidence as they require the cash cow to keep milking. How can the magistrates association claim to be impartial when they have a vested interest in convicting people by being part of the scamerati ? Its nonsense.

There a huge amount of evidence that speeding is NOT by any means a major factor in RTA's., There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that speed cameras have made a jot of difference to road death figures - road deaths were falling all over europe before cameras were invented, and continued to fall and the bottom out, as a result of safer vehicle construction, better driver training and safer road layouts. The introduction oif cameras should have produced a visible downward bump on the graph, but no effect was seen.

There is no independent scientific study to determine the effect speed has had on road deaths, and the government has steadfastly refused to fund one. Instead all we have is the massaged figures of the police waved at us as 'proof'. Other peoples figures, such as insurance companies statistics, tell a vastly different story.

The conclusion one arrives at is that its a cash scam, a money raising exercise that the authorities will not allow to be stopped.