Beckham escapes speeding conviction

TooManyPoints

We don't know when they sent the letter so an even less interesting story would be it failed to arrive on time.

Yes we do. I can't remember the date (it's well publicised) but they sent it so that in normal circumstances it would have arrived in time. In fact the prosecution relied on the "presumption of service" (two working days) to prove good service. It was that presumption that Mr Beckham successfully rebutted.

AndyMc.....

TooManyPoints wrote: »

We don't know when they sent the letter so an even less interesting story would be it failed to arrive on time.

Yes we do. I can't remember the date (it's well publicised) but they sent it so that in normal circumstances it would have arrived in time. In fact the prosecution relied on the "presumption of service" (two working days) to prove good service. It was that presumption that Mr Beckham successfully rebutted.

So it was sent on time.

Car_54

AndyMc..... wrote: »

So it was sent on time.

Indeed. So the real story is “Royal Mail’s inefficiency allows multi-millionaire to escape justice”.

Joe_Horner

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Why should there be a time limit on something like this?

Ever since Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith decreed that there should be.

I believe it was on the 15th of November 1988.

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

... speeding, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

Absolutely agree. Most parking is now a civil matter, whereas speeding is a criminal offence if taken to prosecution and carries criminal penalties if convicted.

As such, it's far more important that the Authorities adhere to the rules laid down by Parliament for speeding. For the sake of Beckam getting off a few points you do not want to find yourself living in a country where the police and criminal courts can make it up as they go along!

Car_54

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Absolutely agree. Most parking is now a civil matter, whereas speeding is a criminal offence if taken to prosecution and carries criminal penalties if convicted.

It's a criminal offence, whether prosecuted or not.

Joe_Horner

Car_54 wrote: »

It's a criminal offence, whether prosecuted or not.

Yes, I know.

But I hoped to head off the whole "It's not if it's dealt with by an FP" brigade. Which is a bit like saying "murder's only criminal if you're caught" but seems to be the prevalent attitude.

So, in order to avoid adding more caveats than a Microsoft EULA, tried to keep it simple and obviously failed.

DUTR

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Why should there be a time limit on something like this? There is not on many other crimes.


Yes I have seen the parking ones but not to get off speeding, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

Because every driver would have points from speeding at sometime during their driving career.

Stoke

Mercdriver wrote: »

Your anti police bias not showing there at all. Perhaps you should have ended the post with an oink, just to make it clear, like

I was having a laugh mate..... I even said at the end, that isn't how it went down, but it would make a great comedy.

Donnymad

Many thanks to STOKE, DoaM and TooManyP..., for replying to my post. The thought of having to appear in court and try to defend myself on such a matter did not really appeal to me! ‘Though trying to prove that the N.I.P arrrived after the 14 days deadline would have been reasonably easy as the letter itself was dated more than 20 days after the offence!

Mind you, the Speed Awareness Course was quite useful and I am certainly more aware of speed limits these days. Maybe not a bad investment of £88 after all!