Unbelievable....

[makeitfit]

Originally Posted by daved

ahhh.................dont worry i got done a lot more than that by a ****** jumping out of a bush (as I posted elsewhere)who'd left his hi viz and hat in the hidden car

Oh know him, he's got a nice bit of hedge near me too




I read in the paper a couple of years ago that 5 drivers got let off their speeding tickets because the policeman was using his ray gun on private ground. He's parked his car up a little lane and then went about his "duties" zapping speeders.
Turns out he hadn't had permission from the land owner. One of the drivers asked the land owner and then appealed

[briggie]

http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/07122007/36...ing-ban-0.html

[extreme-4x4]

see im liking all this speeding type of stuff .... what with my ex managing to obtain 9 points in a couple of months for speeding she is on last chance saloon so i muckin love it

even funnier (i think) she insits she or him for that matter were at home when one of the incidents occurred ...... obviously talking shite

[briggie]

Originally Posted by briggie

http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/07122007/36...ing-ban-0.html

Hughes has attracted considerable press attention through being prosecuted for Road Traffic Offences, particularly as he was Chair of the Roads Policing Enforcement Technology Committee for ACPO, and is an outspoken supporter of hidden and mobile Speed Cameras.[3] He resigned his ACPO chair as a result of the speeding conviction made on December 5, 2007. His offences include:

Failing to identify the driver of one of South Yorkshire Police's vehicles caught breaking the speed limit.[4] This led to the unusual situation of the Chief Constable prosecuting himself.
Two personal convictions for exceeding the speed limit, leading to fines and his licence being endorsed with 6 penalty points.[3]
A 42-day driving ban and fine imposed by Wrexham Magistrates Court for exceeding the speed limit in North Wales, on December 5, 2007.

[stevecrm]

Originally Posted by kbekl

now here i do know you would have been on the a30 from the m5 unless you was on an A road

was you parked or were you in traffic ?

it was the A303 near Stonehenge, I lived in Slough at the time. I had just come to a stop in traffic, the road was closed for about 2 hours it was complete chaos

the swan neck towbar on my Frontera pierced through the subframe of the car that hit me and left the cars joined together, so I had to remove my whole towbar at the crash scene to split the two cars, lucky I had a boot full of tools

[briggie]

im still waiting for the letter " inviting " me to attend my speed awareness course

[lacroupade]

Originally Posted by daved

No idea who or what Glendinning is apart from a small place near Patterdale.

As I tried to point out earlier, if he flashed his lights he should have reason to do so. If he hasnt he has committed an offence but normally so trivial even a passing enforcement officer from the extended police family (yes thats what we have now) would probably have just thought "pratt"

However when there is a suspicion of intent to commit something more serious that must be demonstrated and almost certainly was in this case. He intended to warn other drivers of the speed trap.

Highly commendable until you consider a few further points.

The reason the speed camera is there is because it is a target road. A problem has got to be identified before the camera can be operated there. Therfore it is probably a safe presumption that something needs to be done and flashing headlights at each other on a permanent basis probably isnt the answer.

Therfore enforcement. Now if he really does want to help save lives and slow traffic let those who can follow through and enforce do something. Let the vehicles brake hard when they see the cop by wich time they may be clocked and if the driving is that bad they will get pulled or followed up for dangerous.

His scheme has these individuals braking hard in random spots depending where he chooses to illuminate them on a random basis and no enforcement can be carried out.

So he hasnt thought his safety message through really has he?

However I would bet a fair bit of dosh his defence was absolute rubbish and on misguided principles he wanted to be a good Samaritan to his fellow road users and save them the points so they could speed off to try and have an accident somewhere else.

That is obstruction of a police officer carryng out their duties and thats what he got stuck on for. Whether you agree with him being done or not he's achieved all the points to prove for the offence with ease

Whichever way you come at it, he was stupid. he got caught. He should stop whinging.

Which is why, you twerp, I posted an ever-so-helpful linky near the top of the post for your education LMAO....just RTFM.....I believe that quoting Glendinning to a magistrate (remember an unqualified layman taking advice from the COTC, who cannot possibly know everything about everything) would have sorted this in minutes and seen the case thrown out. It also answers most of the above quicker than I can! Your turn, if you dare!

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2005/2333.html

[felixthelogchopper]

I wish you would use Lexis. Their case digests are much more concise

[lacroupade]

Originally Posted by felixthelogchopper

I wish you would use Lexis. Their case digests are much more concise

ah but the devil is in the detail

[felixthelogchopper]

Originally Posted by lacroupade

ah but the devil is in the detail

I would even settle for WestLaw

[Deleted account DD]

Originally Posted by lacroupade

Which is why, you twerp, I posted an ever-so-helpful linky near the top of the post for your education LMAO....just RTFM.....I believe that quoting Glendinning to a magistrate (remember an unqualified layman taking advice from the COTC, who cannot possibly know everything about everything) would have sorted this in minutes and seen the case thrown out. It also answers most of the above quicker than I can! Your turn, if you dare!

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2005/2333.html

Funnily enough it was more a case of couldnt be arsed with the topic any more

That theme continues too.................

I cant be bothered to read that in depth with argument and counter argument but looking quickly at it,

Green v Moore clearly gives the 3 conditions. I would suggest with the Grimsby flasher it wouldnt be too hard to prove the points.

The cop was lawfully doing their job. Easy sorted.

The Flasher had no means of working out which of those he signaled to were committing an offence so he carried out blanket coverage.

If there was no change in the speeding offence rate detected by the cop that would demonstrate individuals were committing an offence and he had signaled to them because of his actions and their presence so that bits sorted

Or in this Grimsby job as a double bite at the apple (created by the flasher) It would actually be very easy to prove from the footage that during the time he was flashing, detected offences dropped off compared to before and after.

It is accepted that the obstruction can prevent an offence being carried out that in all probability would have occurred without the accused s intervention. Ie the offence of obstruction still exists even though no other offences were detected.

Though that seems to have been ignored in this particular case you link to probably because it suited the circumstances to do so.

In that vein:

I had one years back where I tried to grab someone who I thought was trying car doors. His mate (never proven but linked) called out (i believed to him) so the scrote ran off. I arrested mate for obstruction , his defence was he wanted to speak to me on other matters and anyway there was no evidence of any offences in the car park. He was prosecuted for obstruction when the cctv was reviewed

In another one a female instructed her kids to stand in my way to delay or prevent me entering a room where I believed a suspect was committing an offence. She too went the distance even though I never got him , the room was empty so the offence whilst suspected was not proven it was entirely my opinion that it was in progress. That too went in my favour

In the immortal words (paraphrased) of Jimmy Cricket theres more too.....

theyre all the reasons I was laughing so hard yesterday

The intent I would presume would have been by interview and if he or his brief isnt bright enough (ha ha ) to avoid admitting intent he wants sticking on anyway. I didnt see any mention about turning into a layby for the Grimsby flasher which on the occasion you link to was a plausible defence.

It wouldnt have been a difficult interview for the cop with the Grimsby flasher

In summary on this occasion I would definitely argue that the Grimsby flasher was not trying to prevent the commission of an offence he was attempting to inhibit continuation of an ongoing offence in order to prevent detection.

I would tend to think the courts agree with my argument on this one, proof of the pudding and all of that (and my jobs from the 90's)

Dont forget that each case is judged on its own merits and every one is different. Stated cases and precedents are for guidance and half the fun is getting around or overturning them

I should also add that whilst I won those Ive spectacularly lost others including trying to persuade a judge (via the barrister) that running away whilst equipped fulfilled the criteria of going equipped


Thats it Im knackered

[Deleted account DD]

Originally Posted by makeitfit

I read in the paper a couple of years ago that 5 drivers got let off their speeding tickets because the policeman was using his ray gun on private ground. He's parked his car up a little lane and then went about his "duties" zapping speeders.
Turns out he hadn't had permission from the land owner. One of the drivers asked the land owner and then appealed

Too right

It works both ways, if youre going to enter into something make sure its done properly.

To go onto private property as in this one is breaching basics

[extreme-4x4]

what gets me with all this and previous arguments about policing.

everyone moans about crime , no one is happy with it. everyone is fed up with the thugs and yobs in the streets at night. or boy racers racing in estates etc.

yet everyone moans when some policing is done.

point is the plod have to prove its required to put a camera there for speeding. so there must be some data to prove this. but everyone moans about cameras

everyone moans about the youngsters in the streets ... and we probably all think if they had a good clip around the ear and taken home by the copper and a good telling off . they probably would not of grown up int criminals and yobs.
but how many would be having a go at the law or the copper if he/she did give your kid a clip round the ear.

point is whatever the law decides or dictates people will always moan there bloody arses off.

i remember years ago well 9 in fact lou was out nickin cars with her boyfriend . and i found out. needless to say they didnt again .
but the point is. all kids play up even mine did, and im the perfect dad (lol)

cameras have to be there for a reason , you might not like it and you might even get caught by one . but its there . so deal with it
and if you want to flash everyone ... well you know the law now lol