PhilippineSaint Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Ask for the photographic evidence, which presumably will show it was dark ergo you werent speeding as charged at 11am. Middle of winter in UK yes dark and miserable all day long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Typical isn't it. They are never guilty. It was always someone else's fault. Crap lawyer etc. you know what you've done. But he doesn't know what he did, only what he didn't which was to be driving the car at 11:00 am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 But he doesn't know what he did, only what he didn't which was to be driving the car at 11:00 am. But he admits to seeing the flash whilst speeding in the evening of the same night which indicates he may have been going a tad over the acceptable speed limit at that time of day or night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Typical isn't it. They are never guilty. Sometimes people aren't guilty. If I'm accused of speeding at 11am, then I'll fall into the not guilty pile. You seem to be saying that details of the time a speeding offense is committed is irrelavant. Perhaps the police should send out tickets to everyone on the basis that they would have broken the speed limit somewhen the past 6 months. "We have no evidence, but I'm sure you've broken the speed limit at some time, therefore please pay £60 fine and have 3 points." Would be a good money making scheme. Your moral stance only comes into play if they have evidence that I was speeding at 9pm and then charge me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Sometimes people aren't guilty. If I'm accused of speeding at 11am, then I'll fall into the not guilty pile. You seem to be saying that details of the time a speeding offense is committed is irrelavant. Perhaps the police should send out tickets to everyone on the basis that they would have broken the speed limit somewhen the past 6 months. "We have no evidence, but I'm sure you've broken the speed limit at some time, therefore please pay £60 fine and have 3 points." Would be a good money making scheme. Your moral stance only comes into play if they have evidence that I was speeding at 9pm and then charge me. You admitted that earlier in the thread they don't now need evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 You admitted that earlier in the thread they don't now need evidence. So you suggest I go down to the cop shop and tell them "I think I was speeding at 9pm on xxx date"? I doubt there is even a process for self confession of speeding offenses. Most likely they'd think I was taking the **** and tell me to do one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 So you suggest I go down to the cop shop and tell them "I think I was speeding at 9pm on xxx date"? I doubt there is even a process for self confession of speeding offenses. Most likely they'd think I was taking the **** and tell me to do one. Which would mean you were of the hook as you confessed and they failed to act they can't then try you for the same offence although double jeopardy was changed a few years ago you might just get away with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 B%llocks to the people saying you should own up. You'll get away with it, everyone drives over the speed limit occasionally whether it's on purpose or not. They are charging you with speeding at 11am...which you werent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 But he admits to seeing the flash whilst speeding in the evening of the same night which indicates he may have been going a tad over the acceptable speed limit at that time of day or night. It might have been someone taking a photo of their wife/girlfriend/dog/tortoise or all four? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 I know he'll get away with it and that it's not the worlds biggest crime, but it highlights the way that society has changed so people are reluctant to take responsibility for their actions. I just hope he's had a scare and stops speeding before he kills someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 (edited) I know he'll get away with it and that it's not the worlds biggest crime, but it highlights the way that society has changed so people are reluctant to take responsibility for their actions. I just hope he's had a scare and stops speeding before he kills someone. don't you think the blatant money making scheme dressed up as a road safety issue highlights how "society has changed". The bit of road I was flashed on was a 60 for a number of years,2 years ago it becomes a 50, low and behold it's now a prime spot for cameras. A coincidence, I dint think so. Here in Poole the holes bay camera brought in more revenue that every other Dorset cameras added together. Guess what the permitted speed was also lowered prior to camera being sited . Again a blatant money making "safety " concern. Yes, I speed and know I need to slow down, but in 32 years of driving the number of accidents I've had stands at zero. A policeman I played football with once told me that if everybody opted for court and didn't take the offer, the magistrates courts would clog up and the cost would be unsustainable. They would have to set the cameras to not catching so many people. It is not and never has been a safety issue. It is a scam to make money. My mate has a company car, if he drives over 85 his company find out (god knows how). If it was a safety issue all new cars could be fitted with a tracking type device that could be checked, coppers wouldn't let speeding moterists off (as they do) and people would all potter about like Sunday drivers. Edited 13 December, 2012 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 don't you think the blatant money making scheme dressed up as a road safety issue highlights how "society has changed". The bit of road I was flashed on was a 60 for a number of years,2 years ago it becomes a 50, low and behold it's now a prime spot for cameras. A coincidence, I dint think so. Here in Poole the holes bay camera brought in more revenue that every other Dorset cameras added together. Guess what the permitted speed was also lowered prior to camera being sited . Again a blatant money making "safety " concern. Yes, I speed and know I need to slow down, but in 32 years of driving the number of accidents I've had stands at zero. A policeman I played football with once told me that if everybody opted for court and didn't take the offer, the magistrates courts would clog up and the cost would be unsustainable. They would have to set the cameras to not catching so many people. It is not and never has been a safety issue. It is a scam to make money. My mate has a company car, if he drives over 85 his company find out (god knows how). If it was a safety issue all new cars could be fitted with a tracking type device that could be checked, coppers wouldn't let speeding moterists off (as they do) and people would all potter about like Sunday drivers. Keep trying to justify yourself. Your pathetic attempts at self defence suggest a man with a trouble conscience and I can understand why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofarnorth Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 don't you think the blatant money making scheme dressed up as a road safety issue highlights how "society has changed". The bit of road I was flashed on was a 60 for a number of years,2 years ago it becomes a 50, low and behold it's now a prime spot for cameras. A coincidence, I dint think so. Here in Poole the holes bay camera brought in more revenue that every other Dorset cameras added together. Guess what the permitted speed was also lowered prior to camera being sited . Again a blatant money making "safety " concern. Yes, I speed and know I need to slow down, but in 32 years of driving the number of accidents I've had stands at zero. A policeman I played football with once told me that if everybody opted for court and didn't take the offer, the magistrates courts would clog up and the cost would be unsustainable. They would have to set the cameras to not catching so many people. It is not and never has been a safety issue. It is a scam to make money. My mate has a company car, if he drives over 85 his company find out (god knows how). If it was a safety issue all new cars could be fitted with a tracking type device that could be checked, coppers wouldn't let speeding moterists off (as they do) and people would all potter about like Sunday drivers. Just ignore all the WUMs. You are accused of speeding at 11am when you were not speeding. I'd just write back and say at that time my car was sitting on my drive and had not been driven at all that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Just ignore all the WUMs. You are accused of speeding at 11am when you were not speeding. I'd just write back and say at that time my car was sitting on my drive and had not been driven at all that day. I would leave out the second part about not being driven all day. They may have a photo somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 I would leave out the second part about not being driven all day. They may have a photo somewhere. Yes, the web of decit he is spinning would just get bigger by yet more lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Yes, the web of decit he is spinning would just get bigger by yet more lies. I haven't seen any lies, yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 don't you think the blatant money making scheme dressed up as a road safety issue highlights how "society has changed". The bit of road I was flashed on was a 60 for a number of years,2 years ago it becomes a 50, low and behold it's now a prime spot for cameras. A coincidence, I dint think so. Here in Poole the holes bay camera brought in more revenue that every other Dorset cameras added together. Guess what the permitted speed was also lowered prior to camera being sited . Again a blatant money making "safety " concern. Yes, I speed and know I need to slow down, but in 32 years of driving the number of accidents I've had stands at zero. A policeman I played football with once told me that if everybody opted for court and didn't take the offer, the magistrates courts would clog up and the cost would be unsustainable. They would have to set the cameras to not catching so many people. It is not and never has been a safety issue. It is a scam to make money. My mate has a company car, if he drives over 85 his company find out (god knows how). If it was a safety issue all new cars could be fitted with a tracking type device that could be checked, coppers wouldn't let speeding moterists off (as they do) and people would all potter about like Sunday drivers. Where did you get caught then Lord Duckhunter. I know what you mean about the Holes Bay, that camera on the Traffic Light shortly after the speed limit drops from 50 to 30 has caught quite a few out. I can understand why they dropped the limit on the Holes bay, what with the number of people being killed and injured and they dropped the limit on the Dorset Way to protect the Lamp posts!! I do feel the same as you that they drop the limit to put a camera there to make money BUT apparently a speed camera has to be approved on a stretch of road if there has been a certain amount of casualties. I'm as guilty as you in speeding but I generally keep to the speed limit in the lower limit areas, ie 30s, 40s and 50s precisely because I don't want to give my hard earned to the government! So to counter what you say, to stop them being money spinning rackets, don't speed. Everyone knows where the cameras are theses days, even the mobile ones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 14 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Where did you get caught then Lord Duckhunter. I know what you mean about the Holes Bay, that camera on the Traffic Light shortly after the speed limit drops from 50 to 30 has caught quite a few out. I can understand why they dropped the limit on the Holes bay, what with the number of people being killed and injured and they dropped the limit on the Dorset Way to protect the Lamp posts!! . I was caught up by the St Leonards hotel, going from Poole to Southampton direction. I believe that because of the local outcry the Holes Bay camera has been switched off for speeding now and only there for jumping the red light. Funny thing is, since this happened I've been observing the limit 100% and causing back ups galore. Going up from Poole to Fleetsbridge on the holes bay road last night at 50 some bloke was right on my tail, getting well flustered. Cars on the inside lane going about 40mph, me overtaking at 48 and him behind nearly having a heart attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 I was caught up by the St Leonards hotel, going from Poole to Southampton direction. I believe that because of the local outcry the Holes Bay camera has been switched off for speeding now and only there for jumping the red light. Funny thing is, since this happened I've been observing the limit 100% and causing back ups galore. Going up from Poole to Fleetsbridge on the holes bay road last night at 50 some bloke was right on my tail, getting well flustered. Cars on the inside lane going about 40mph, me overtaking at 48 and him behind nearly having a heart attack. Ah yeah, another dual carriageway with a 50 limit but only mobile cameras so no fatalities!! I guess they made it 50 because of the roundabouts or people pulling out of the side roads!! I do max 55 on the Dorset Way/Holes Bay and generally sit in the outside lane "overtaking" cars and you're right, it does hack a few people off. Like you say, the tech exists to track peoples' speed, in fact you can volunteer for one now to get a better insurance premium, so (human rights aside) why can't it be used to either stop people speeding (rev limit them) or alert the police when they do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 It would be peverting the course of justice to own up to a speeding offece that happened at 11am when you were not driving at that time. Peverting the course of justice is an imprisonable offence. Keep quiet until 14 days has passed as a second form could be issued within the 14 days. Its funny no one at hampshire got prosicuted when they falsified documents to obtain a summons.... or wrongly prosicuted hundreds of motorists on Millbrook Rd where the speed limit signs were missing. Or Mile end Road Pompey, or outside Fareham college.... Oh and I forgort Eastern rd Fareham... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 I've been caught once, doing 46 in a 40, which is a dual carraigeway and drops from 70 to 40 for no real reason at all. Add onto this It was at 11:30 pm so barely anyone else on the road. ****ed me right off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 People do realise that the speed limit is the maximum limit yes? You don't HAVE to drive at that speed but should not exceed it. All this whining about being over the maximum speed limit. Would you whinge about someone being done for drink driving if they were 'only' one pint over the drink drive limit? Some of you that blatently ignore road regulations and worse still giving advice on how to get away with offences make me sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Lord D...just to clarify....do you know for sure that you were breaking the speed limit the night before or are you led to believe you were speeding because you saw the camera flash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Lord D...just to clarify....do you know for sure that you were breaking the speed limit the night before or are you led to believe you were speeding because you saw the camera flash? It's not a static camera along that stretch of road, must have been a car (I've seen one before sitting on the central reservation) which would mean infrared at that time of night!! Saint Garrett raises an interesting point, variable speed limits!! Fair enough have 40s and 50s on dual carriageways during peak periods but, for heaven's sake, when it's quite up the limit a bit... When I was in Aus I drove past a school, they had a 20(?) limit between opening and closing times and a 40 otherwise..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 People do realise that the speed limit is the maximum limit yes? You don't HAVE to drive at that speed but should not exceed it. All this whining about being over the maximum speed limit. Would you whinge about someone being done for drink driving if they were 'only' one pint over the drink drive limit? Some of you that blatently ignore road regulations and worse still giving advice on how to get away with offences make me sick. My God there are some self-righteous tw*ts on here. Turkish, you surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 My God there are some self-righteous tw*ts on here. Turkish, you surprise me. Such zealotry cannot be for real, unless he is an 'elf & safety inspector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 My God there are some self-righteous tw*ts on here. Turkish, you surprise me. Why? Because i dont agree with people driving their cars in a dangerous fashion? Do you think those limits are put in place because people feel like it? There has been lots of research to prove what safe speed limits are. Peoples blatant disregard for these is sickening. I'm particularly surprised to see some of our 'holier than thou' posters boasting about breaking road laws and assisting others to avoid punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 The much maligned health and safety inspector who's job it is to help reduce deaths in accidents. What bastards they really are! Going round, trying tostop needless deaths in accidents. How dare they. I say that we should remove all speed limits and rules and let people do as they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Why? Because i dont agree with people driving their cars in a dangerous fashion? Do you think those limits are put in place because people feel like it? There has been lots of research to prove what safe speed limits are. Peoples blatant disregard for these is sickening. I'm particularly surprised to see some of our 'holier than thou' posters boasting about breaking road laws and assisting others to avoid punishment. Not at all. You are confusing 'driving at a lower speed' with 'driving more safely'. 'Avoiding punishment' for what exactly? One moment you talk about obeying laws, the next you are in favour of false evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 The much maligned health and safety inspector who's job it is to help reduce deaths in accidents. What bastards they really are! Going round, trying tostop needless deaths in accidents. How dare they. I say that we should remove all speed limits and rules and let people do as they wish. But do they actually make the world a safer place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Why? Because i dont agree with people driving their cars in a dangerous fashion? Do you think those limits are put in place because people feel like it? There has been lots of research to prove what safe speed limits are. Peoples blatant disregard for these is sickening. I'm particularly surprised to see some of our 'holier than thou' posters boasting about breaking road laws and assisting others to avoid punishment. I actually don't have a problem with many (not all) speed limits and cameras, there's no doubt in my mind that they have helped reduce the number of accidents. The OP is just questioning whether he can 'get away' without a fine due the error that has been made in the penalty notice. I think most of us would do the same. If it had been issued correctly he would probably have accepted it without question. Some people can speed simply through a lack of concentration rather than as a deliberate act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 I was caught up by the St Leonards hotel, going from Poole to Southampton direction. I believe that because of the local outcry the Holes Bay camera has been switched off for speeding now and only there for jumping the red light. Funny thing is, since this happened I've been observing the limit 100% and causing back ups galore. Going up from Poole to Fleetsbridge on the holes bay road last night at 50 some bloke was right on my tail, getting well flustered. Cars on the inside lane going about 40mph, me overtaking at 48 and him behind nearly having a heart attack. Ah right, down by the kennels, a classic contributor to Dorset's coffers. Pretty well know spot for Gatso vans.I think there are even marks on the road to help them line it up quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 But do they actually make the world a safer place? Clearly not, which is why I'm all for getting rid of all rules designed to keep us safe. Speed limits, food storage instructions anything. Get rid of he lot as they don't work and let people just sort it out themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Not at all. You are confusing 'driving at a lower speed' with 'driving more safely'. 'Avoiding punishment' for what exactly? One moment you talk about obeying laws, the next you are in favour of false evidence. I wonder how many more 'football related' convictions Turkish should be coughing up to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 . Some people can speed simply through a lack of concentration rather than as a deliberate act. I forgot about that. You're right, the deaths caused by "accidental" speeders and those not concentrating (can you hear yourself?) aren't that important. It's only the deliberate speeders who should be punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 But do they actually make the world a safer place? Not all the time, sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice a small amount of safety to achieve greater control over a situation but the HSE people in this world cannot get that small piece of information to compute in their blinkered brains. As Low As Reasonably Practicable is what most companies use these days and this will give you a modicom of sensibility when carrying out a task. As most new roads were designed to be driven at much greater speeds than the actual limits that are enforced on them it is possible that some leeway could be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 I forgot about that. You're right, the deaths caused by "accidental" speeders and those not concentrating (can you hear yourself?) aren't that important. It's only the deliberate speeders who should be punished. Once again, you are confusing speed with driving safely. Please note that I said 'speed' and not 'driving too fast'. A safe driver will be concentrating on the road and all that is going on about him. He adjusts his speed to suit the ambient conditions and perceived dangers. He is not staring at his speedometer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Clearly not, which is why I'm all for getting rid of all rules designed to keep us safe. Speed limits, food storage instructions anything. Get rid of he lot as they don't work and let people just sort it out themselves. Good, now you are realising what really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 14 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 14 December, 2012 (edited) Lord D...just to clarify....do you know for sure that you were breaking the speed limit the night before or are you led to believe you were speeding because you saw the camera flash? I didn't think I was breaking the speed limit but I saw a flash and was about 80% sure it was a camera, but could not be sure. Was meeting a guy who lives nearby so when I turned up I asked him if there was any cameras near where I was flashed. His reply was "yes there was one there today as my Mrs drove by during the day and texted me to be careful". I was hoping that maybe the flash had gone off and no film or something, but the dreaded NIP duly arrived. I was just about to fill it in, until I noticed the timings were wrong. I think Turkish has made me look at the morals of this. He is correct, I do not want to lie to the police. Therefore I will return the NIP correctly filled in with the answer that nobody was driving the car at 11am that morning. If they subsequently ask me if I was speeding at any other time during the day, I will say I am unsure but if they have any evidence that I was, I will gladly accept that I was. There are obviously rules around when NIP's can be served (within 14 days of offense) and provided these rules are adhered to, will willingly pay the £60 and have 3 points placed on my licence. To me there can be no grey area, If I broke the speed limit, even by 1 mile I can be done, and if they follow the procedure laid out in the RTA 1988 regarding S172 I will have do my duty as an honest citizen and pay the fine. .My only duty at present is to advise them who was driving at 11am. Edited 14 December, 2012 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Texting while driving? Disregard for the laws of the road run in the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 14 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Texting while driving? Disregard for the laws of the road run in the family. Texted him when she got home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 I didn't think I was breaking the speed limit but I saw a flash and was about 80% sure it was a camera, but could not be sure. Ah, well there you go - no need to "self report" yourself to the police as you don't even know if you were breaking the speed limit. The night before is one big red herring until such time you get a NIP about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 I didn't think I was breaking the speed limit but I saw a flash and was about 80% sure it was a camera, but could not be sure. Was meeting a guy who lives nearby so when I turned up I asked him if there was any cameras near where I was flashed. His reply was "yes there was one there today as my Mrs drove by during the day and texted me to be careful". I was hoping that maybe the flash had gone off and no film or something, but the dreaded NIP duly arrived. I was just about to fill it in, until I noticed the timings were wrong. I think Turkish has made me look at the morals of this. He is correct, I do not want to lie to the police. Therefore I will return the NIP correctly filled in with the answer that nobody was driving the car at 11am that morning. If they subsequently ask me if I was speeding at any other time during the day, I will say I am unsure but if they have any evidence that I was, I will gladly accept that I was. There are obviously rules around when NIP's can be served (within 14 days of offense) and provided these rules are adhered to, will willingly pay the £60 and have 3 points placed on my licence. To me there can be no grey area, If I broke the speed limit, even by 1 mile I can be done, and if they follow the procedure laid out in the RTA 1988 regarding S172 I will have do my duty as an honest citizen and pay the fine. .My only duty at present is to advise them who was driving at 11am. Very decent of you. As far as I know with my limited experience of these matters the only cameras that flash are the Gatso and I did not think that there were any mobile versions of those. It would have been a double flash, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Very decent of you. As far as I know with my limited experience of these matters the only cameras that flash are the Gatso and I did not think that there were any mobile versions of those. It would have been a double flash, surely? As far as I understand it... Gatso cameras are generally fixed and will take a photo of the back of the car. Mobile cameras are forward facing and work on laser/infrared. Where Lord Duckhunter thinks he got caught would have been a mobile camera, they don't flash as it would flash in your eye and be a danger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 I wonder how many more 'football related' convictions Turkish should be coughing up to? I only have one on my CV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 That doesn't surprise me. You'd probably struggle to pay the fine after losing all your child benefit. Another example where you think you don't have to pay your own way. Another good example of you trolling your way around the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted 14 December, 2012 Share Posted 14 December, 2012 Whatever you do, do it quickly. Apart from driving of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 15 December, 2012 Share Posted 15 December, 2012 Duck stand your ground. It's about time the police tightened up there procedures and get the facts etc totally correct .. Through their incompetence many genuine criminals have got off due to technicality down to their incompetence . They may try to argue that there Gatso clock had stopped or jammed . The police are devious and I don't trust them. In fact I despise the police at this moment in time they are so heavy handed as I found out to my cost on Wednesday . I had done nothing wrong but they still took me away to hospital because they thought I might be a danger to myself . I was at work about to go for a meeting they said if I didn't come they would arrest me or detain me under the mental health act . I suffer the odd bout of depression . I can't help think this was more about me supporting the Michael Ross is innocent campaign . Where the police are implicated in tampering with the evidence . Apologies to anyone who is a policeman but your colleagues have no integrity and have lost my total respect . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 15 December, 2012 Share Posted 15 December, 2012 I was at work about to go for a meeting they said if I didn't come they would arrest me or detain me under the mental health act . Hate it when that happens! Embarrassing! Least you got out of work tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 15 December, 2012 Share Posted 15 December, 2012 Duck stand your ground. It's about time the police tightened up there procedures and get the facts etc totally correct .. Through their incompetence many genuine criminals have got off due to technicality down to their incompetence . They may try to argue that there Gatso clock had stopped or jammed . The police are devious and I don't trust them. In fact I despise the police at this moment in time they are so heavy handed as I found out to my cost on Wednesday . I had done nothing wrong but they still took me away to hospital because they thought I might be a danger to myself . I was at work about to go for a meeting they said if I didn't come they would arrest me or detain me under the mental health act . I suffer the odd bout of depression . I can't help think this was more about me supporting the Michael Ross is innocent campaign . Where the police are implicated in tampering with the evidence . Apologies to anyone who is a policeman but your colleagues have no integrity and have lost my total respect . Due to advice from a hot shot lawyer, after a police car hit my girl friend's car, I served a notice of intended prosecution on the local Superintendent, The look on his face was worth it. I got Ken Wallis who hated the police after they tried to stitch him up over an accident but failed, to air survey the road from the autogyro he used for home office work. When they found out about it the Special Branch people that used to visit the airfield asked my boss to see if he could persuade me to let it go as the driver had had three previous accidents and was up for the chop. I was offered an airline job the next week so left the area but the police didn't want to know and dropped the whole threat to the gf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now