BottyBurp wrote:
handy wrote:
Getting something like a date wrong may be only a minor error but it smacks of poor internal governance and controls. The camera partnerships need to be, and show themselves to be, above reproach for adherence to both the spirit and the letter of the law. Don't get me wrong, I support speed enforcement and I long for the day when Mr. Loophole Freeman goes out of business, and all NIP's issued are unarguable, but allowing one clerical error as acceptable allows the rot to start. IMVHO.
Handy, you are amazing! If the scamera partnerships exist to penalise 'technical' errors, then I'm damn sure we should be able to use 'technical' defences!
In my industry, if people make "minor errors" those errors are indicative to me of their general attitude or inaptitude to their work.
And
how on EARTH you have the nerve to say the scamera partnerships adhere to the
SPIRIT of the law? Speedcams and automated enforcement have absolutely NOTHING to do with the spirit of the law!
Not wishing to commit ad hominem, your attitude to this reminds me of the Gestapo and the 'we were only following orders' brigade...
No personal offence intended at you.
I'll take a deep breath, and try not to be antagonastic this time ...
You say:
BottyBurp wrote:
Handy, you are amazing!
Why thank you :blush:
you go on to say:
bottybup wrote:
In my industry, if people make "minor errors" those errors are indicative to me of their general attitude or inaptitude to their work.
I said:
handy wrote:
Getting something like a date wrong may be only a minor error but it smacks of poor internal governance and controls.
Emboldened ... we aren't saying exactly the same thing, but essentially we agree that "minor errors" are not acceptable? So when I say missing the point, this is what I mean. You harangue me and raise the Godwin-type reference, when we are agreeing?
you go on to say:
boottyburp wrote:
And how on EARTH you have the nerve to say the scamera partnerships adhere to the SPIRIT of the law?
I didn't actually say that, I said:
hany wrote:
The camera partnerships need to be, and show themselves to be, above reproach for adherence to both the spirit and the letter of the law.
Again emboldened to reinforce my point - if they are going to send out fines and put points on licenses, I don't feel that they should have any areas of incompetence in them. I may be generally pro-speed camera (or anti speeding), but I do not agree with incompetence or slipshod behaviour in public servants!
When I say missing the point, you missed the fact that I said "they NEED" to be above reproach, which you took to be me saying "they ARE" above reproach.
boottyburp wrote:
Speedcams and automated enforcement have absolutely NOTHING to do with the spirit of the law!
I don't believe that automated enforcement is about the spirit of the law, it's about the letter of the law. That said, I believe the people and the processes of the speed camera partnerships (note that I am drawing a distinction between the partnerships and the devices they use, the former are people, the latter being machines) must adhere to the spirit of the law (i.e. adhering strictly to the 10%+2 limit for prosecutions where no other evidence is presented).
In your later post you state that you reacted to one part of the statement (I've emboldened as you did):
handy wrote:
and I long for the day when Mr. Loophole Freeman goes out of business, and all NIP's issued are unarguable, but allowing one clerical error as acceptable allows the rot to start. IMVHO.
That is the whole point, isn't it? Finding technical reasons to get off speeding convictions is actually indicative of the errors or failings in the process; those errors or failings are not acceptable. I do not want any innocent person to recieve a NIP, I do not want to see a situation where entirely guilt free parties are penalised. I do not subscribe to the position that "better an innocent person in fined in order that 10 guilty people are caught". So I am calling for a situation whereby every single NIP that is issued is 100% correct and has accurate supporting documentation, and the processes are tight and controlled so that unsupportable or invalid notices are NOT sent.
This extends to the correct signage being required on all roads - if the signage is not correct, the speeding charge cannot be supported.
That said, I don't accept that speeding is acceptable. Speed limits are often wrong, and we (driving community) should have a right to challenge unsuitably low limits - a right to challenge that puts a duty of response on whoever has set the limit to respond within a reasonable time, something like the FOI rules. We should also be able to challenge on unsuitably high limits. We need variable limits to allow for variable road conditions (empty, dry, well lit motorway at night? 90 easily, possibly even pushing triple figures. Wet dark A road with medium density traffic? NSL remains in force? Outside a school at 3am? 20 zones do not apply. That sort of thing.) Until that time, adhering to the speed limits is required.
And .... breathe out ...
_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.
A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
I respect confidentiality and won't ask again. I am sure though your father would be made welcome here irrespective of his views on scamerati.
