Safe Speed Forums

This is the death of what was left of the British Judicial System.

The police and the camera partnerships have now with the aid of the courts and the politicians got cart blanch to mug the motorist with fixed penalty fines, penalty points, and the motorist has no rights.

Is this what we call British Justice or Fair Play? Is this why we vote in our politicians?

Is the job of politicians and political parities to do the will of the electorate or to stealthily hide behind walls and in gardens to mug and bully the motorist?

As we have a deaf ear in the UK police forces (as the chief constable is not elected) the only option for the millions of oppressed motorists is to tell each and every potential parliamentary candidate when they came begging for our vote. To get these laws that prohibit the motorist from getting justice reversed or we the people will abstain from voting.

Can you imagine the constitutional mess if millions of motorists stayed at home and did not vote?

This I feel is the only way our voice will be heard by staying at home and saying nothing on voting day!

When do you have the right to remain silent?

If you explode a bomb, committing mass murder at a nightclub with hundreds of young people in side or drive into Glasgow airport with a firebomb. With the intention to murder, hundreds of families in side and get caught red handed you still...have the Right to Remain Silent. (Murder)
If you destroy the peace of a neighbourhood by damaging property and indulging in anti social behaviour you…. have the Right to Remain Silent. (Vandalism)
Steal from the elderly and the young and you…. have the Right to Remain Silent. (Theft)

Commit Rape on a Child or Rape the Elderly Spinster who works for the church and you….have the Right to Remain Silent!

However, whatever you do, don’t get a speeding ticket or the whole weight of the police and the British Judicial System will descend around you like a plague of locusts.
So we can see from the examples above the murder, vandal, thief, sexual deviant and the paedophile have more rights that a motorist!
Drive a Car, and get caught (rightly or wrongly) over the speed limit....I Have NO RIGHT TO SILENCE????It come to something when "proper" Criminals have more rights then the Law Abiding Motorist.

At the end of the day we the motorists are to blame. We should be telling the politicians that they can go and f*** themselves until they start to listen to us!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

I wholeheartedly agree Ranger, except that perhaps our right to silence was ended by one: Margret Thatcher.........remember? From then on the wording of arrest was changed, and illuded to the fact that if you "said" nothing when questioned, it was tantamount to an admission of guilt!..........

But the real problem is the "presumption of guilt" and that you: "have to sign this" and agree that you are guilty.............. or we'll make it even worse for you! i.e. a £1000 fine instead of £60 +points.

.............or would you rather have your toenails pulled Sir? the "rack" maybe?.............. oh well, suit yourself!



The Magna Carta forced King John and any of his after-bearers (under threat of dethronement) to agree NOT to in future subject his subjects to any form of torture, co-hersion or threat when faced with legal proceedings against them. (Watch out Liz!)

Relying henceforth on a court of Law, with a Jury consisting of his "Peers" (this varies to this day according to social rank).

In other words you have the right to go to court and be judged by your peers (like members of society of your standing)..............
Yet the Max fine for speeding is: £1000...........

Surely, this is the highest level of speeding fine in the world for a man who is merely claiming his legal rights before the law and should NOT YET be considered guilty.
Except that he has previously been FORCED to sign a declaration of guilt (form 172).........UNDER THREAT of an higher penalty if he has the audacity to defend himself

A £1000 fine, Loss of Driving Licence, livelyhood, Job and possibly family, PLUS court costs! Even Jail under some circumstances.

"Of course Sir, If you admit your guilt....... an' bung us £60 quid, well overlook it an' put 3 points on your licence."

In view of this: I have to ask: "Is this the end of: The Monarchy?" Remember Liz, what your forebears promised!........in 1215.


Oh! An' we have "His" signature on a piece of paper too, remember?.......................................

[pedant mode on]
If you sign something do you use a pen or your vocal cords?
Are you actually SAYING (breaking the silence) by writing something?
Now if you signed the NIP and went to court..then opened your mouth to confirm that which you had previously written..........[/pedant mode off]

Ah! like......" I was NOT driving, it was NOT my car, I was not there"....... I was cloned! kinda' thing!...................They're NOT going to believe you my friend.

(Judge) "Inflated fine! plus (for his impudence) "Ban Him!.............


P.S. Please forgive my "lighthearted" but "cynical" view of our British Law, as I see it when applied to motorists, rather than say.............a pedestrian. Ask a pedestrian to sign an admission of guilt 14 days after the event and see where it gets you!

I think youve nailed the chink in the armour there Draco.
The word is "indentify".
They cant id a pedestrian cos he hasnt got a plate hung round his neck (yet).
We need to organise a national NO NUMBER PLATES day!

Oh my, the hassle that would cause!

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Ah! But wait until we all get our chip implants Deltaf!

count me out for sure, for I am Logan and "different" to the crowd

I think the problem, and I can only suppose the reasoning behind the ECHR ruling, is the presumed infallibility of the machines and the system behind them: if the machine says you're speeding then you must be, if the database says that registration belongs to your car then it must be your car, if its your car then you must know who was driving, and following it back, they must be guilty of speeding!

Of course, common sense tells us that the guilty should have no right to silence, they did it, so why should they have any get-out when they are bang to rights. The sad thing is that you cannot be certain enough of their guilt to brand them 'guilty' without evidence and a trial, and if they can't compel that confession, then there's not much evidence to take to the trial!

Its a long established principal of the legal system that a case which will not stand without a confession is not strong enough to expect to win in court. Let them install high resolution forward facing cameras, with developed facial recognition software and whatever else is required to convince a court of the driver's identity if they wish to continue convicting from speed camera evidence, but why should our rights and historic legal best practice be circumvented to give the authorities an easy time.

It is nothing short of a travesty.

I agree, I wonder if they will use the same argument used for the ECHR ruling when we are forced to obtain ID cards?

OK, a simplistic argument maybe but would we lose the right to not self-incriminate because one has signed up to an ID card system (voluntarily or otherwise) and therefore because one had signed up to a mass administration system that holds our DNA, one should not expect to have a gaurenteed right to silence as a result. Where does it end once the basic of rights and common law has been swept away because of the volume of administration is of a large amount?

Yes indeed, the technology that allows us to track cows from birth to dinner table or Dogs and Cats across borders is merely a forerunner in the minds of SOME PEOPLE!...........

(evil mind on) Just think of what could be done! (evil mind off)

only ............. YOU have to decide who THEY are......

LEFT? RIGHT? RICH? POOR?.......who are THEY?

WHO would strive to control us?....

Streuth, I'm glad I'm getting old!

"Magna Carta... Did she die in vain?" (Hancock's Half-hour).

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I'd forgotten about that classic! ... Thanks for reminding me Pogo!

I totally agree with Ranger's post.

If a law is broken so often that processing the sheer number of resulting prosecutions requires a violation of one's human rights, then it's a bad law. No exceptions.

At the end of the day, though, it's all our fault - we're the ones that keep paying.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken