Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 06:58

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 13:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I know from many conversations that Chief Constables are likely to be extremely concerned about damage to the Police / public relationship.

It is now quite obvious to many people that speed cameras are badly damaging the Police / public relationship.

Therefore it is probably an excellent time to write to your Chief Constable and point this out. The Safety Camera Partnerships cannot exist without the ongoing approval of Chief Constables.

If you don't know who your chief constable is, you can find him via this link: http://www.police.uk

It would be very interesting and helpful to gather together some information and quotations in this thread to provide ammunition for any letters that might be written.

I was speaking to a Scotland Yard detective on Sunday who told me that responses to Crimewatch items that he'd been involved in had been badly affected by speed cameras. I'm trying to get something in writing. I'm also planning to telephone Crimewatch and Crimestoppers to see if they have anything to say on the subject.

More news later...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 13:49 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 13:13
Posts: 116
Hi, I have already written to every chief constable in the country as I am seriously concerned about the impact on law and order. I didn't need a prod from the moderator to do that !

I have had replies from some, others are still drifting in. I am sorry to say, some chief constables have passed the buck to their man in charge of speed cameras, so I receive the same old diatribe back, as they protect their jobs with their blinkers on.

They have missed the point, which is , yes it may be against the law, one can argue untill we are all blue in the face about speed killing or not, and all produce statistics or lies to prove our case.

In the meantime, the huge damage that is being done to the police force is irrepairable. The Biitish police are the eveny of the world, and due to their relationship with the public. That relationship is under strain , and I am sure it will break.

The chief constable is possibly the most powerful man in the county. I understand they operate outside of political control. They simply uphold the law. They have been mugged into thinking, they can police a part of the traffic control and for nothing. ie paid from the fines. Yes they can uphold the speeding law , 100 percent & for nothing . Happy bunny chief constable.. What they hadn't thought thru is they are being run by the council. A council mind on a police job.. nope.. doesnt work.,.. sorry.. In the meantime the chief constable receives reports on what is a very small area of his operation saying alls well , budget is ok, and look we save 25 lives, which almost certainly is a distortion of the truth. (We in the partnership keep our big salary jobs ) Chief constable says carry on.
He decides.. and he can bring it all to a halt tomoorow, just as Durham have decided.

I am sure whitehall will bring improper pressure on Durham, but then that's breaking the chief constables 150 year old right to police as he sees fit, but within the law. A little like changing our court system which is the current topic this week.



You see I hve a rule of thumb, actually I stole it from america about 30 years ago. It is impossible to enforce a law if just 2 % of the population wish to ignore it. That was created before speed cameras, which can actually catch 100 percent of those that break the law at that specific point. Those numbers are climbing, lets say 3 million this year, that is in excess of the 2 percent "rule". What will happen ? We are already seeing the aforementioned destruction of the police force's reputation and working relationship with the public. We are seeing a limited amount of criminal damage to speed cameras 800 down, 3,700 to go. ( I expect that will increase). We are seeing more people cloning number plates. I am not sure, but believe the figure is 1500 in essex alone. They are all uninsured ! I expect this number will also increase , but may be in part due to congestion charging. There is an outcry at the waste of money, which wont go away, and I am sure will get louder. I calculate, that by 2005 , there will be 4 million tickets being issued. Does the government really think, the people who put them there , the voters, are going to say , that's ok then , I am a dangerous criminal ? Do the police really expect the public to co-operate with them ? Whilst I will never set fire to a speed cam, should I see one being lit up by the likes of Captain Gatso, then I am afraid I it is unlikely I will call the police, and I know a large number of people who think exactly the same way. IN fact I dont know anyone who has a good word to say about the wretched things.

I am sure the chief constables will wake up... but when ? & will it be to late or at what cost ?

rgds
bill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 16:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:56
Posts: 11
What about this one? Read it the other day and it made me chuckle!

Quote:
Mr Colin Cramphorn
Chief Constable
West Yorkshire Police Headquarters
PO Box 9
Wakefield
WF1 3QP

Dear Mr Cramphorn

It has come to my attention that your website http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/index.asp that gives information into your area’s safety camera partnership, is littered with un-truths in its’ FAQ page and, as a consequence, is no doubt leading to many members of the public taking an inappropriate course of action in relation to alleged speeding offences. I would be grateful if you or one of your members of staff could confirm why this should be the case.

Question 9 on your FAQ page states :
Q. What happens if I don't sign and return the Notice?
A. The law says you MUST sign and return the Notice. If you don't, you'd be committing an additional, and more serious, offence on top of the alleged speeding offence.

Question 10 on FAQ page states :
Q. If I sign the form aren't I automatically incriminating myself, in breach of human rights legislation?
A. This has been tested in the highest courts in the land and the answer is NO—signing the form is not a self-criminalising act. Failure to sign IS, however. The incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law does not affect the admissibility of safety camera evidence.

The answer to question nine and the sentence highlighted in section ten are both utterly untrue. Where is the authority in law for these assertions? Question 10 is also incorrect in the matter of self incrimination, which I have detailed further on in the letter.

I have taken the below legislation from section 172 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA). http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Uk ... htm#mdiv21

172. — (1) This section applies—
(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except— (i) an offence under Part V, or (ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 120,and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26 or 27 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988,
(c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads, except an offence under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the [1989 c. 22.] Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989, and
(d) to manslaughter, or in Scotland culpable homicide, by the driver of a motor vehicle.


(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.


(3) Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.

(ctnd)
I would assume that the authority for the answer to question nine and the sentence highlighted in question 10 is subsection 2 of section 172? If this is indeed the case then can you please point out where the legal obligation to sign a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) is?

Until such times as the RTA is amended to incorporate a requirement to sign an NIP, one can only infer that your website is either deliberately misleading the public or the author has no grasp of legal matters. In any case your website needs to be updated so as to avoid any confusion to the members of the public who no doubt refer to it for advice on how to proceed with an alleged offence.

Question 12 on your FAQ page states :
Q. What if I wasn't driving?
A. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, it is your responsibility to provide the full name and address of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. Failure to do so will result in your being charged with an offence and a court summons being issued. In the event of a limited company being the registered keeper of the vehicle, the company secretary (or whoever acts in that capacity) will be summonsed.

Unfortunately, this is a pretty disingenuous answer.

As you are no doubt aware, the registered keeper has a duty to provide information as to the driver’s details at the time of an alleged offence. Should he fail to do this then he faces a subsection 2(a) charge of failing to provide. If the registered keeper is unable to identify the driver at the time of an alleged offence then, and as long as he demonstrates “reasonable diligence” (as per subsection 4 of the RTA) in trying to ascertain the driver’s identity, he will not be prosecuted under subsection 2(a). This is a very important point and again your website (in the interests of clarity of information), I would suggest, requires additional information to show this point.

On the issue of incrimination, to which your page refers :

Question 10 on your FAQ page states :
Q. If I sign the form aren't I automatically incriminating myself, in breach of human rights legislation?
A. This has been tested in the highest courts in the land and the answer is NO-signing the form is not a self-criminalising act. Failure to sign IS, however. The incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law does not affect the admissibility of safety camera evidence.

In the Privy Council judgement referred to above (Stott v Brown), Lord Bingham quotes the High Court of Justiciary (without disagreement) as follows:

"To assess whether a person has incriminated himself or herself, the essential consideration is the use to which evidence obtained under compulsion will be put. The concept is not confined to admissions of wrongdoing or to remarks which are directly incriminating. As the respondent’s reply would contribute to the proof that she had driven her car on the occasion in question, and thus provide one of the essential links in the chain of testimony against her, it would be self-incriminating for the purposes of article 6(1) of the Convention (p. 390)."

And Lord Hope of Craighead said:

"It seems to me that, bearing in mind the difficulties that may arise in tracing the driver of a vehicle after the event, this limited incursion into the right of silence and the right of the driver who is alleged to have committed an offence not to incriminate himself is proportionate."

The inference of the above statements is quite clear, in that providing the information is self-incriminating, albeit not in breach of the right to a fair trial. The answer you give above is wrong and misleading and should be properly qualified or removed.

Question 11 on your FAQ page states :
Q. If I wasn't the driver but I know who was, aren't I incriminating them in breach of their human rights?
A. The incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law does not affect the admissibility of safety camera evidence. The Law Lords in Privy Council have ruled—'It is the duty of the registered keeper to know who is the driver at any time.'

Where, exactly, is this statement contained in any judicial ruling of the Privy Council? The statement is made as a direct quotation so I assume you can substantiate it. If, as I suspect, you refer to the judgement in Procurator Fiscal (Stott) v Brown, the statement you quote does NOT appear in the judgement.

The Privy Council has not made any such statement that I am aware of. If you cannot substantiate it and fail to correct it, you will be wilfully deceiving the public.

Yours sincerely




firefly


Copies :

_________________
cheers,
DM


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:47 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:44
Posts: 4
Location: North Wales
Don't think I'll bother - I live in North Wales!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:41 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 13:13
Posts: 116
Hi dragon

e mail me, perhaps I can give u a few pointers for a dragon to put him in his place, u need to be prepared to put pen to paer and work at it..

up to you..

rgds
bill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 18:53 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Bill wrote:
Hi dragon

e mail me, perhaps I can give u a few pointers for a dragon to put him in his place, u need to be prepared to put pen to paer and work at it..

up to you..

rgds
bill


Bill

Check out this site regarding the weird one in Wales! Dragon is right - he is sadly beyond reason! Our Paul has lots of unanswered mail - and the character assassination attempts are beyond belief - just because our host has the guts to stand up to him! (Typical Stasi mentality! Tin pot dictator!)

Also check out interesting threads on Pistonheads (Brunstrom on Drugs amongst many others - all of which my wife has made numerous contributions to!) and the ABDs dedication to all his finest moments!

Well worth a read - you'll die laughing! The man ain't real!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:02 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 13:13
Posts: 116
dear mad moggie,

I know of the Mad mullah, and would like to claim responsibility for that paticular nick name!

I have studied his record, it isnt briliant.

I gave some pointers to dragon, the way to put hin on the spot is thru the police authority. He is not popular wthin wales, and he is accountable to them , but not us ! He can be brought to task only if he fails in his duties to the local people. That he is doing In the meantime we all get points and fines..

Its up to the welsh to sort him out, we have no say.. Google/yahoo north wales police authority.. not everyone is on his side ! Some think he should concentrate on local matters and not national ones as it looks like
he doesnt have the capability to do both.

rgds
bill

rgds
bill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 08:11
Posts: 14
Location: North Wales (eek)
I unfortunatly have indeed suffered his wrath in the form of 3 points on my otherwise clean lience.

Dam Brunstrom

_________________
The way the roads of North Wales are policed is WRONG and it must stop NOW.

BRUNSTROM OUT


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 08:34 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
I spoke to a 'contact' in surrey police about the new surrey scamera partnership being formed this year.

The scamera partnership does not have the support of the chief constable, his deputy or Surrey's casualty reduction officer. Though none will go on record.

In addition some of the councils road safety officers also don't support the scheme, but suggested the 'revenue' oppertunity could not be ignored.

Surrey has some of the poorest maintained roads in the country litterred with pot holes and cracks. Yet they have money to constanstantly lower speed limits and implement traffic calming.


:roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 08:54 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 13:13
Posts: 116
diy ,

perhaps u need to put up a half sensible argument against speed cams.. to show they are not working in other counties, cost a lot of money, and will be a drain on the income of otherwise law abiding citizens. They are causing a rift tween the police and the populus.

U can only make your feelings and objections fealt at the council meeting, if you don't , u have no right to complain post the event..


good luck.. mail me if u like.

rgds
bill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
diy wrote:
I spoke to a 'contact' in surrey police about the new surrey scamera partnership being formed this year.

The scamera partnership does not have the support of the chief constable, his deputy or Surrey's casualty reduction officer. Though none will go on record.


This is very interesting indeed. I don't see how it's possible for them to create one of these partnerships without the consent of the Chief Constable. If he's giving his consent without giving his approval, then I'd suggest he must be under massive pressure.

Can you tell me anything more? Or better yet, put me in touch with your contact?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.019s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]