Safe Speed Forums

edited

Spot on, Johno.
The loss of the right to silence, the requirement to self-incriminate and the fact that the Magistrates Court Service is part of the Pratnerships is the main objection many have to the cash-cameras.
With regard to the Magistrates Court Service being 'Partners', the answer given by the Pratnerships is that it's the 'Court Service' which is the partner, not the Magistrates themselves. A fine line, one might think, especially as the Clerks to the Justices are employees of the Courts Service and they provide much guidance, advice and consultation to the Magistrates. As employees of 'Partners', it's clearly in their interests to gain convictions and any conflict between the Cash-Camera Pratnerships and a defendant must be a conflict of interest for them with their main loyalty towards their employers.
Whether an ECHR cahllenge to this would work is another matter, but if it did, the Magistrates courts Service would simply be de-listed as 'Partners' and the cash-collection would continue, still with the requirement to self-incriminate at the heart of it all.
It all just stinks and is contrary to the basic principles of English Law, the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, etc, etc. The problem may be that we don't have a written constitution. In the USA, for example, one would just 'Plead the Fifth'. The right not to have to self-incriminate is written into their Constitution.

The whole Partnership thing is liberally sprinkled with unhealthy conflicts of interest, and this is just one of them.

As Cooperman says, their lame excuse is that it is merely HMCS that is a partnership member, but it can clearly be seen that this still represents a massive potential conflict of interest, as follows:

1. It is clearly the duty of a partner to do all to ensure the success of an enterprise. Any other interpretation makes no sense.
2. The clerks to the Justices are in the employ of HMCS, and as such therefore have a duty to work towards the sucess of the camera partnership
3. It is essential for the existence of the partnership that sufficient cases are dealt with by fixed penalty and not by the courts, as this is their only revenue stream.
4. Magistrates are not legal professionals, their duty is to apply the law as it is interpreted to them by their legal advisor, ie the Clerk to the Justices.

Clearly it is in the interests of the partnerships for all cases reaching court to be dealt with as harshly as possible, in order to dissuade others from taking the same path, depriving the camera partnership of their income, and ultimately threatening their survival.

Whether the clerks actually succumb to the temptation to offer biased advice to the Magistrates is not really the issue, the fact that the potential exists remains a clear threat to the impartiality of the courts, one of the cornerstones of our justice system.

And all for the sake of a bit of camera revenue!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

5. The magistrates themselves inhabit the court services envoronment and become friendly with court officials. Such influences are 'biasing'.

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

edited

we also have the problem that those who enforce the limit now also set them. And to cap it off those who are responsible for their maintenance would rather see a camera than expensive reworking.

it's simple business - money coming in is better than money going out

So its no suprise that we see a clear NSL dual carriage way drop down to 40 or 50 mph and suddenly we have speeding problem for the scamerati to deal with.

when in reality it may have needed the odd junction reworked.

The whole partnership system is full of these conflicts of interest and half-truths which attempt to explain them.

"Fact: partnerhsips do not make a profit out of fines." Of course not, there is no profit left over, all the money is used up paying the salaries of the spin doctors and 'safety' team, who are making a lot of money.

"Fact: the partnership does not set speed limits." Technically true, the local authority does (a partnership member). So it would be better to say one section of the partnership sets the limits.

"Last year still saw one hundred and thirty people die on the roads of Thames Valley and more than nine and a half thousand injured. The causes of this unnecessary waste of life are well known; speed, drunk and drugged driving, failure to wear seat belts, dangerous and careless driving and driving when tired,. Together we can reduce this unacceptable loss of life and we will continue to work tirelessly in order to do so.”

How is it "we" can work tirelessly? Perhaps the tired drivers could do with some advice on how they manage it ?

There was a very interesting thread about this a few months back, although I'm not sure it came to a particularly satisfactory conclusion
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 3638#23638