alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Utter bullsh!te. I've posted many many facts about the scam, you obviously haven't read them.
Go back and do so, please

And stop with the insults, it demeans no-one but yourself.

hodgy0_2

Amazing 9 pages

Muslims, Europe & Climate Change struggle to get above 6

Torquemada

don't be so bloody immature, you have been throwing insults around like spoilt child. I have done no such thing. I have read all of your drivel. You however continue to fail to read what is sent in your direction, as is clear by your own responses.

You are still unable to do anything constructive. Just more whinging.

You can't even answer some of the simple questions put to you. You seem to provide lots of response, just no answer, just sentences that contain at least one if not all one of the following:

"your argument/statement/point is facile"
"strawman argument"
"are you that stupid"
"idiot"
"sheep"

etc. etc. basically anything except a positive or constructive solution or option, nor even a credible response to any questions put forward....just insults and vapid word slurry...

Torquemada

oh, and you have posted opinions...not facts...we're still waiting on facts from you....or maybe even just something that could be a reasonable solution.

neil-h

But... But... This is serious business

Torquemada

better than Racism, Xenophobia and BS from pseudo-scientists...

JackClark

Do you fancy a bum?

hodgy0_2

mmm, "anally regressive"

maybe he needs a bumm

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

More cr@p...loks like you've lost it bud.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Nope, I've posted facts that I know of from personal experience and those of people known to me. You, on the other hand, are digging up so-called facts from those who run, AND BENEFIT FROM the Scameras.

A couple of pages back I posted several FACTS close together. Jack immediately came on and said they weren't facts...yet they all happened/are happening.

It's you people who have lost it, not me.

Even my FACT about what the CC Manc said is now contested. Could you get any more pro-establishment?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Have posted reasonable solutions too, but they either haven't been read, or haven't been understood, since no-one has posted any arguments against them.

Or else I've been told that my solution is to a problem that doesn't exist...how facile is that?

if you have nothing to hide......
if you don't speed........

Bull.

Turbohot

Apologies if this recent mildly sensational piece of news from abroad has already been posted here:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...e57560203.html

Ok, that's in Miami where a policeman was speeding, got pulled over by Mrs. No One and admitted to his wrongdoing.

The moral of the tale is that the UK Police aren't immune to making mistakes/breaking the law either.

Turbohot

Sorry, this ^ post may look like a bit of a spanner among the posts that are discussing the speeding done by the commoners and Police's motives in relation to that. But as my post still relates to the Police, I thought I'd chuck it in.

Felix.

Hooray - you finally have got it

Of course other things play a part such as seat belts, drunkenness, crumple zones ect etc. But if you drive a car with bald tyres, no brakes, on your phone, eating a sandwich - and you drive into a tree at 10mph, the chances are you will not be hurt. Do the same at 100mph there's a good chance you will be. Its not the only factor, but speed does have a major effect on injury and death.

Yes, these are safe roads - until there is a crash, then the injury potential is high due to the speeds involved. They are built for high speeds due to their design - nice straight, wide roads with multiple lanes. But a twisty single carriage narrow country road can not handle those higher speeds - hence the speed restrictions.

And we do bother lowering the speed limits on the motorways due to conditions. Have you not seen the flashing speed signs telling you that the limit has changed due to the conditions?

Speed - inappropriate or not - is the in factor that leads to injury and death. Other factors or a combination of them all might lead to the accident in the first place, but its the speed of the impact that will be the factor that will cause the injuries. Yes, you can argue that the fact no seat belt was warn is a factor, but so will be the impact speed.

Our schools do

As i keep saying, please read Torqumedas post on traffic units targeting bikers. Also re-read mine where an operation was set up in a village and found that the majority of speeders were on 4 wheels and all local.

By his figures:
Number of people convicted for speeding - 45,717
Force population - 2500,000
That gives a percentage of 1.8% of the population have been 'contacted' for speeding. Quite a way off 99% i would suggest.

Please post a link to his quote, then i can contact his office and get them to explain the discrepancy


They don't 'get away with it' - they get prosecuted as an end result of an investigation. But you need evidence to support a prosecution. No evidence, no prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty.



more assumptions with no evidence alcazar - its a good job your not a legal advisor:

http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/driver...-top-bottom-10

The highest areas are around 14% going down to 2% in others. I would suggest the majority of drivers do not have points.

Felix.

One solution you posted was to give points and fine to those speeding - if you can't prove who was driving, then just pass on the fines to the owner.

Great - I'll just put your registration onto my car and go speeding whilst wearing a disguise. When it can't be determined who it was driving, the fine will be passed onto you.

Your solution for putting plates on the front of a bike - will not solve the fact that the rider can not be determined as he/she is wearing a helmet. There is no law either stating that you have to wear an identifiable helmet per person either, so that solution is knackered before it starts.

Scooby.Newbie

What happens if I, or someone else , drives my car wearing a crash helmet?

Turbohot

I like this. Great way to evade fine and points.

Turbohot

Something isn't right. My last line (in addition to what I posted) doesn't show up in #257. I even tried to post it is a separate post but it wouldn't let me post. What's going on??


RE-TEST:

I like this. Great way to avoid fine and points.

RE-TEST no. 2:

I like this. Great way to avoid fine and points.
(goes out to buy a crash helmet)

Finding: if you put your line between < and >, it won't go through. I don't know why. It used to be fine in past.

Torquemada

ok, no point in arguing with the ignorant...reminds me of a George Carlin quote. Anyway, it's clear that you don't even know what a fact is. That is just hilarious. Your 'solutions' were also not reasonable. At least you managed to get the word 'facile' in again gave me a good laugh

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

Yeah, but do you possess 'THE tool'?

(It would come in handy for said crime, after all. )

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Ah...NOW you get it!!

But pray tell, what do you think would happen if I were flashed speeding, wearing a Tony Blair mask?

I suggest a £1000 fine?

Double standards.

[quote]Great - I'll just put your registration onto my car and go speeding whilst wearing a disguise. When it can't be determined who it was driving, the fine will be passed onto you.
[/quote

You are beginning to see sense...you don't need to be in my car, or use my reg, just wear a disguise....

NOW try and see some of my other points, while throwing off your "establishment-r-us" blinkers.
Just because government say it, doesn't make it true.

Felix.

No, single standard. The question asked is "was it you driving - yes/no/don't know" not just an automatic £1000 fine. Same for car drivers, bus drivers & motor bike drivers.

If you want to drive fast with a Tony Blair mask on all the time then crack-on - but you may fall foul of the other operations i mentioned for speeding vehicles.


And using this - I still don't see your other points:

** Increasing speed = increased injury potential
** The majority of drivers don't have points
** Other factors dictate the speed of road, not revenue
** 99% of people's contact with police is not for speeding - did you find this quote by the way?
** And its still - No evidence, no prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty

Turbohot

FAO Felix:

To be honest, I'm a bit confused here. To my understanding, despite not knowing who was driving the vehicle, the registered owner/keeper keeps getting NIP reminders until the fine is paid and points are taken either by him/her or whoever was driving. I think the onus is on the registered owner/keeper to determine who exactly was driving. He/she provides the name of the driver, which follows by the NIP being sent to that guilty party. There has to be the admission from the guilty party. In the absence of that, the dispute may end up in court.

Is that correct?

I do apologise for asking that, if it has already been cleared before. Finding it difficult to read this thread regularly because it just goes on and on, and I'm busy.

Felix.

In essence - yes. But you still have to be in a position to prove the offence at court should such a driver plead 'not guilty'. Or be in position to prove that the registered keeper has lied about who was the driver - sometimes used for TWOCS where one family member has allowed another to use the car

If you can't remember who was driving, then this forms the basis of your defence under 'due diligence'. You can defend this on the basis that you cannot say who the driver is but there is a particular format to use and you would need to assert that you genuinely cannot say who the driver was after exercising reasonable diligence. Obviously you cannot say something that is not true (ie saying it was you driving when you genuinely can't be sure) as that's a perjury and that carries custody sentence. This happened to my mate who was given the opportunity to look at the photo - where he saw it was clearly him at the wheel, so he paid up.

Never apologise for a thread that goes on & on & on ....... I'm probably as guilty as the rest for it, but i do like a good debate from time to time.

Turbohot

So, if the answer is 'don't know’ to persistent NIP reminders, one will be taken to court. And there they can exercise their reasonable diligence and prove their innocence, if they can. Thank you, Felix.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

You don't think the mags would just stick the £1000 fine on for trying to pervert? I do. And I've seen mags at work.


Lets spoil this one first.

Which has the highest injury potential...being hit by a 44 tonne truck in a T-bone at 40mph while at a standstill, or a glancing blow from another car at 60mph? Speed kills is a fallacy. End of.


Not according to the internet site I subscribe to, it was in one of their emails about three months back. I'd rather believe them than govt statistics. Or ANYTHING the police tell me


Who says? Councils....in a safety camera partnership. The police? In a safety camera partnership.....

Who else? And you've never seen a single sneakily positioned camera that was in a relatively safe place? Because I mentioned TWO within three miles of where I live. You ignored those, though. I even told you the spurious reasons for them being there...ignored again.


The quote was made at a dinner for bigwigs, to my mate, a bigwig in the insurance industry, in person. The CC reckoned that the police's increasingly low esteem in the eyes of the public was due to the FACT that most law abiding citizens (ie, those not commiting CRIMINAL offences), only contact with the police was when the letter arrived demanding money with menaces.

You disagree. I'd rather believe a CC than someone who works behind a desk in an isolated force, and has no knowledge, (or seemingly hasn't) of other forces.


Except it's not, it's guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. I all other crimes, the onus is on the prosecution to prove your guilt. In this one, it's up to you to prove your innocence.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

There you go, felix: prove yourself innocent.

NOT, as is the UK law, innocent until WE prove you guilty.

It was the basis of the whole shebang in the ECHR...which failed due to government interference. No top lawyer yet understands how they handed down the decision they did. It goes against every tenet of justice...yet YOU support it?

Strange that, isn't it?

JackClark

Ridiculous and somewhat funny watching you collapse. It's not like they just send random letters to car owners on a whim. There is evidence that a car registered to the person who got the letter was used to break the law. But you don't understand that.

Felix.

EH? Trying to pervert the course of justice?
The law states that you can use 'due diligence' - this can not be pervert the course of justice....
The only way this can be pervert the course of justice is where you deliberately lie and are found out.


You can't change the set up of the accident to prove your point.....
Being hit by a 44 tonne truck in a T-bone at 40mph while at a standstill has higher injury potential than if it was travelling at 5mph. End of...!

You can't change the dynamics and say "....being slightly caught by a glancing blow at 100mph, so glancing that it just dislodged the dead flies on the corner of your bumper..."

Your arguments are becoming laughable....... And is in fact contradictory to your post earlier (see post 100)

Depends what bizarre internet site it comes from – is this the one where we are all descendants of lizards?
I would suggest the official sites are going to be more accurate as they can quote their sources and have access to the correct figures.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/where-do-...penalty-points

I didn't ignore them – I answered them. Go back and read them again

I don't work behind desk in an isolated force. I'm an emergency response officer and do have a lot of knowledge of how things work.

By the CC of GMP's own figures, his quote is wrong and wrong by quite some margin.
Can you tell me when/where the dinner was and who it was quoted to and I will email his office to clarify his point. As I would suggest that it s more in the region of 1-2%


No, we still have to prove the offence - that's why we need the photo of the driver. That's why you have due diligence. Where do you have to prove your innocence...?

Mind you, in your post (number 85) you seemed to suggest that if we can't prove who was driving, just send the fine to the registered keeper?

So, you have now shot yourself in the foot..... Well Done

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Your posts are becoming more and more laughable, simply reiterating the same old establishment bullsh!t

You even say that "official" websites have more access to facts....but have no axe to grind.

If I could be bothered I'd type out AGAIN how the scam works...but you KNOW, don't you?

Police: Auxilliary tax-gatherers, bully boys and enforcers for government....and you wonder why the public hate you.

Letter comes, were you driving. No. Prove it or say who was or have a £1000 fine. Do you not know how the system works, REALLY, are you not too bright, or are you on a wind-up?

This was my response to your saying rearward facing cameras can't work....except they WILL catch motorcyclists. By YOUR reasoning, the ONLY way to catch a speeding biker is to stop him? And THAT'S a safe thing to do, isn't it????

Nope...you just cherry picked stuff and failed to understand again.

Are you really this pro-establishment?
Can you REALLY not see that in ANY accident, it's NOT just the speed that kills, but the road conditions, the position of the vehicles, the type of vehicles, the type of contact?

I suggest you go and study physics for a bit, then you'll see what kills....energy of collision. And velocity is only one factor.....yet it just happens to be the one whereby you lot can sit behind a camera, or set one up and just take pics, then demand money...with menaces.

If you spent as much time policing PROPERLY, then we'd have far less accidents...but hey, that doesn't raise money and you might ACTUALLY have to do some PROPER work.