The Daily Mail just hate police.....
24 January 2016, 07:43 AM
#62
Scooby Senior
I've been caught speeding and have gotten away with speeding. I have had my home burgled and had other crimes committed against me, I've witnessed abuse against the police and have seen the idiots they have to deal with, what extra insight do you have?
24 January 2016, 10:16 AM
#63
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Had nothing since, or before, so to have to risk getting double or more just to have my say seems wrong, when others that seem bang to rights get far less when they take it distance leave a sour taste.
And, one other thing, I thought you were crime prevention officers, and I understand the need for stealth in certain circumstances but when I see three or four under cover BMW's cruising the M3 looking to catch speeders, that does seem a little like subversive revenue generation as well, be seen, you will slow so many more people down.
But, all in all, respect
The under cover cars you see will be used for all sorts of things. Just a few days ago, we had a stolen car which had hit a camera. Manged to get 2 unmarked cars right behind it before the burglars knew what was happening. These were 2 prolific burglars too who would have gone on a spree and trying to get a marked car to get close would have been impossible.
Now, the unmarked cars you need to keep free (for incidents like the above); so you can't send it to 'run of the mill' jobs. ie you can't deploy it to a burglary, domestic, sudden death as it will be tied up with that and can not be free to go to a covert type job. So, you may see them driving about M3 but there are not just focused on speeders.
24 January 2016, 10:18 AM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's like watching you and Martin go at it, almost sensible for a while then you default to form.
24 January 2016, 10:46 AM
#65
An awful lot.Think,breathe,type.I'm a lawyer
In fact a lot of the nonsense comes down to the incompetent CPS.
However,my view will always be,the Police always take the easiest option open to them.And that will never change.I sigh every time I see them tucking their hands in their jackets the way they do.Do they all have to feel both breasts every day? Put your flipping hands behind your back.There should be proper qualifications to be a PO.I Reckon whatever they are at present, must be pretty easy given the officers posting on here
Last edited by lozgti1; 24 January 2016 at 10:51 AM.
24 January 2016, 10:48 AM
#66
And for the Daily Mail stuff.Read Frederick Forsyths latest in the mail
24 January 2016, 11:16 AM
#67
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
You work for the Metropolitan Police
Service that is a registered company and listed on Dunn &
Bradstreet, basically you are just another private security firm in it for profits.
All police take an oath to uphold the law of land, is this
correct? Are you aware that everyday by enforcing statutes you're upholding
commercial law which is the law of the waters and NOT enforceable
on dry land?
Are you aware that by doing so the police force are being grossly
negligent and this in itself is punishable by jail?
No alarm harassment or distress caused then quite frankly it's non of your concern thank you, I don't require or wish for your services.
Service that is a registered company and listed on Dunn &
Bradstreet, basically you are just another private security firm in it for profits.
All police take an oath to uphold the law of land, is this
correct? Are you aware that everyday by enforcing statutes you're upholding
commercial law which is the law of the waters and NOT enforceable
on dry land?
Are you aware that by doing so the police force are being grossly
negligent and this in itself is punishable by jail?
No alarm harassment or distress caused then quite frankly it's non of your concern thank you, I don't require or wish for your services.
In fact, none of what 'Freemans' attempts to use has any legal effect. The laws it cites have long been superseded by other statutes, and its nonsensical concepts of nautical gibberish and lawful rebellion have absolutely no standing in any court in any country in this century. And every attempt to use this soup of crap to get out of paying taxes, fines, rent or insurance has failed. Nobody has ever successfully used freeman tactics, and the only thing they’ve done is gum up the courts and frustrate judicial officials as an excuse to get out of paying debts and living under the laws that apply to everyone.
24 January 2016, 12:16 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Selby, North Yorkshire
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what the solution is to the people who have an issue with speed cameras and speed enforcement.
Legalise speeding to free up officers? Or maybe just give people a 'verbal warning' instead as that will certainly dissuade them from doing it again.
We could then perhaps legalise criminal damage under £100 or maybe shop theft which would free up even more!
Then police would all be able to go out and 'catch burglars' all the time.
Legalise speeding to free up officers? Or maybe just give people a 'verbal warning' instead as that will certainly dissuade them from doing it again.
We could then perhaps legalise criminal damage under £100 or maybe shop theft which would free up even more!
Then police would all be able to go out and 'catch burglars' all the time.
24 January 2016, 12:19 PM
#69
Scooby Senior
An awful lot.Think,breathe,type.I'm a lawyer
In fact a lot of the nonsense comes down to the incompetent CPS.
However,my view will always be,the Police always take the easiest option open to them.And that will never change.I sigh every time I see them tucking their hands in their jackets the way they do.Do they all have to feel both breasts every day? Put your flipping hands behind your back.There should be proper qualifications to be a PO.I Reckon whatever they are at present, must be pretty easy given the officers posting on here
In fact a lot of the nonsense comes down to the incompetent CPS.
However,my view will always be,the Police always take the easiest option open to them.And that will never change.I sigh every time I see them tucking their hands in their jackets the way they do.Do they all have to feel both breasts every day? Put your flipping hands behind your back.There should be proper qualifications to be a PO.I Reckon whatever they are at present, must be pretty easy given the officers posting on here
24 January 2016, 12:33 PM
#70
Mate at work did as both him and his wife use the car regularly. On explaining this, he was shown the photo and accepted the fact it was him.
Had you been a biker, one of only 4% of the traffic on UK roads, but who are 38% of the fatalities, (ie: a group really NEEDING safety cameras pointed at them), you'd have got away with it.
IT'S A SCAM!!
And all your sanctimonious cr@p about speeding causing greater injuries, is just that: utter cr@p.
Apply your rigorous punishments to those who actually cause damage etc, NOT to those who accidentally stray over an arbitrary sneaky limit.
24 January 2016, 12:54 PM
#71
Scooby Senior
What a rubbish argument, are you suggesting that we should get rid of speed cameras because 4% of the traffic won't get caught. It is very simple, read the road signs and adjust your speed, if you don't want to do that accept the consequences.
24 January 2016, 01:09 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Which was, OF COURSE, thanks to ACPO, from a forward facing camera, in order to catch yet another car driver slightly exceeding an arbitrary limit which has probably been changed/plced etc in order to "nudge" people into accidentally speeding.
Had you been a biker, one of only 4% of the traffic on UK roads, but who are 38% of the fatalities, (ie: a group really NEEDING safety cameras pointed at them), you'd have got away with it.
IT'S A SCAM!!
And all your sanctimonious cr@p about speeding causing greater injuries, is just that: utter cr@p.
Apply your rigorous punishments to those who actually cause damage etc, NOT to those who accidentally stray over an arbitrary sneaky limit.
Had you been a biker, one of only 4% of the traffic on UK roads, but who are 38% of the fatalities, (ie: a group really NEEDING safety cameras pointed at them), you'd have got away with it.
IT'S A SCAM!!
And all your sanctimonious cr@p about speeding causing greater injuries, is just that: utter cr@p.
Apply your rigorous punishments to those who actually cause damage etc, NOT to those who accidentally stray over an arbitrary sneaky limit.
The speed limits on the road are quite plain and simple - if you hadn't noticed, its a sign at the side of the road with a number in it - you know, the ones you could stick to when you passed you driving test. Well, you still need to stick to them now OR - accept the fact that you take a chance if you don't or you observation skills did not pick up on the fact that the road speed had changed.
Front facing cameras for cars - you can see who was diving. Otherwise, everyone will say "Don't know who was driving and can you prove it". The courts will say "no as we only have your rear reg". So the lesson will be, speed to your hearts content as the courts can't prove who was driving and you'll get away with it.
This is ROSPA that state this. That's why the speed limits near schools are as low as 10mph is some cases. If the kids wander across the road (as they often do) the chance of serious injury is lessened by the fact that the vehicles are going slower. Or are you saying that if the vehicle was going at 70-80mph the injuries to the child would be about the same?
Motorcyclists represent 1% of traffic yet account for up to 20% of the deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Motorcyclists involved in accidents are 40 times more likely to be killed than car drivers. A study (Clarke et al 2004) has indicated that there are 2 clear peaks in casualty age (21-25 & 31-35) and that there are 3 basic discernible motorcycle crash types:
- Right of way violation accidents (38% of cases)
- Loss of control at bends at speed (11% plus of cases)
- Overtaking/filtering accidents (15% of cases)
Clarke et al found that road users other than the injured motorcyclists are usually the cause of crashes and therefore road safety initiatives should be targeted at those other road users in addition to bikers.
Recent European research reveals that nearly 70% of motorcycle accidents involved a car, lorry or bus and that approximately 55% of accidents occur at junctions. It is unlikely that in all these cases the motorist failed to look but rather failed to see the motorcyclist. Motorcyclists are particularly vulnerable to injuries due to the lack of protection that a motorcycle affords when compared to a car (seat-belt and bodywork/crumple zones). Around 80% of motorcyclists killed as a result of road accidents suffer major head injuries and although there are serious injuries to other body areas in some of these cases many do die from their head injuries. The failure of car driving motorists to detect and recognise motorcycles in traffic is the predominant cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.
From our figures, 9000 investigations of criminal damage were done last year alone, which is nearly three times as much as the speeders
24 January 2016, 04:58 PM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An awful lot.Think,breathe,type.I'm a lawyer
In fact a lot of the nonsense comes down to the incompetent CPS.
However,my view will always be,the Police always take the easiest option open to them.And that will never change.I sigh every time I see them tucking their hands in their jackets the way they do.Do they all have to feel both breasts every day? Put your flipping hands behind your back.There should be proper qualifications to be a PO.I Reckon whatever they are at present, must be pretty easy given the officers posting on here
In fact a lot of the nonsense comes down to the incompetent CPS.
However,my view will always be,the Police always take the easiest option open to them.And that will never change.I sigh every time I see them tucking their hands in their jackets the way they do.Do they all have to feel both breasts every day? Put your flipping hands behind your back.There should be proper qualifications to be a PO.I Reckon whatever they are at present, must be pretty easy given the officers posting on here
24 January 2016, 05:00 PM
#74
Lots of good people in policing, motivated by trying to make things a little bit better for those they deal with day in and out and the communities in which they live and serve.
I had the misfortune of having to work with senior ranks in policing and the Home Office for over 10 years, which has only increased my levels of empathy for the guys at the coalface. The senior ranks of UK policing is littered with cowardly, inept, self-serving, morally disorientated individuals who have no prospects once outside the hedge of protection their force and rank affords to them - so for that reason they will cripple their respective force, branch, unit until they retire.
It is that sector between Chief Inspector and Chief Superintendent I specifically refer to and their police staff equivalent; in my experience around one in four could be weeded out to make much needed savings with no significant loss of effectiveness - I can only describe many of them as 'protected species' as once outside the incestuous "police family", they would quickly face extinction!
Kudos to those like Felix who pull on the uniform and do the real policing in their communities, a difficult job made more difficult by management who will happily take more than their fair share of the credit, but less than their fair share of the blame.
I had the misfortune of having to work with senior ranks in policing and the Home Office for over 10 years, which has only increased my levels of empathy for the guys at the coalface. The senior ranks of UK policing is littered with cowardly, inept, self-serving, morally disorientated individuals who have no prospects once outside the hedge of protection their force and rank affords to them - so for that reason they will cripple their respective force, branch, unit until they retire.
It is that sector between Chief Inspector and Chief Superintendent I specifically refer to and their police staff equivalent; in my experience around one in four could be weeded out to make much needed savings with no significant loss of effectiveness - I can only describe many of them as 'protected species' as once outside the incestuous "police family", they would quickly face extinction!
Kudos to those like Felix who pull on the uniform and do the real policing in their communities, a difficult job made more difficult by management who will happily take more than their fair share of the credit, but less than their fair share of the blame.
24 January 2016, 05:54 PM
#75
What I suggested was that, should ACPO be GENUINE in their wish to keep our roads safe, then they need to do two things:
1. switch to rear-facing cameras that can catch ALL speeding motorists, (or make motorcycles display some sort of barcode on the front).
2. Stop with the stealth approach that generates revenue, and put more MARKED CARS and clearly signed cameras about that deters speeding.
As it stands, it's a scam, and only the simple-minded cannot see it.
24 January 2016, 06:01 PM
#76
Scooby Senior
No, simple boy, stop with the straw-man arguments, OK?
What I suggested was that, should ACPO be GENUINE in their wish to keep our roads safe, then they need to do two things:
1. switch to rear-facing cameras that can catch ALL speeding motorists, (or make motorcycles display some sort of barcode on the front).
2. Stop with the stealth approach that generates revenue, and put more MARKED CARS and clearly signed cameras about that deters speeding.
As it stands, it's a scam, and only the simple-minded cannot see it.
What I suggested was that, should ACPO be GENUINE in their wish to keep our roads safe, then they need to do two things:
1. switch to rear-facing cameras that can catch ALL speeding motorists, (or make motorcycles display some sort of barcode on the front).
2. Stop with the stealth approach that generates revenue, and put more MARKED CARS and clearly signed cameras about that deters speeding.
As it stands, it's a scam, and only the simple-minded cannot see it.
You know what deters speeding? Getting caught enough times.
24 January 2016, 06:05 PM
#77
The speed limits on the road are quite plain and simple - if you hadn't noticed, its a sign at the side of the road with a number in it - you know, the ones you could stick to when you passed you driving test. Well, you still need to stick to them now OR - accept the fact that you take a chance if you don't or you observation skills did not pick up on the fact that the road speed had changed.
Front facing cameras for cars - you can see who was diving. Otherwise, everyone will say "Don't know who was driving and can you prove it". The courts will say "no as we only have your rear reg". So the lesson will be, speed to your hearts content as the courts can't prove who was driving and you'll get away with it.
This is ROSPA that state this. That's why the speed limits near schools are as low as 10mph is some cases. If the kids wander across the road (as they often do) the chance of serious injury is lessened by the fact that the vehicles are going slower. Or are you saying that if the vehicle was going at 70-80mph the injuries to the child would be about the same?
Motorcyclists represent 1% of traffic yet account for up to 20% of the deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Motorcyclists involved in accidents are 40 times more likely to be killed than car drivers. A study (Clarke et al 2004) has indicated that there are 2 clear peaks in casualty age (21-25 & 31-35) and that there are 3 basic discernible motorcycle crash types:
- Right of way violation accidents (38% of cases)
- Loss of control at bends at speed (11% plus of cases)
- Overtaking/filtering accidents (15% of cases)
Clarke et al found that road users other than the injured motorcyclists are usually the cause of crashes and therefore road safety initiatives should be targeted at those other road users in addition to bikers.
Recent European research reveals that nearly 70% of motorcycle accidents involved a car, lorry or bus and that approximately 55% of accidents occur at junctions. It is unlikely that in all these cases the motorist failed to look but rather failed to see the motorcyclist. Motorcyclists are particularly vulnerable to injuries due to the lack of protection that a motorcycle affords when compared to a car (seat-belt and bodywork/crumple zones). Around 80% of motorcyclists killed as a result of road accidents suffer major head injuries and although there are serious injuries to other body areas in some of these cases many do die from their head injuries. The failure of car driving motorists to detect and recognise motorcycles in traffic is the predominant cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.
- Right of way violation accidents (38% of cases)
- Loss of control at bends at speed (11% plus of cases)
- Overtaking/filtering accidents (15% of cases)
Clarke et al found that road users other than the injured motorcyclists are usually the cause of crashes and therefore road safety initiatives should be targeted at those other road users in addition to bikers.
Recent European research reveals that nearly 70% of motorcycle accidents involved a car, lorry or bus and that approximately 55% of accidents occur at junctions. It is unlikely that in all these cases the motorist failed to look but rather failed to see the motorcyclist. Motorcyclists are particularly vulnerable to injuries due to the lack of protection that a motorcycle affords when compared to a car (seat-belt and bodywork/crumple zones). Around 80% of motorcyclists killed as a result of road accidents suffer major head injuries and although there are serious injuries to other body areas in some of these cases many do die from their head injuries. The failure of car driving motorists to detect and recognise motorcycles in traffic is the predominant cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.
OK, how about this: I've, as yet and touching wood here, NOT had an accident involving a biker. but I HAVE avoided a few, ALL of which had had the biker at fault, including stupid filtering, going so fat into abend so as NOT to be able to stay on his own side of the road, clearances etc etc.
But hey...let's target CAR drivers, they are easier and carry a barcode on BOTH ends, plus no helmet...and anyway, IT'S ALL ABOUT REVENUE, so why target 4% of the traffic when you can rob 96%???
Are you stupid or what? Or do you think car drivers are???
And I STILL don't believe you force only sent out 3000 FPN's in a year. either you think I'm daft, or you are.
PS: my comments about "the main way most people have contact with the police" came from a chief constable...bit higher in rank than you? So maybe knows more? Certainly more well-informed;(
24 January 2016, 06:07 PM
#78
"Simple Boy" it's you who's looking simple here china. You can't seem to grasp the fact that you don't get caught for speeding if you stay under the speed limit, how thick must your skull be if that can't get through.
You know what deters speeding? Getting caught enough times.
You know what deters speeding? Getting caught enough times.
Where did I say anyone should speed? You got ANY arguments other than strawman?
24 January 2016, 06:42 PM
#79
Scooby Senior
You're off your nut. You keep saying that it's unfair that people get prosecuted for breaking the law, that it's revenue generating plain and simple, well, stick it to the establishment by not speeding.
24 January 2016, 08:05 PM
#80
Scooby Regular
Its funny, these 'freemans' are becoming more and more - not sure if its the latest fad put about by social media, but so far the ones who have tried to argue thier points haven't got anywhere.
In fact, none of what 'Freemans' attempts to use has any legal effect. The laws it cites have long been superseded by other statutes, and its nonsensical concepts of nautical gibberish and lawful rebellion have absolutely no standing in any court in any country in this century. And every attempt to use this soup of crap to get out of paying taxes, fines, rent or insurance has failed. Nobody has ever successfully used freeman tactics, and the only thing they’ve done is gum up the courts and frustrate judicial officials as an excuse to get out of paying debts and living under the laws that apply to everyone.
In fact, none of what 'Freemans' attempts to use has any legal effect. The laws it cites have long been superseded by other statutes, and its nonsensical concepts of nautical gibberish and lawful rebellion have absolutely no standing in any court in any country in this century. And every attempt to use this soup of crap to get out of paying taxes, fines, rent or insurance has failed. Nobody has ever successfully used freeman tactics, and the only thing they’ve done is gum up the courts and frustrate judicial officials as an excuse to get out of paying debts and living under the laws that apply to everyone.
The do make me laugh tbh, do they start talking boll0cks about names and namining conventions, asking you to call the "master so and so" and that they are somehow divorced from there "legal" name
Spouting crap about "joinder" and Admiralty law etcetera
It's a good wheez, as long as you never have to actually use it
24 January 2016, 08:15 PM
#81
24 January 2016, 08:20 PM
#82
In fact,staying off scoobynet for a bit now
24 January 2016, 08:57 PM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25 January 2016, 03:45 AM
#84
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
You'll be happy for speed limits outside a primary school to be at 70mph? No problem at all until there's an accident - then presumably a child being hit at 70mph will have similar injuries to one being hit at 10mph? Can you not see the risks involved of a car travelling at speed verses a pedestrian?
Its no SCAM, just don't speed - you know like you didn't do during your driving test.
and there you go...buying into the cr@p argument that it's OK NOT to target motorcyclists, since it's ALWAYS the car driver's fault.
OK, how about this: I've, as yet and touching wood here, NOT had an accident involving a biker. but I HAVE avoided a few, ALL of which had had the biker at fault, including stupid filtering, going so fat into abend so as NOT to be able to stay on his own side of the road, clearances etc etc.
But hey...let's target CAR drivers, they are easier and carry a barcode on BOTH ends, plus no helmet...and anyway, IT'S ALL ABOUT REVENUE, so why target 4% of the traffic when you can rob 96%???
Are you stupid or what? Or do you think car drivers are???
OK, how about this: I've, as yet and touching wood here, NOT had an accident involving a biker. but I HAVE avoided a few, ALL of which had had the biker at fault, including stupid filtering, going so fat into abend so as NOT to be able to stay on his own side of the road, clearances etc etc.
But hey...let's target CAR drivers, they are easier and carry a barcode on BOTH ends, plus no helmet...and anyway, IT'S ALL ABOUT REVENUE, so why target 4% of the traffic when you can rob 96%???
Are you stupid or what? Or do you think car drivers are???
And we will target anyone that speeds, not just cars - but as you said before 'innocent until proven guilty' And i have never said that car drivers are stupid, but i do think its a bit silly of them (or any vehicle/bike) to knowingly speed on a road and think that breaking this law is acceptable, or try and get out of it when they get caught. If you want to speed, that's fine, just accept the fact that you take a chance when you do so. ie 35 in a 30 is breaking the law - not as serious as a rape or a murder, but its still breaking the law. Littering isn't much of a crime either, but if everyone did it......
INVESTIGATIONS my @rse..how many PROSECUTIONS!!!
And I STILL don't believe you force only sent out 3000 FPN's in a year. either you think I'm daft, or you are.
PS: my comments about "the main way most people have contact with the police" came from a chief constable...bit higher in rank than you? So maybe knows more? Certainly more well-informed;(
And I STILL don't believe you force only sent out 3000 FPN's in a year. either you think I'm daft, or you are.
PS: my comments about "the main way most people have contact with the police" came from a chief constable...bit higher in rank than you? So maybe knows more? Certainly more well-informed;(
If we send out more FPN's then they must be ghost ones - dished out without any form of reference number or case number. And i can't move a case file from A to B without it having a reference number attached, so there is no way we can generate FPN's without them. This will be about 60 per week and as our van is not out for long periods of time i don't think the figure is unduly low. Or perhaps most people around here are sticking to the speed limits and the camera van is working.
The chief constable might know more or be well informed but they have no idea on looking at figures. Its about 1% as i have stated earlier which is no where near 99% that you quote. About 20% of the people we deal with are under 17 and a similar figure are that hooked on drink and drugs that they have no access to a car. So it can not possibly be 99%.
Last edited by Felix.; 25 January 2016 at 03:50 AM.
25 January 2016, 12:39 PM
#85
Felix, you are still talking rubbish. I'm sorry, but you cannot condone fining, PLUS points for someone taking a risk.
As regards motorcycles, make the LAW one rider, one bike, or make the LAW that they must have barcodes on their helmets, SOME way of identification. LOL, if I rode round with my front numberplate obscured, removed or a Tony Blair mask on, I'd pretty soon get a pull. yet motorcyclists? the law ignores them, yet spout on about "Road safety"??? Do me a favour.
Target anyone that speeds? Right...so do AWAY with forward facing cameras that can't catch motorcyclists. Even the scamera vans here face the front for the nice facial shot. Then, IF you can prove who was driving, fine (lower) plus points, if you can't, just a fine...call it "allowing a vehicle to be driven in a manner....", call it what you like, but STOP telling me it's about road safety when it's bikers getting killed and they cannot be caught by 90% of cameras.
PS (on this one), come and have a look round in spring, summer and autumn around any of the so-called biker routes...come and witness some of the lunacy, the lunacy that NO CAMERA can stop!!!
I know all about "taking the risk" etc, but go on a bit further....tell me about the cameras positioned NOT to deter, but to catch, positioned just as a limit changes, tell me about limits that change strangely, yet there's the camera right in the centre of it? Tell me about cameras outside schools, (one of your faves), yet NEVER seen in this town, or any I've ever visited........SCAM You say it's about road safety, you CONSTANTLY go on about kiddies outside school...OK put your cameras there then. Do something about the lunatics that park there, making crossing the roads awful and driving a nightmare. Road safety? My @rse...the above would generate no, or very little cash...so it's not done.
And please, DO NOT even MENTION rape and murder in the same sentence as doing 35 in a 30...... not if you want to retain even a shred of credibility. There's laws, and then there's "laws". The first, if you break them, you hurt someone. The second, if you break them you MIGHT hurt someone. I MIGHT go out and rape someone. Should I be arrested? After all...I have the tools, officer.....
As for FPN's, you have ONE van and NO fixed cameras? OK....now find me figures for one of the robber-counties, try Notts for example?
However you dress it up, huge multiple punishments for folk breaking an arbitrary law and DOING NO DAMAGE, HURTING NO-ONE can only be seen as a revenue generating scam. Especially when you figure in the hidden cameras at places where the limit is artificially low, the odd and changed limits etc etc.
As regards motorcycles, make the LAW one rider, one bike, or make the LAW that they must have barcodes on their helmets, SOME way of identification. LOL, if I rode round with my front numberplate obscured, removed or a Tony Blair mask on, I'd pretty soon get a pull. yet motorcyclists? the law ignores them, yet spout on about "Road safety"??? Do me a favour.
And we will target anyone that speeds, not just cars - but as you said before 'innocent until proven guilty' And i have never said that car drivers are stupid, but i do think its a bit silly of them (or any vehicle/bike) to knowingly speed on a road and think that breaking this law is acceptable, or try and get out of it when they get caught. If you want to speed, that's fine, just accept the fact that you take a chance when you do so. ie 35 in a 30 is breaking the law - not as serious as a rape or a murder, but its still breaking the law. Littering isn't much of a crime either, but if everyone did it......
PS (on this one), come and have a look round in spring, summer and autumn around any of the so-called biker routes...come and witness some of the lunacy, the lunacy that NO CAMERA can stop!!!
I know all about "taking the risk" etc, but go on a bit further....tell me about the cameras positioned NOT to deter, but to catch, positioned just as a limit changes, tell me about limits that change strangely, yet there's the camera right in the centre of it? Tell me about cameras outside schools, (one of your faves), yet NEVER seen in this town, or any I've ever visited........SCAM You say it's about road safety, you CONSTANTLY go on about kiddies outside school...OK put your cameras there then. Do something about the lunatics that park there, making crossing the roads awful and driving a nightmare. Road safety? My @rse...the above would generate no, or very little cash...so it's not done.
And please, DO NOT even MENTION rape and murder in the same sentence as doing 35 in a 30...... not if you want to retain even a shred of credibility. There's laws, and then there's "laws". The first, if you break them, you hurt someone. The second, if you break them you MIGHT hurt someone. I MIGHT go out and rape someone. Should I be arrested? After all...I have the tools, officer.....
As for FPN's, you have ONE van and NO fixed cameras? OK....now find me figures for one of the robber-counties, try Notts for example?
However you dress it up, huge multiple punishments for folk breaking an arbitrary law and DOING NO DAMAGE, HURTING NO-ONE can only be seen as a revenue generating scam. Especially when you figure in the hidden cameras at places where the limit is artificially low, the odd and changed limits etc etc.
25 January 2016, 12:46 PM
#86
1. NOT fair to dish out multiple punishments to speeders, who hurt no-one, yet single, lesser punishments to those who steal, do damage or do hurt someone.
2. NOT fair to use cameras a revenue source. And many are, just that. If they aren't, then site them where they will do most good, near schools etc...oh...wait....no revenue from that, few, if any speeders. Road safety? Then do something about the LUNATICS who park round school whilst on the school run. FAR more dangerous than any speeder.
3. NOT fair to keep calling it "Road safety" and "Safety cameras" when it's patently not, can't catch motor cyclists and cameras are sited where they can catch, not deter. What's all this cr@p with unmarked cars? MARKED cars deter. Un-marked catch...revenue!!!
Clear enough now?
BY ALL MEANS ENFORCE THE LIMIT WHERE IT'S NECESSARY, BUT STOP WITH THE ARTIFICIALLY LOWERED LIMITS, THE HIDDEN CAMERAS, THE LIMIT CHANGES DESIGNED TO CATCH OUT MOTORISTS, ETC ETC.
25 January 2016, 01:28 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
but the police (the subject of this thread) have nothing to do with the above
25 January 2016, 01:52 PM
#88
Think like everyone we all get carried away.Yet the best people I know frequent and and argue on scoobynet.Lol
Hey you lot,pack it in.You are a clever lot .Really
different opinions of course.
25 January 2016, 01:53 PM
#89
And apologies Jack