ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

I'd generally be inclined to agree, but every so often he get's his "i'm still a copper head on".

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

nonsense.
next?

ilogikal1

I should point out that I don't disagree with the sentiment at all. I'm just easily amused.

Funkii Munkii

That is genuinely funny

CT_dunmow

I think it "cuts no ice with me" ....again...

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I agree...he looked pretty gobsmacked when I'd done.

I'm intrigued as to what others believe I could have been arrested for....since I used no bad language and didn't threaten?

Ant

wasting police time?

Turbohot

Very good.

Turbohot

Keeping to the theme, I can about the radar gun- a French one. Well, one British driver recently drove his Audi R8 so fast in France that the French radar gun bleddy broke! Apparently the gun thingy could only measure up to 160 mph, and the driver was well over that. Crazy.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Next?

Ant

come on what was you hoping the outcome to be?

we all know you're only happy when you're moaning.

i feel sorry for the copper trying to do his job and he's been bothered by some one nothing better else to do

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I didn't want any outcome, except to let another thieving scammer know what I thought of him.

As for "doing his job", so were the SS in the camps...weren't they?

I mean really....can you OBJECTIVELY support this at all?

cster

Is this post intended as an example of objectivity?

D4VEW557

I'm with the don't do the crime camp, the law is the law and if you break if and get caught by what ever means then it's your own fault.

I personally got caught by a cop at the side of the road with a camera but hey i was speeding so i took my punishment.

Comparing the traffic police to the SS seems a bit extreme though.

Ant

alcazar is like that, likes to take the smallest things to extreme

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

You do understand that the police get none of the fine money, don't you? It all goes direct to Cameron and his mates. It does not affect police budgets in any way. If they put the camera there, it's almost certainly because locals were complaining about speeding.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

You misunderstand. I didn't compare him to the SS.
What I said was, anyone who defends doing that job by saying, "I'm only obeying orders", cuts no ice now, just as it didn't in 1945.

We KNOW if doing certain things is right, or wrong. We DON'T do the things that are wrong.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Alcazar has little else to amuse himself with.

And it does get a rise on here.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Yes, of course. They USED to, as part of the scamera partnerships.

Humberside is one of the forces that chose to INCREASE it's cameras......and since it's ALSO one of the worst performing forces in the country, like Notts, who also have HUNDREDS of cameras, we know why.

MDS_WRX

iTrader: (1)

What about speeding? Is that right or wrong?

If it's wrong, then you have no problem as the speed gun won't catch you.

If it's right, then why are you above the law?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

What does that have to do with anything?

I have a clean license at the moment. Yes, I've been caught, while driving minicabs, (you try making a living from that without speeding).

What gets my goat is that Police Forces a) use speeding fines as a way of meeting targets, and b) they willl go to the ends of the earth for their £90 and three points, whereas you have a burglary, or are assaulted, "here's a crime number, have a nice day."

And it remains the ONLY crime whereby you have to incriminate yourself, or face an even bigger fine AND MORE POINTS!!!!!!

People who speed, yet hurt no-one, get TWO punishments, (three if you include increased insurance). People who speed and get taken to court, yet still hurt no-one, get FIVE punishments: fine, points, costs against, victim surcharge, and insurance increase.

What does someone who burgles you get, IF CAUGHT??????

And you can't see why I say it's a scam, and we need to stand against it.

"people who don't do anything wrong have nothing to fear..."

aye...right...

MDS_WRX

iTrader: (1)

Umm, it is very relevant, can't you see why?

If you say that people shouldn't "do the things that are wrong" and that the officers should stand up against the fact that it is wrong, then surely it works both ways and you should understand the fact that speeding is wrong and therefore not do it.

Please point out where I even mentioned I couldn't see why you thought it was a scam or that I disagreed with whether it was about money or not? I agree that in the vast majority of cases it's about making money yes (however there are also some legitimate places where this isn't the case).

Surely this whole debate is very simple regardless of whether you agree with the way it is enforced? Don't speed and you won't get caught. Speed and accept the fact you may get caught and punished.

P.S. I've been caught twice for speeding, once by a camera gun and once by a fixed camera. Regardless of the fact of why the cameras were there, both times were my fault as I was speeding.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

But I HAVEN'T been caught, not since 1988 and that was by being followed whilst driving a minicab. I don't need to be caught, or to speed, or NOT to do either to know that what THEY are doing is wrong.

And I'm NOT saying speeding is OK, just that the present way of enforcing speed limits is a scam. A money making scam, dressed up as saving lives.

Saying "don't speed and you won't get caught" is just daft....of course you won't, but so what? What they are doing is still wrong, however you dress it up.

Can't YOU see that?

I can't believe that on a fast car site I'm talking to people who believe the b/s about "speed kills"........

MDS_WRX

iTrader: (1)

Well that's fine then, speed cameras won't affect you in any way so why get worked up about it and rant at a police officer? Or do you just like to have a whinge?

That's twice in two posts you've made up something that I've supposedly said. Again, point out where I have said anything about believing it's about speed? In fact I said the complete opposite when I said "I agree that in the vast majority of cases it's about making money".

lordharding

iTrader: (1)

I don't really have a Problem with it in a 30 zone
As a councillor I was getting loads of grief so we set up a speed watch campaigne
And 540 got a warning in a month
We only sent out three repeat offenders letters
It worked
After a year at it the volenteers retired knowing it had worked
Speeding on the increase so the police fetched out the yellow vans and
Get thirty on every shift once every ten days
They have to cap it at 30 per day probably as it caused too much grief
We have 30 signs everywhere in our small town yet people choose to ignore them
So. Don't have a problem when they get caught

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

If NO-ONE complains about this farce, NOTHING will be done.

Surely you can get that?



So why are you going on? Or do you just accept stuff that's patently wrong so long as it doesn't affect you?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Can't disagree, but so many of the camera sites in this town and around it are NOT for safety, just for revenue.

THAT'S what gets my goat.

if you EVER saw them outside shchools......

Plus, North Lincs Council, one of the partners in the scameraship, chose to RE-designate land for building that was going to carry a bypass.

That bypass would have taken loads of lorries and cars away from a built-up area and off from those roads, which include a large school, a smaller primary school and two shopping areas.

But no....the road safety conscious council redesignated the land for building houses.........

So THEY can't lecture ME about road safety!

Felix.

What targets do we get set for speeders..? and if so, the best way to scupper their targets is not to speed and keep the police's figures low

You don't just "get a crime number" for a burglary - it will be investigated - if no suspect is ever found then that's not the fault of the police, but the fact that there was no evidence and the fact that people (including suspected burglars) are innocent until proven guilty.

Where do you have to incriminate yourself... You are asked if you are guilty or not of committing the offence (speeding). Similar to say a theft, you are asked if you have committed this crime or not. If the person is happy to accept that he has done it, he will be reported for the offence and receive very little from the courts (conditional discharge if your lucky). If the person wants to go 'not guilty' and is later proven at court, they will face fines, supervision orders, jail, court costs, compensation orders, unpaid work etc etc. - and they hurt no one also.

I can't really see where you are batting from for this. What would you prefer us to do, not bother checking on speeders, let people travel at what ever speed they want....

The faster a car goes, the more potential it has to kill someone in a crash. If you don't want to risk points, fines etc, just stick to the speed limits (like you did on you driving test) OR accept the fact that you take a chance when you go over the speed limit for the road.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Wouldn't work...they or the government would increase the targets and/or camera sites would be even sneakier. IT'S A SCAM FOR MONEY! So no amount of not speeding will stop it. Only a public show of displeasure might. The majority of the ice already whine that they no longer have public support as they used , but don't see this as a reason. I, for one, am of a social class that OUGHT to support the police wholeheartedly, just as MY parents did. Yet I don't know a single person in my aquaintances who does....

Our garage was broken into and a £1200 trials MTB taken. No-one even visited, we were given a crime number by phone, and told to claim on our insurance.

The local paper were more interested than the coppers. But don't pay a speeding fine....oooh, watch out! Try to avoid it? watch out £1000 and double the points. Elect to fight one in court? watch out: bigger fine, costs, victim surcharge and MORE points.

Yet who IS the victim? And who has been harmed by Joe Bloggs doing 80 on a clear, dry motorway?

And, two weeks after that, TWO officers came and tried to bully my 13 year old lad who was one of a group of about six who short-cutted across his old primary-school field. The female officer did have the grace to look ashamed and apologised to me. The male officer left in a huff.

"Who was the driver of vehicle No. AB99 ZYZ at blah blah blah?"

"You don't know?"
"Right, have this £1000 fine and SIX points then."

Now if that ain't incriminating yourself......

For SPEEDING???? What planet might THAT happen on?


Theft hurts no-one? You ever had owt nicked? Ever had your home/car broken into?

As for all that, I read the local paper. Car drivers who go to court for speeding: FIVE punishments. Number of people hurt= zero.
Local burglar in court: non attendance, three counts of burglary, one of receiving, one of skipping bail. Conditional discharge.

No, of course not, but STOP treating it as a way to maintain police targets and a money-making exercise. Put cameras/checks outside schools, etc etc, NOT just after a bend and a bridge on a clear, dry motorway. OR just round a bend on a 40-limited road that EVERYONE but the council knows ought to be 60 or more.
The one on the motorway is there almost every saturday and sunday, catching people going towards the coast.
There is another, in Hull, set to catch people coming off the ferries. It is placed, hidden, just BEFORE the limit changes 40 to 50......

And WHY hide them if idea is to keep people from speeding?

FELIX, get it through your head: I don't condone speeding and rarely speed myself.

But I CANNOT support the present scam that is speeding enforcement and will make my displeasure known whenever I can .

Highway robbery, and demanding money with menaces have no place in the 21st century.

And any police officer who thinks they have is a disgrace to the uniform and what it meant when I was a child.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

You've already agreed with me that the money does not go to Force, but to central Government. But camera positions are decided by the Police, usually in conjunction with local Councils, and the two between them pay for the enforcement. Neither of these groups see a penny. So please explain to me why it's "just for revenue", because I'm struggling understand why you keep using that phrase. If the people who do the work, don't get the money, and the people who get the money don't do the work, how in God's name are you getting to "just for revenue"??