Felix.

There have been many cases which have questioned whether this requirement for information is a breach of the doctrine against self-incrimination, or of a person's human rights. All of these cases to date have fallen foul at the European Court of Human Rights and in the Higher Courts of the UK, because the Court has formed the view that the request for information is proportionate to the need to manage road safety. It is therefore still a legitimate requirement for the Police to request this information.

Any other crime..... 3 people come forward and accuse you of burgling their shed and state they have witnessed you doing it. So as not to incriminate yourself, you elect to go 'no reply' to all questions. What do you think will happen at court?

You are the registered keeper of the car - were you driving the car at this time
Answer - yes, no, don't know.

Not exactly hard is it.

Like it or not, those are the rules of the road. If you don't like them, then get the bus or walk.
I would suggest the majority of the public are quite happy with them and try not to speed - but if they do, they just accept the fact that they take a risk and move on.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Sigh. You simply don't get it do you?

Not surprising really........

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

He's a policeman schooled in oppression how could he. Their brainwashed from the minute they join principals and common sense go clean out the window they basically turn into robots stating what's in the book. Wouldn't be so bad if half of them new or understood what's in the book

Felix.

So what would you rather happen then - the police have to stop you there and then at the wheel to prove who the driver was. Otherwise the registered keeper does not have to disclose anything?

dpb

Maybe they don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about ,given your lack of spelling


just an idea lol

^Qwerty^

I think being realistic, saying you don't know (and assuming you're genuine, not somebody trying it on) will still end up with you, the RK getting points and fine, unless they jump through hoops and are the second coming of Christ. You'll have to prove why you don't know rather than the CPS prove you do or were the driver.

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

Think you may give me an English lesson for I don't see much wrong with it.

Felix.

There are a couple of stated cases along these lines:

Tim Williamson recently represented a motorist accused of not providing driver details after an alleged speeding offence took place near Oxford. The client maintained that he could not identify who was driving because he was one of two people that used the car and the photograph he requested was unclear and offered no assistance. Both of the potential drivers drove the car on the road in question several times each day. After representations to the Crown Prosecution Service from Mr Williamson that the client used 'reasonable diligence' to try and ascertain who was driving on the day in question, the case was formally discontinued before getting to trial.

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

Must of made an out of court arrangement in the chambers with the Judge as they do and they do because it has been done for me. All depends on how well the Barrister knows the Judge. There is no such thing as justice money rules the roost.

Felix.

Sometimes CPS decide themselves to drop it

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

B******t if they think they can get away with it you've had it. Unless your prepared to cough up. I think you call it bribery don't know what fancy law abiding term the Justice system call it.

Felix.

No, its a stated case. It cant just be ignored.

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

You really are brainwashed Sir and I'm not being ignorant have you ever heard the saying there's more than one way to skin a cat. It's only when you are put in, end up in, by choice or not you realise how corrupt and unjust the powers that be can be and do be. They believe me can do anything they wish.

Felix.

So I take it this has happened to you, or what are you judging it on?
And what 'other way' would be used to counter the stated case?

^Qwerty^

There always are such cases, but it sounds likes the onus was on the accused to prove their innocence rather than the CPS prove they were guilty. Not everybody can afford the likes of a "Tim Williamson" to represent them either.

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

Indeed.

I successfully 'got off' a speeding conviction...

To cut a long story short, I employed the services of a solicitor to draw up a detailed map of the road layout, etc in question, with a supporting statement in mitigation, etc, etc. (but it was more a damning of the complainant copper, than mitigation lol ).

As soon as the complainant copper at court saw this evidence, he couldn't believe the lengths the defendant had gone to (I guess the police just expected me to simply 'give in' after NIP was served)...

So the magistrates simply threw out the case.

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

You are really starting to sound like a policeman now. I don't have to justify the in's and out's to yourself. Now please stop trying to plead not guilty to facts that I and numerous others no are true. Now I'm sorry but I'm sick of you trying to defend a corrupt organisation so I'm going to sign off and let you go and think about the truth.


P.S. Make sure its a long hard truthful think.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

....Ahh but no reply is proof of guilt or that you were just making the whole lot up

FWIW my accounts are not made up or exaggerated which is what's being insinuated in this thread in attempt to mitigate and condone what happened. I just don't want to provide further details whilst the case is being pursued. I have seen the CCTV and I have provided character witness and that's as far as I will go.

As I said I used to have a lot of respect, but that opinion I feel nowadays is that its increasingly not deserved on a increasing level. It's all these seeming anecdotal experiences that add up to a relatively negative opinion.

Another experience I have which doesn't help when CCTV footage I provided to help convict a criminal (one of two), which resulted in a thwarted retaliation attempt against me and my property. I won't go into further details, however as a result, that's the last time I will ever provide evidence or witness for their use in cases not related to me or friends/family.

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

No porkies whatsoever just the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

pflowers

I used to think all Policemen turn into W*nkers.

Now I believe it's actually the other way round...

I've posted my opinions on them a few years back, and nothing has happened since to change my mind.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Exactly!

Just because felix (says he) hasn't seen it, that means it's not happening, or that it's happening in such small amounts that it DOESN'T MATTER?

Not so, sir, not so.

Felix.

My response to the above threads about being taken to court over matters:

(post 100) - "Sometimes CPS decide themselves to drop it"

The next post below that from '1509joe' states - "B******t if they think they can get away........."

So, are you suggesting that I am lying? Are you suggesting that CPS have never dropped a case prior to it going to court? Are you wanting me to just let this slide and believe that "B******t if they think they can get away........." is correct and CPS always take things to court and use the 'more than one way to skin a cat' model of prosecution?

So I must have dreamt up all those endless meeting with CPS arguing over cases.

Felix.

And where have I said that?

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

You can turn the tape off now interviews over.

Felix.

You mean you can't answer.

You're happy to argue against me, but when I put up a question of contradiction to your point - you just walk away.

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

Felix your brainwashed by the bosses if they tell you its been dropped its been dropped and there's diddly squat you can do about it. You have no way to tell why its been dropped. Your superiors have told go home wee boy we'll deal with this.

As for this statement.


You're happy to argue against me, but when I put up a question of contradiction to your point - you just walk away.


I personally can't be bothered to have a discussion with somebody who refuses to accept their wrong. Now I know you will have to get the last word in as you all do but you work away you obviously can't read 99% of peoples views of the police/justice system now f**k off and leave my head in peace with your b******t and lies.

dpb

Some people just cant cope with Authority figures

legb4rsk

Public Servants?

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

Is right Sir I used to be one and I had bosses that told me what to do and you don't argue you just do as your told and go about your day

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

not being pedantic but could you elaborate on arguing with cps ? surely they know if a case will stick or not, or is it a case of well let's take em to court guilty or not an see if it go's our way like they tryed with me, untill my brief pointed out to the cps that they may as well sit down in court as they didn't have a leg to stand on at which point the case was dropped and pc barnabus was told to stop waisting cps's time