...don't forget Karl Joyce, who was caught attempting to set fire to a GATSO (but didn't actually do it) is being sent to jail for 12 months!!

See
Speed camera *arsonist* jailed.

I think that this was the chappy who appeared on "The Real Story" on the BBC a week or so ago. The local magistrates escalated the case to the crown court because the maximum sentence that they (magistrates) could give was six months. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

So, a victimless, non-crime gets you put away for a year, but beat up a pensioner for their fish-and-chip supper and get a free trip to Alton Towers.

Shows you what the priorities of the police and courts are [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

mb

[Edited due to quotes messing up the URL link]

[Edited by boomer - 11/28/2003 6:59:22 PM]

 

just don't get me started [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

 

[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

 

he should have set fire to a career burglar

 

It is disgusting. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

I suggest everyone writes to their MP's in the short term, and make sure you don't vote the Labout clown party back into office. I think it should be perfectly obvious to all by now where their governments priorities lie with regard to crime.

To the government the old addage rings true "Crime doesn't pay" (but law abiding people do!)

[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Edited to add: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

fire away!

[Edited by ajm - 11/28/2003 7:58:03 PM]

 

prob with SN (and perhaps the public at large) is the use of comparison to deem punishment worthy.

this bloke is a ****...he tried to set fire to something in public, i dont care if it was a speed camera, phone box or litter bin. send him to jail.

NEW ISSUE:

burglers....send them down for 5 years.

T

 

tw@t he may be, but being a tw@t isn't illegal, is it.

A speed camera is worth about the same as an average car. When was the last you heard of someone getting 12 months for *attempted* criminal damage to a car?

Doubtless the courts justification for the long sentance was "by destroying a speed camera he would endanger life", except we know they can't prove that, not least because the opposite has been found to be true.

Its a miscarriage of justice, tw@t or not.

 

This has been going on for years...

its a well known fact that you can threaten & harm people with little punishment meted out, but threaten the establishment (bricks and mortar) and theyl throw the book at you..

i think if my memory serves me correctly, the guy who was threatening to poison certian supermarket chains got a very lenient sentance, but some people who threatened to firebomb certain london stores, got 5+ years (first offfence)

damaging property isn nice in the hmg,s eyes but granny bashing is..............

as i said before



i never voted the usless numpty in... and i never would...


i just hope some of the ones who did last time feel proud at what he has done!!!




i could go on but id get very p*****d off

M

 

They are probably basing the sentence on the potential earnings of the camera to the thieves in the treasury which we all know is considerably more than the price of a car, speeding as always is treated like some heinous (sp) crime, you get lighter for muggin old women!!

 

Tiggs,

sorry, but ajm (IMHO) is on the right track.

From my personal experience, just over a year ago (October 2002) two "scummy low-lifes" drove past my house in the early hours. They spotted my car on the drive and parked up. After trying to open my front door, they walked around the back and climbed over the fence (at one-fifteen in the morning). After tripping various security lights (which did NOT deter them), they tried to break in through my kitchen window.

Sadly for them, i have decent house security, and before they could cause any serious damage (whilst they were on MY property) the alarm was activated and they ran of (like the cowardly scum that are [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]).

Despite the police attending, plus CCTV evidence of their activities, i was told that "technically no crime had been committed", thus there would be no crime reference number"!!

This is not a fable, this happened to ME!

SO WHY THE **** CAN SCUM WHO INTENTIONALLY ATTEMPT TO DEPRIVE A TAX PAYING CITIZEN OF THEIR PROPERTY be treat more leniently than someone who attempts to stop unelected "businesses" from extorting money out of your average citizen (who probably is happy to comply with the 85-th percentile rule on speed limits - it it was applied correctly)??? [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

mb

 

HELLLLLLLLOOOOOO........did anyone read my post?

the bloke was attempting to commit crime....send him down.


NEEEEEWWWWW ISSSSSSUUEEEEEE

send down these other ppl you lot are using as examples for longer.

electrocute them for all i care.

 

"the bloke was attempting to commit crime....send him down."

Aye, but HOW ABOUT SENDING DOWN EVERY SCUMBAG/********/THEIVINGCNUT as well???????

Sadly this does not happen (unless you are impinging on the huge profits being made by the "partnerships" who run speed cameras!!!

mb

 

Tiggs, you are the epitome of what this country is becoming.

We, aka the general public (excluding yourself of course), view the damage of a speed camera as an insignificant, petty crime. Conversely, we view crimes with direct victims as being serious crime.

It is therefore unreasonable to punish the former more seriously than the latter. It makes no sense. You make no sense.

 

is this a wind up?????

i am all for punishing ppl who do serious crime harder.

let me use a simple example:

man speeds at 150mph and gets 6wks in jail

man beats old granny and gets 6wks in jail

SN's answer is to let the speeder off because the mugger only got 6 wks.

My answer is lock up the speed for 8wks and send granny basher to jail for 8 YEARS

understand?

 

No, not understood. Going to jail for the simple act of speeding is ridiculous. Speeding shouldn't even be a crime.

Its the fact that the punishments are not *proportional* to the crime that we disagree with.

Punishment for trashing speed camer = far too severe
Punishment for mugging = far too lenient

[Edited by ajm - 11/28/2003 11:32:17 PM]

 

Hmmm....so speed is not "bad"?

Man speeds at 150mph and kills another motorist - 6 weeks in jail.

Hmm....I bet you'd all think that 6 weeks would not be enough if it was your wife/daughter/son?

 

Man speeds at 150 and causes no damage, doesn't get caught, who knows?

Man mugs old woman, doesn't get caught, every f***er knows about it.

Mans speeds at 150 and kills someone, were the conditions right? Where was he? What was the limit? Was he p***ed? Was he high? Was he talking to his misses on the mobile? Was he driving a 25 year old car (like the 25 year old laws we obey)? Was he to blame? Was speed the only cause@?

Man mugs old woman, who gives a f**k about the conditions, he's just caused serious problems, but he can expect to get away with the same punishment as the innocent bloke who gets caught speeding. BULLS**T, the laws here stink. Burning cameras is the correct idea. We pay tax on our earnings, then we take what's left and buy a nice car, pay tax on the car, pay tax on any warranty, pay tax on the parts, pay tax on the labour to fit the taxed parts, pay tax on our mandatory insurance, pay road tax, pay tax on the petrol to run the cars, pay tax to drive into our own capital city, pay tax on the money it costs to park it anywhere.

BUT IF YOU GET FOUND OUT DOING 10MPH OVER THE LIMIT, YOU ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH AND SHOULD BE LOCKED UP FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

BOLLOCKS, destroy all speed cameras, this is your call to arms. The government has had it's chance on all the above issues, no more chances, destroy all cameras, and vote the *******s out of power, to be replaced by tree-huggers.

We can't win I guess

 

Err....you know the laws....the solution is simple - don't speed, and you won't get any fines. As I have said many times on here, it is not your RIGHT to drive a car, it is a priviledge. As part of the conditions of holding a UK Driving Licence, it is mandatory that you abide by the rules & laws that are set down by the UK goverment. You can choose to vote differently at the next election if you do not feel the current govt are good enough for your needs.

Jeezo....it's the same as these people that complain about parking tickets - you knew you were in the wrong when you parked, so complaining after the event is fickle.

 

I may add that there are no speed cameras on private property. This includes racetracks. If you have a REAL desire to speed in your car, I suggest you all do it on a track.

What makes you all so unique in having a god-given right to do as you like on publicly owned roads? These roads are governed by the govt on behalf of us the public. They have to set down rules & laws to protect the public from harm & damage. You don't have to agree with these rules, but you should certainly respect them if you are all law-abiding people.

You know the rules, they are set down in law, and as law-abiding people, surely you should abide by the rules. For instance, we all know theft, murder, rape, burglary, etc are all protected by laws and respect them. Speeding is EXACTLY the same in that it is governed by a law. Why do people think they can flout the LAW on speeding yet obey other laws?

[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 1:33:08 AM]

 

Should have burnt a top cop ,a judge and a member of the house of fraud.


This country is getting smelly.

 

Extracts from the article;

He was spotted by a passing motorist (do-gooder)

The motorist called the police (w***er)

on top of the £38,000 camera. (How much - oh yeah, 634 speeding fines worth)

Joyce was arrested after being found in nearby bushes. (they had the helicopter with infra-red out for this terrible crime)

A psychiatric report said Joyce had learning difficulties, but Judge Jacobs said it was obvious the attack had been planned. (there's no excuse, driver or not, for slowing the cash injection to the coppers. He would have got away with it if he'd burgled a house and given the share of monies to his 2 mates who were caught by the camera)

I know people get touchy about speeding, but when the cameras start to appear in the correct places, with speed restrictions that make sense, and driving standards clamped down on to the extent that idiots aren't permitted on the roads (I know I'm dreaming), then people won't mind getting caught.

 

The point I am making is that speeding should not be a crime because in itself there is no victim.

The only crimes required are driving without due care, reckless driving, causing death by dangerous driving etc. If someone is driving faster than they can handle then this is already covered by the crimes above. There is no need, or justification in my view, to have a law against speeding.

The reason there IS a law against speeding is because it is the easy option. Speed is easy to measure and requires no discretion or consideration of the circumstances in each case. The result? Stupid fines and points (efectively a 3 yr suspended sentance!) for doing a crime where there was absolutely NO victim or any negative effects whatsoever!

Getting back to the topic in hand though, the punishment handed out to our witless wouldbe camera trasher was outragously over the top and completely disproportionate to the crime.

It is OUR society, a democracy, and WE should be the ones that decide what crimes deserve stiffer sentances. The government has gone off on its own agenda and now there is a void between public opinion and government policy.

The cure? Vote the clowns out.

[Edited by ajm - 11/29/2003 7:05:59 AM]

 

do you live in Narnia?

there are MILLIONS of cars flying past each other evry day. you HAVE to ule on how quick they can go. to say, go as fast as you like but if you cause a crash THEN we'll deal with it is daft.

why dont we allow everyone to carry guns and knives? thats a victimless crime...just nick them if they stab or shoot each other..great idea!

i cant wait for the day when all cars get GPS speed control installed.

T

 

I'm with Tiggs

 

If I did would you be the ice queen?

But its fair though isn't.

Bad example, the figures show that gun crime has gone up now they are banned.

As I said before, you are the epitome of what this country is fast becoming. You are making your bed and you expect us all to lie in it.

Your perverse views and vitriolic replies betray you.

 

Out of interst ajm, what would you say was a sensible punishment for the would be camera torcher?

 

At the moment GPS is slightly fallible and i don't see that at the moment it could be an effective sollution in controlling traffic offenses.

What happens when it "misses" and decides that you are not on the motorway, but a 30mph road that parallels the m/way? Your car then decelerates to become a 30mph rolling roadblock on the motorway. I wouldn't like to be in that position, waiting for my car to decide that i can once again do the speed limit for the road i'm on, not the one it thinks I'm on.

Will the GPS unit allow unlimited speed on tracks? Or will all track days be limited to the national speed limit because noone has thought to allow the restriction to lift on private land?

Just some food for thought.

IMO, the *only* sollution to traffic law problems and accidents is to introduce a unit that is capable of observing and recording all types of trafic law offences, not just one that is extremely easy to quantify. Said unit would also be capable of moving about, so people would not become aware that they always sit in one location. Maybe the unit being seen would also even have a deterent effect of other crimes unrelated to motoring offences.

Now all i need for my invention is a name... Hmmmm... How about calling him an "officer of the traffic law" or "man to police traffic"? No... i know how about "traffic policeman"?

John.

(edited to add...)

Sorry for reinventing the wheel guys (& gals), I've just been told that once upon a time (or a long time ago, in a gallaxy far, far away if you prefer...) this country used to have policemen who specialised in the enforcement of traffic law, but that they got phased out as someone determind that more money could be made by ignoring the potentially more serious and more danagerous traffic crimes and putting up machines that can very quickly collect revenue for speeding offences only.


[Edited by john_s - 11/29/2003 11:08:33 AM]

 

traffic policeman John? that's sooooo last year

 

I would say it should be the same penalty for attempting to destroy any other piece of road furniture.

Would depend on the exact circumtances and the individuals previous but anything from a caution, maybe a fine or community service?

 

Amen to that! At last a realistic alternative to banning things!

Good post john_s!