dpb

....anybody on here.?

hedgehog

If you are considering this as a form of defence then, at least in England, this loophole in the law is closed. There is a possibility that it may work in Scotland and if that is the case then you may want to discuss the matter on Pepipoo. There are also a wide range of other defences which can, and do, work well. Be very careful that you admit to nothing in writing on any internet forum as the police now employ highly trained officers to monitor internet sites lest any citizen say anything which may be used in evidence.

dpb

Hedgehog i think youve blown youre cover.

you simply cannot be serious.

re. officers trawling internet sites....!!

Turbohot

I did.It was sent back to me.I sent it back again unsigned.Then they summonned me.There is no way out,DuncAn.If you keep sending it back and forth unsigned and if you do have some points already on your license,you are making your case weeker. You will end up appearing in court and will end up paying lofty fine plus,you will get the points anyway.
I was told about all this "loop hole" business of signing etc but believe me,it doesn't work.
Sign it asap( if you were the driver and you did speed/break the law even by mistake) and get it over with.I know it is unfortunate but that's the only way mate.
< In my experienced opinion but bear this in your mind,i live in Richard Burstram's(sp.) area>

scoobfan

If you don't sign it can be deemened as failure to cooperate.

Rob

PG

take it like a man.

dpb

im not bitter - much

PG

hedgehog

Unfortunately I am absolutely serious. I had been warning for some time that this was happening but they achieved a prosecution of a motorist based upon what he had said on the Pepipoo site and in the newspaper report on the subject admitted that they now deploy staff to study internet forums for evidence. If you check back through my posts there is a link to the quote from the camera partnership where they state this. Remember, no matter how paranoid you are it is probably not actually as bad as the facts :-)

druddle

Yes i have sent one back unsigned. Yes they are aware of the loophole, and yes the forces do monitor sites like Pepipoo.

I am off to magistrates court on Monday so will let you know what happens.

Dave

dpb

I can well believe pepipoo and the like are being monitored - but every other tom dick an harry car enthusiast site........??..and can ISPs give your identity away.??

NotoriousREV

There was a case on some Max Power-kiddies type site where a girl and her boyfriend ended up being done for perverting the source of justice afer she posted saying she'd taken the points for him when he was driving. And yes, ISP's can give your identity away (under certain circumstances).

EDIT: forgot the point of my post

I sent back an unsigned form back when this was a "new" loophole and it was never persued. MrsREV tried the same some time later and has 3 points + £200 fine for failing to provide information, so don't bother with that one anymore!

Trucker Ted

I sent one back unsigned and they sent it back with the signature part highlighted.I still didnt send it and three weeks later got a visit from the police threatening to charge me with a s172 failure to supply details ,so i said i was driving,so i then received the fixed penalty offer which i havent returned so now waitng for my day in court.

Check out www.pepipoo.com for loads of good advice!

Freak

will be doing so on monday- only thing to be written on the form will be 'see attached' and then will be sending the PACE statement complete with driver details which provides the police with the information they require, but in a form that cannot be used as evidence as to the driver's identity in a court of law. This one: http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=2846

It works still

brihoppy

it surely cant be possible that comments made on an internet forum can be admissable as evidence...?!

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

if you sign it surely that is an admission of guilt what the **** happened to innocent till proven guilty

andy97

iTrader: (1)

The unsigned nip has been shown to work in scotland, but not in England. The loop hole in the law was closed shut when Francis idris lost his high court appeal.

The pace witness statement is creating lots of headaches for the police /cps.

see www.pepipoo.com

pete1977

sounds good to me.They must be gutted info like this is out in the public domain!LOL

hedgehog

I believe that what you say on an internet forum may indeed be presented as evidence in court. If you consider that if you walked up to someone in the street and confessed to a crime then it is possible that the person may be called to give evidence as to what you said. From this you can see how a confession on an internet forum is not very different. I believe it would count as a voluntary confession under PACE. Hence why a crack team of police officers sit around all day eating donuts and surfing the net, it is much easier to do someone for typing a few words out of place than it is to catch a real criminal.

In practical terms it is likely that those people who have been sucessfully prosecuted because of something they said on an internet forum probably gave a further verbal confession to police after being cautioned, or at least said something that further incriminated them. This is why it is important to say nothing at all to police and to say nothing at all in public that could be used against you. Even if you didn't do anything wrong it is possible that incorrect use of words could be used against you, you could accidentally confess to a crime that never took place.

It has been suggested that it may make for an amusing diversion to post a range of false confessions so as to misdirect police effort and also to make it tricky for them to pick out the real, useful, confessions among all the honeypot type traps. Of course this might lead to the possibility of a conviction for obstruction or perverting the course of justice. Can you believe that posting an exagerated boast on an internet forum might land you with a criminal record? Well, I'd say it is pretty possible right here and now.

All told this is an interesting area for discussion and it opens up some fairly unpleasant aspects of society for examination. I certainly don't much like what I see.

boomer

...and if they can't get the NIP to hold, and fail on the 172, they will just pull a Section 44 out of the bag - just like Hampshire police did to 4400 people in the last few months.

Then they will confiscate your computer as "evidence" so - you can't get to your e-mail, lose your stash of downloaded ****, are unable to access your on-line banking, miss out on Scoobynet and expose all your private passwords to the donut hackers

If only the Police State could focus on the criminals, not just the easy targets!

mb

boomer

Oops, sorry about the rant, but when even Blair's Broadcasting Company start highlighting the issue - you gotta wonder!

mb

hedgehog

What might have been interesting to know wasn't just that 4,400 people were stopped and searched in Hampshire but the number of those people who were found to be committing a crime or who were carrying something which was dodgy or who were terrorists.

Clearly if 4,000 of those stopped were arrested for terrorism then it is possible that the law was well used and I am sure the detection rate for terrorism in the area has gone through the roof. On the other hand if hardly any of those stopped were found to be committing a crime, apart from driving or walking somewhere that the administration would rather they didn't, then clearly there is a problem both with the law and with the way in which the police are applying it. If a proportion of the people stopped went on to be arrested for crimes other than terrorism then this shows that the law is being misused, it was supposed to catch terrorists so why is it being used to catch other criminals when there may be powers more suitable for their crimes? Under such circumstances it would be revealed to us that the law is nothing but a catch all to allow the administration to pick on anyone that didn't take their fancy.

Freak

I have a question (may start a seperate thread on it if no response in here):

If convicted of an S172 (failing to provide) is that a criminal conviction? ie- would one then have a criminal record? Or are motoring pffences/convictions different?

andy97

iTrader: (1)

S172 and speeding are criminal offences.

Big Den

done the unsigned bit but still got a COFP (conditional offer of fixed penalty). Not replied to that so am at the wait & see stage.

They are all *****

andy97

iTrader: (1)

I would expect you're going to get a summons for failing to provide information Sec172, unless you're very lucky!

Tiggs

they may be.....but your "plan" is a tad daft......what are you hoping? the computer forgets about you?

Big Den

Just following the pepipoo advice m8.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

If you have sent a pace statement, then that is a different matter, or you were in bonny Scotland

druddle

Just got back from court. As the prosecution didnt have their evidence ready, case has been referred for a Pre Trial Review (PTR) in Jan and the trial in April 06.

Dave