Idris Francis
04 November 2005, 11:59 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idris Francis
As many know Idris was the chap who was involved in the "unsigned" loophole regarding the NIP that is sent by automated speed enforcement systems. Idris has always been of the view that the NIP effectively demands a written confession and so is illegal. He has been taking a case in the ECHR in an attempt to have the NIP declared illegal and to restore the right to silence. Should he win speeding motorists would have to be identified through witness evidence and so this should put an end to the NIP, s172 and automated policing of our roads. In turn it is hoped that if Idris were to win in Europe then the UK may go back to sensible traffic policing run by experienced police officers who have been given suitable training.
The campaign has been given a boost by the ECHR who have accepted that the case is admissable and have send the following to Idris:
"The court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the application raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 para 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible have been established. For these reasons, the Court unanimously declares the applications admissible, without pre-judging the merits of the case."
An expert in ECHR law has already concluded, using the statements issued in relation to similar previous cases, that the ECHR have accepted that what Idris is saying is correct and that, in principal, they have judged in his favour. I have no idea what that is worth in the real world but as you can see this case is gathering momentum.
Idris has been given a date of 6th January as the final date to submit his costs (he would be entitled to a award based on his costs if he wins) and so is hopeful that the decision may be reached in the first few months of next year. Hopefully this will be good news for all motorists and we will start to see a return to sensible roads policing and falling fatalities on our roads.
The campaign has been given a boost by the ECHR who have accepted that the case is admissable and have send the following to Idris:
"The court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the application raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 para 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible have been established. For these reasons, the Court unanimously declares the applications admissible, without pre-judging the merits of the case."
An expert in ECHR law has already concluded, using the statements issued in relation to similar previous cases, that the ECHR have accepted that what Idris is saying is correct and that, in principal, they have judged in his favour. I have no idea what that is worth in the real world but as you can see this case is gathering momentum.
Idris has been given a date of 6th January as the final date to submit his costs (he would be entitled to a award based on his costs if he wins) and so is hopeful that the decision may be reached in the first few months of next year. Hopefully this will be good news for all motorists and we will start to see a return to sensible roads policing and falling fatalities on our roads.
04 November 2005, 12:10 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good!
I was 'done' for doing 43 in a 40. Camera 'shot' the back of the car so no picture of ther driver avaliable just the car from behind. The car was an estate with leag tints and two seta of headrest between the camera and drivers head, you really could not tell if anyone was at the wheel!
I went to court and was done for it as the car was in my name. We really could not remeber who was driving, this is a road we travel down around 4-6 times a day on average. We where both off of work that week and i could have been either of us driving.
So i was convicted bacasue the car was in my name!
That's british justice for ya and i hope this now changes things!
I was 'done' for doing 43 in a 40. Camera 'shot' the back of the car so no picture of ther driver avaliable just the car from behind. The car was an estate with leag tints and two seta of headrest between the camera and drivers head, you really could not tell if anyone was at the wheel!
I went to court and was done for it as the car was in my name. We really could not remeber who was driving, this is a road we travel down around 4-6 times a day on average. We where both off of work that week and i could have been either of us driving.
So i was convicted bacasue the car was in my name!
That's british justice for ya and i hope this now changes things!
04 November 2005, 12:26 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
I bet the government spooks will get to him first if it looks like its going his way.......
I'd be running scared......old billy boy will be calling in the spec ops boys.
Take him out at all costs
I'd be running scared......old billy boy will be calling in the spec ops boys.
Take him out at all costs
04 November 2005, 12:58 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
Good!
I was 'done' for doing 43 in a 40. Camera 'shot' the back of the car so no picture of ther driver avaliable just the car from behind. The car was an estate with leag tints and two seta of headrest between the camera and drivers head, you really could not tell if anyone was at the wheel!
I went to court and was done for it as the car was in my name. We really could not remeber who was driving, this is a road we travel down around 4-6 times a day on average. We where both off of work that week and i could have been either of us driving.
So i was convicted bacasue the car was in my name!
That's british justice for ya and i hope this now changes things!
I was 'done' for doing 43 in a 40. Camera 'shot' the back of the car so no picture of ther driver avaliable just the car from behind. The car was an estate with leag tints and two seta of headrest between the camera and drivers head, you really could not tell if anyone was at the wheel!
I went to court and was done for it as the car was in my name. We really could not remeber who was driving, this is a road we travel down around 4-6 times a day on average. We where both off of work that week and i could have been either of us driving.
So i was convicted bacasue the car was in my name!
That's british justice for ya and i hope this now changes things!
Dave
04 November 2005, 01:02 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A big town with sh1t shops: Northampton
Posts: 21,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
We really could not remeber who was driving, this is a road we travel down around 4-6 times a day on average. We where both off of work that week and i could have been either of us driving.
I think that the Court will not rule in favour of this man.... Not that I've got a conspiracy theorist mind or anything.
Think how much pressure they'd get from Governments of all EU states should he win. They'd be losing a great deal of revenue!
Trending Topics
04 November 2005, 01:07 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Clarebabes
Is this Mereway by any chance?
I think that the Court will not rule in favour of this man.... Not that I've got a conspiracy theorist mind or anything.
Think how much pressure they'd get from Governments of all EU states should he win. They'd be losing a great deal of revenue!
I think that the Court will not rule in favour of this man.... Not that I've got a conspiracy theorist mind or anything.
Think how much pressure they'd get from Governments of all EU states should he win. They'd be losing a great deal of revenue!
I was ripping down there 3mph over the limit.
04 November 2005, 01:24 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Clarebabes
Is this Mereway by any chance?
I think that the Court will not rule in favour of this man.... Not that I've got a conspiracy theorist mind or anything.
Think how much pressure they'd get from Governments of all EU states should he win. They'd be losing a great deal of revenue!
I think that the Court will not rule in favour of this man.... Not that I've got a conspiracy theorist mind or anything.
Think how much pressure they'd get from Governments of all EU states should he win. They'd be losing a great deal of revenue!
ETA: Oh, unless it involves the French of course.
04 November 2005, 03:50 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A big town with sh1t shops: Northampton
Posts: 21,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
Hi Clare and yes, Mereway
I was ripping down there 3mph over the limit.
I was ripping down there 3mph over the limit.
04 November 2005, 04:04 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will check with Idris but I believe that he is financially secure if he loses. He has had considerable support from a range of individuals and organisations who are committed to the UK public being allowed access to private transport.
I believe that Liberty (No, not the department store) are dealing with the legal aspects of his case while Idris, in association with many pro-private transport supporters, are assisting with the production of factual material relating to the use, deployment etc. of automated-policing systems. That I am aware all the submissions have been made but Idris and Liberty are going to ask for a hearing at the ECHR rather than just a written judgement.
The aim of this is not to get people off with speeding but to get traffic police back on to the roads and to protect our right to silence and to stop the government sending out what appear to be almost random NIPs claiming that you've committed a crime and you'd better confess. So, hopefully if Idris wins it will have a beneficial effect on two fronts: it will blunt the efforts of the anti-motoring lobby who are trying to tax and enforce us on to the bus and it will improve road safety by returning properly trained traffic police who have the respect of motorists to the roads. In the long term this is also a win for government as access to private transport is economically and socially desirable and respect for the police is important from every angle.
I believe that Liberty (No, not the department store) are dealing with the legal aspects of his case while Idris, in association with many pro-private transport supporters, are assisting with the production of factual material relating to the use, deployment etc. of automated-policing systems. That I am aware all the submissions have been made but Idris and Liberty are going to ask for a hearing at the ECHR rather than just a written judgement.
The aim of this is not to get people off with speeding but to get traffic police back on to the roads and to protect our right to silence and to stop the government sending out what appear to be almost random NIPs claiming that you've committed a crime and you'd better confess. So, hopefully if Idris wins it will have a beneficial effect on two fronts: it will blunt the efforts of the anti-motoring lobby who are trying to tax and enforce us on to the bus and it will improve road safety by returning properly trained traffic police who have the respect of motorists to the roads. In the long term this is also a win for government as access to private transport is economically and socially desirable and respect for the police is important from every angle.
05 November 2005, 10:32 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just hope he doesn't go walking in the woods!
Whatever the reasons behind this appeal, and many can be quoted, it is vital that people are not being convicted on the basis of faulty evidence or for the sake of filling the authorities' coffers at all costs.
Money seems to be very important and takes precedence over all else as far as this scaly buinch are concerned. They deserve a bloody nose and to be forced into fair methods of traffic management over this.
Les
Whatever the reasons behind this appeal, and many can be quoted, it is vital that people are not being convicted on the basis of faulty evidence or for the sake of filling the authorities' coffers at all costs.
Money seems to be very important and takes precedence over all else as far as this scaly buinch are concerned. They deserve a bloody nose and to be forced into fair methods of traffic management over this.
Les
05 November 2005, 10:39 AM
#19
Originally Posted by Leslie
Just hope he doesn't go walking in the woods!
Whatever the reasons behind this appeal, and many can be quoted, it is vital that people are not being convicted on the basis of faulty evidence or for the sake of filling the authorities' coffers at all costs.
Money seems to be very important and takes precedence over all else as far as this scaly buinch are concerned. They deserve a bloody nose and to be forced into fair methods of traffic management over this.
Les
Whatever the reasons behind this appeal, and many can be quoted, it is vital that people are not being convicted on the basis of faulty evidence or for the sake of filling the authorities' coffers at all costs.
Money seems to be very important and takes precedence over all else as far as this scaly buinch are concerned. They deserve a bloody nose and to be forced into fair methods of traffic management over this.
Les
Alcazar
05 November 2005, 10:58 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
43 in a 40! That's effing shocking. I doubt if most speedos are that accurate.
The unwritten rule used to be +10% or 10 mph above the limit before you were "done" by a white capped Cop.
Robots have a lot to answer for.
K.
The unwritten rule used to be +10% or 10 mph above the limit before you were "done" by a white capped Cop.
Robots have a lot to answer for.
K.
05 November 2005, 02:55 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leslie
Just hope he doesn't go walking in the woods!
Les
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
lightning101
Non Scooby Related
2
18 November 2004 06:40 PM