James wrote:


"Palindrome" wrote in message

If he knew that he hadn't been speeding, then he would have been
confident of the outcome. Why would anyone who had not been speeding
admit to have done so?

I didn't know I had been speeding, or even if it was my vehicle

When you were in the area, you knew that it was your vehicle when you
were sat in it as you were driving it. You knew what speed you were
doing at all times and what the prevailing speed limit was at those
times. If not, you have no business being behind the wheel.

Thats
why I asked for further information. They refused to send it. I didn't
want to say it was definitely me until I knew it was definitely me.

You must remember if you had been speeding that day, in that area.
Unless you really do speed on so regular a basis that to do so is not at
all memorable. The only uncertainties you had were who had been caught
and if they had the evidence.


Oh, knowing that you were guilty of speeding but hoping that they had
caught someone else instead, or hoping that there was something wrong
with the evidence, is fair enough. But it is hardly "perverting the
course of justice" to have got off with an offence that you actually
did..

It seems reasonable to me to ask for further information before
accepting guilt for an offence, particularly if the alleged offender
cant remember having committed it.

You exceed the speed limit that often that you can't remember when and
where you do so?

If you want to exceed the speed limit, then fine. You will get away with
it most of the time, fine. You will not even remember when and where you
do so, because you do it so often, fine. But, if you get caught, fine.
Just pay the fine, take the points and drive on. Or consider keeping to
the speed limit at all times and have nothing to worry about.


--
Sue

James wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote

You were offered an inducement to quickly admit the offence, you did
not take up that offer, it is no longer available.


Is that legal / ethical?

I didn't take up that offer because I was not sure that I had committed
the offence. I needed further details of the offence clarified before I
could do this, because even though I was driving vaguely in that area at
that time (I am not sure of my exact movements because I was visiting a
friend using satnav to direct me as it was an unfamiliar area) and I did
not recall either speeding or being flashed by a camera for speeding.

OK, so now you *know* that you were speeding.

So, did you not recall doing so because you speed so often that you
don't recall when and where?

Or do you pay so little attention to your speed and speed limits that
you don't notice when you speed?

You may want to invest in a better Satnav that warns you of speedtraps.

--
Sue

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:44:08 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

snip

You must remember if you had been speeding that day, in that area.
Unless you really do speed on so regular a basis that to do so is not at
all memorable. The only uncertainties you had were who had been caught
and if they had the evidence.

Oh come on - are you so perfect that you've never made a mistake about what
speed limit applies in an unfamiliar area? The OP might very well have genuinely
believed he hadn't been speeding.

Setting up a false either/or dichotomy doesn't serve your argument.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

James wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

You were offered an inducement to quickly admit the offence, you did
not take up that offer, it is no longer available.


Is that legal / ethical?

I didn't take up that offer because I was not sure that I had
committed the offence. I needed further details of the offence
clarified before I could do this, because even though I was driving
vaguely in that area at that time

If you were driving vaguely you actually deserve more than you were charged
with.

(I am not sure of my exact
movements because I was visiting a friend using satnav to direct me
as it was an unfamiliar area) and I did not recall either speeding or
being flashed by a camera for speeding.

Oh, come off it! I don't believe you don't know where you were or what you
were doing. Your request for proof was just a vain hope of getting off on
some technicality, but it didn't work. Tough. Why should you deserve any
exercise of discretion in your favour as regards an alternative penalty?

"Palindrome" wrote in message
. ..
James wrote:


"Palindrome" wrote in message

If he knew that he hadn't been speeding, then he would have been
confident of the outcome. Why would anyone who had not been speeding
admit to have done so?

I didn't know I had been speeding, or even if it was my vehicle

When you were in the area, you knew that it was your vehicle when you were
sat in it as you were driving it. You knew what speed you were doing at
all times and what the prevailing speed limit was at those times. If not,
you have no business being behind the wheel.

Thats why I asked for further information. They refused to send it. I
didn't want to say it was definitely me until I knew it was definitely
me.

You must remember if you had been speeding that day, in that area. Unless
you really do speed on so regular a basis that to do so is not at all
memorable. The only uncertainties you had were who had been caught and if
they had the evidence.


Oh, knowing that you were guilty of speeding but hoping that they had
caught someone else instead, or hoping that there was something wrong
with the evidence, is fair enough. But it is hardly "perverting the
course of justice" to have got off with an offence that you actually
did..

It seems reasonable to me to ask for further information before accepting
guilt for an offence, particularly if the alleged offender cant remember
having committed it.

You exceed the speed limit that often that you can't remember when and
where you do so?

If you want to exceed the speed limit, then fine. You will get away with
it most of the time, fine. You will not even remember when and where you
do so, because you do it so often, fine. But, if you get caught, fine.
Just pay the fine, take the points and drive on. Or consider keeping to
the speed limit at all times and have nothing to worry about.

What a pile of sanctimoneous twaddle. It is quite possible to inadvertently
exceed the speed limit in a 30mph zone because there are no repeater signs.
All it takes is for the initial sign which announces the start of the 30mph
zone to be obscured by a bus, an artic or even vegetation. If you don't know
the area it's easy to miss this.

But even that's irrelevant. It's a fundamental princple of English law that
you are innocent until proven guilty. It's another that the accused is
entitled to see the case against him before submitting a plea. It's actually
a criminal offense to attempt to coerce a person into falsely admitting an
offence, but the whole fixed-penalty system is structured specifically to
achieve just this. Any truly JUST legal system would have thrown out this
practice decades ago because it is an obvious "breach of natural justice" as
Demming would have said.

Id infer from the purile argument above that "Suze" is neither a driver nor
an adult, so I suggest she gets back to waiting for her SATs results and
playing with her dollies.

PDR

Mike Ross wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:44:08 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

snip

You must remember if you had been speeding that day, in that area.
Unless you really do speed on so regular a basis that to do so is not at
all memorable. The only uncertainties you had were who had been caught
and if they had the evidence.

Oh come on - are you so perfect that you've never made a mistake about what
speed limit applies in an unfamiliar area?

How would I know? Unless I have reason to go back there again and find
out that I was wrong the first time, the odds are that I would have done
so in blissful ignorance. But, if there is no other traffic, I have to
be really, really sure what the limit is, to go through a speedcam at
over 30.

The OP might very well have genuinely
believed he hadn't been speeding.

If it were me, I'd want to reload the end points into the satnav and
repeat the trip, being very, very watchful for speedcams. To work out
why I had got it wrong. I'd be looking out for a reason to contest the
speeding on the basis of incorrect, inadequate or masked signage, rather
than try to contest anything on the basis of how long it took for the
evidence to arrive. If everything was legal and OK, then it was my fault
and the points and fine are fair enough.

Setting up a false either/or dichotomy doesn't serve your argument.

See above. I don't deliberately speed so, if I did get caught doing so,
I would want to work out how I got caught out - not how to get out of
the consequences, if it was genuinely my error.

--
Sue

In message , PDR
writes



But even that's irrelevant. It's a fundamental princple of English law that
you are innocent until proven guilty. It's another that the accused is
entitled to see the case against him before submitting a plea.


I know little about the law but, in normal criminal cases, the defendant
may have little detailed knowledge of the evidence against him until the
trial gets going. He is first asked to plead 'guilty' or 'not guilty',
then the prosecution presents its evidence against him. At least that's
what they do on TV and in the movies!

However, in a case of being accused of speeding, it's pretty obvious
that you may have absolutely no recollection of having exceeded the
speed limit. Maybe you did (inadvertently), and maybe you didn't. If you
did, you might want to say 'sorry', and pay your fine. But it would be
nice to have some simple proof that you did.

With speed cameras and the like, I thought that it was standard practice
to get a picture of your transgression sent you. Certainly my neighbour,
who was sent four summonses for traffic violations, got nice colour
pictures of a car bearing number plates showing the same (but fake)
number.
--
Ian

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:24:17 -0400,
Mike Ross wrote:

You were offered an inducement to quickly admit the offence, you did not
take up that offer, it is no longer available.

Excuse me, he admitted guilt immediately *on being provided with the evidence
requested* - a perfectly reasonable request. Perhaps his wife was also driving
in the same area that day, and he needed the photo to hopefully confirm who was
driving.

The 28 day clock starts when he sees the photo, IMHO - not when the NIP arrives.
That's only fair and just. If the camera operators are unable to get the photo
in a reasonable timeframe (shouldn't be hard - 'give us the NIP reference number
and your email address, Sir - you'll have it within the hour') that's their
problem, not his.


If someone said "You owe me 1000 pounds. But if you settle it this week
I'll take 800 as full settlement. Otherwise I'm going to sue you for the
lot plus interest".

Do you really think if you then said "I don't agree I owe you the money.
Prove it" and they then did prove it, they'd then give you another week
to pay the 800?

IIRC, the penalty for a successful prosecution for speeding is at least three
points plus a 60GBP fine.

Nothing is denying your right to dispute that you were speeding.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:28:57 +0100,
James wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote

You were offered an inducement to quickly admit the offence, you did not
take up that offer, it is no longer available.


Is that legal / ethical?

Of course it is. Nothing is denying you your day in court. But if you'd
been even marginally awake when you were driving you'd have gone past
whatever camera it was with a "****, I hope the speed limit is 40 here"
and then when the NIP arrived you'd have realized that you were wrong.

You didn't see the speed limit signs and you didn't see the camera - or
you're a habitual speeder who didn't see the camera or perhaps you just
drive around oblivious to speed limits (and cameras).


In some respects I think it's unfortunate you're not going to go on that
speed awareness course because maybe it could help your driving.

But you could pay the fine, get the points and then find your local IAM
or ROSPA group and talk to them. They'll offer something. I think you'll
have to pay something for IAM. I think the ROSPA stuff will be free.

Tim.


--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:15:35 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:24:17 -0400,
Mike Ross wrote:

You were offered an inducement to quickly admit the offence, you did not
take up that offer, it is no longer available.

Excuse me, he admitted guilt immediately *on being provided with the evidence
requested* - a perfectly reasonable request. Perhaps his wife was also driving
in the same area that day, and he needed the photo to hopefully confirm who was
driving.

The 28 day clock starts when he sees the photo, IMHO - not when the NIP arrives.
That's only fair and just. If the camera operators are unable to get the photo
in a reasonable timeframe (shouldn't be hard - 'give us the NIP reference number
and your email address, Sir - you'll have it within the hour') that's their
problem, not his.


If someone said "You owe me 1000 pounds. But if you settle it this week
I'll take 800 as full settlement. Otherwise I'm going to sue you for the
lot plus interest".

Do you really think if you then said "I don't agree I owe you the money.
Prove it" and they then did prove it, they'd then give you another week
to pay the 800?

Well this is a case of someone saying 'someone appears to owe me 1000 pounds -
maybe it was you, or your wife, or your son, or that friend you had visiting, or
maybe some complete stranger cloned your name...'

You see my point? IF the OP had scratched his head, thought 'I don't remember
being there, but maybe I was... I better admit it and go on this course' and a
subsequent check of the photo had shown beyond doubt his wife had been driving,
who would be up for PCJ?

How does it serve the ends of justice to effectively deny the option of the
course to those who need to make some checks before admitting guilt, especially
given the number of cases of cloning, or genuine doubt as to who might have been
driving? What is the POINT? What is the 28 day HURRY?

AFAICS all it is is an administrative convenience, gets revenue in faster.
Giving people longer to check before accepting they did it and taking the course
wouldn't hurt anyone. Except those who seem to take pleasure in schadenfreude
and are so quick to say 'you had your chance, you lost it, take your
punishment'. This is supposed to be justice, not a civil debt where it makes
business sense to offer a discount for quick settlement, to 'get revenue in'!

(Presumably they think it's a Good Thing to get drivers on this course,
otherwise they wouldn't offer it in the first place)

If I was in the OPs position I would tell them to get a horse, and ignore any
subsequent communications.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'