On Jul 22, 9:52*pm, Palindrome wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, is that how you got away with speeding so often Sue?

Just asking,
bRAINS

http://www.justservices.com/9ukp.html
http://www.justservices.com/open/i/diy.html

"PDR" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

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.

How about the streetlighting? Does that all hide, too?

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.

Just as well you explicitly do have that opportunity, in that the
evidence is submitted according to the normal rules before the court date
if you choose to go that way.

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.

Really?

"Your car was photographed speeding. Was it you?"
"No"
"Fair enough, the prosecution case will go ahead in front of a
magistrate, where you'll have the opportunity to plead not guilty and
argue your case"

Palindrome gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

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.

Oh, gawd... Are you one of those people who brakes from 45 to 25 at the
merest sign of a camera - even though it's a 60 limit?

It's _straightforward_ to know what the applicable limit is. It's basic
information that all drivers SHOULD know at ALL times. If you don't, then
either you really ought to get your short-term memory problems
investigated, or you may wish to drastically improve your observation.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"PDR" gurgled happily, sounding much
How about the streetlighting? Does that all hide, too?

The presence of street lighting means nothing. There are illuminated
stretches of numerous motorways and national-speed-linit dual carriageways.
The presence of the streetlighting may also not be that obvious in daytime.

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.

Really?

"Your car was photographed speeding. Was it you?"
"No"
"Fair enough, the prosecution case will go ahead in front of a
magistrate, where you'll have the opportunity to plead not guilty and
argue your case"

You missed out the important step. In reality it is:

"Your car was photographed speeding. Was it you? Be advise that if you say
it was right now, before we produce even a shred of evidence to support our
allegation then you will get off with a slapped wrist, but if you don't and
then attempt to challenge us in the court then it will cost you big-time."
"Ah, so I'm completely stiched then?"
"Yes Sir, that's the way we've rigged the system. We've had letters of
complaint from Robert Mugabe and Slobby Milosovic threatening to sue us from
bringing dictators into disrepute".
"Well in that case I guess the only answer I can give is 'yes'..."
"Very wise, Sir."

PDR

Tim Woodall wrote:
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.

There is another issue here which I think transcends our dislike of
speeding. It is an issue of information and access to it. I am of the
view that it is ok for the government to collect large amounts of
information on us but there is a flipside if this information is going
to be used as a weapon against us we should be given immediate access to
it.

In this case there is no requirement for a motorist to keep a log of his
car journeys or speeds. Number plate recognition is often false. A photo
of the event could easily be provided to the accused with minimal cost,
I would be happy with a higher fine to cover this cost.

I find a complete trust in authorities is almost always misplaced and
leads to problems.

Excuse me, he admitted guilt immediately *on being provided with the
evidence
requested* - a perfectly reasonable request.

Let's say you kill someone....is it perfectly reasonable to only admit the
offence when presented with evidence? The law always "rewards" people who
fess up as it avoids the cost and time of official proceedings. That's life
I'm afraid and unlikely to change.

To people who say "killing is hardly like speeding": yawn...stop avoiding
the core of the issue.

To people who say "what if I didn't know I was speeding": yawn...you know if
you're an habitual speeder, if you don't you shouldn't be on the road at
all.

The presence of street lighting means nothing.

Wow. I strongly suggest you brush up on the law as it seems you are one of
the hoard of drivers on the road completely ignorant of the speed they are
supposed to be going at any given time. If you don't know the limit of the
road you are on you shouldn't be driving, it's that simple.

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

Your knowledge of legal process is seemingly as poor as your driving. At
this stage you are not being prosecuted, there is no case and you need no
plea. You are simply identifying if you were the driver. You are only
"entitled" to see evidence if you deny and the case goes to court.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 at 19:17:40, Palindrome wrote in
uk.legal :

Gaz wrote:
snip
A crooked description of justice if ever I heard one. This needs to
be stopped. The OP was being asked to admit to an offence he did not
know, or had no way of knowing he had committed.

I do hope that the OP did know that he had been speeding. What he
didn't know was if they had caught him and had enough evidence to
convict. They had and they did.

Even so, he had the right to see the evidence against him before
changing his plea.

I may be wrong, but AIUI, if you were to change your plea part way
through a crown court trial, you wouldn't suffer a punishment over &
above what the original offence demanded, in fact pleading guilty will
get you a lighter sentence - so why is there additional punishment in
the OP's circumstances?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Even so, he had the right to see the evidence against him before
changing his plea.

Indeed. And he exercised that right.

He ought to be thankful it's not one of the many forces who treat a
request for the photo as a refusal of a fixed penalty.

"PDR" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

much How about the streetlighting? Does that all hide, too?

The presence of street lighting means nothing.

passes Highway Code
You may like to refresh your memory of the contents of that.

There are illuminated stretches of numerous motorways and national-
speed-linit dual carriageways.

Well spotted. And, whilst motorways play to different rules, for all non-
motorways, the absence of any repeater signage yet the presence of
streetlights means a default 30 limit, whilst the absence of repeater
signage with no streetlights means default NSL.

The presence of the streetlighting may also not be that obvious in
daytime.

Are you serious? Perhaps you should've gone to SpecSavers.

If you're not seeing bloody great big metal poles with lamp heads
alongside the road, what potential hazards are you also missing?