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

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.

You're sounding like a prosecuter Sue.

Steve in Herts wrote:
snip
You're sounding like a prosecuter Sue.

I do have a lot of sympathy for those that have made an honest mistake
that, historically, would have got them a ticking off from a constable,
at most. Almost every minor criminal act is treated thus - except
motoring offences.

I would suggest that an isolated minor motoring offence should attract a
fixed penalty but no points and should be removed from the offender's
record after a year - provided no other motoring offences took place
during that year. Only if a further motoring offence takes places within
that year should it even be necessary to inform others (eg, employer,
insurance company, etc) of the first (and subsequent) one. The points
that would normally have gone with the first offence will be
automatically added on conviction for the second.


--
Sue

At 17:16:34 on 27/07/2008, Palindrome delighted uk.legal by announcing:

Steve in Herts wrote:
snip
You're sounding like a prosecuter Sue.

I do have a lot of sympathy for those that have made an honest
mistake that, historically, would have got them a ticking off from a
constable, at most. Almost every minor criminal act is treated thus -
except motoring offences.

I would suggest that an isolated minor motoring offence should
attract a fixed penalty but no points and should be removed from the
offender's record after a year - provided no other motoring offences
took place during that year.

To what end? How is that an improvement on the points system?

Only if a further motoring offence takes
places within that year should it even be necessary to inform others
(eg, employer, insurance company, etc) of the first (and subsequent)
one. The points that would normally have gone with the first offence
will be automatically added on conviction for the second.

Insurance companies generally don't care about one SP30 on your
licence, and it isn't necessary to inform most employers at all. I'm
curious though - do you not think it a relevant risk factor to be
considered by an insurance company at all?

Alex wrote:
At 17:16:34 on 27/07/2008, Palindrome delighted uk.legal by announcing:

Steve in Herts wrote:
snip
You're sounding like a prosecuter Sue.
I do have a lot of sympathy for those that have made an honest
mistake that, historically, would have got them a ticking off from a
constable, at most. Almost every minor criminal act is treated thus -
except motoring offences.

I would suggest that an isolated minor motoring offence should
attract a fixed penalty but no points and should be removed from the
offender's record after a year - provided no other motoring offences
took place during that year.

To what end? How is that an improvement on the points system?

The points scheme is all about deterring repeat offenders. This change
would greatly increase the deterrent against a second offence - because
the offender would not only get the points for that, but also for the
first offence.


Only if a further motoring offence takes
places within that year should it even be necessary to inform others
(eg, employer, insurance company, etc) of the first (and subsequent)
one. The points that would normally have gone with the first offence
will be automatically added on conviction for the second.

Insurance companies generally don't care about one SP30 on your
licence, and it isn't necessary to inform most employers at all. I'm
curious though - do you not think it a relevant risk factor to be
considered by an insurance company at all?

Most of my employers require it. YMMV.

How many people, if they were pulled over for speeding and let off with
a "stern word of advice", would notify their insurer? Aren't these also
relevant risk factors?

How many people come down in the morning and find that they didn't lock
up properly the night before? Or come back from shopping to find the
iron still on? Aren't these relevant risk factors for house insurance
purposes?

Insurance companies do seem to consider one minor offence, not too
often, to be insignificant. Yet they have to process all the paperwork
associated with people notifying them of any and all motoring
convictions. The system I am suggesting would free them from this
"rubber stamping exercise".

--
Sue