seems as if they REALLY do try it on

we got a nip in november for the missus, so i thought sod it ill apply for the photo (you now have to pay £10 :xxx: )

and lo and behold this morning it turned up, and how the hell they can prove who was driving, i wonder how many others have just paid cos they assumed they were nicked?

well thats just saved her £60 and 3 points

i went and checked the road as i wasn't even sure it was a 30mph as its a country road, although i did ask her did she not see the copper and she said DEFFO not, looks like hes a tree hugger who jumps out after you have passed :mad:

Surely they'll just bill the registered keeper - and it's for him/her to say who was driving at the time. They don't have to have a picture of the driver - if so rear facing gatso cameras could never work.

so how did that save her from a fine and 3 points, because the driver wasnt identified? does that mean they dropped it as they couldnt identify the driver?

They don't need a photo of the driver to prosecute. The registered keeper is automatically sent the NIP and it's up them to prove they were or weren't driving.

if you KNOW who was driving, as we are both insured to drive it we aint sure who was driving on that morning :x:

yes you have a legal obligation to provide information THAT MAY lead to to identification of the driver

in the event that a driver is not or or cannot be identified, then the magistrates will deal with the matter and its VERY rare it will reach that point

 

yes the problem is most people will just acept the nip from rear facing cameras, we will supply them all the info they ask via letters, they cant fine the car only the driver

I'd be careful that the Traffic Officer in question didn't write down whether the driver was M or F. It's come to blows in court where people have tried to contest saying it was someone else, or they couldn't remember who it was when there was only one person driving actually in the vehicle. They then got heavily fined due to perverting the course of justice.

no - that's the tack that the police will take... if you stick it out, a court cannot tell YOU to prove you weren't driving - and there's no balance of probabilities in a speeding case as it's not a civil matter . AFAIK the CPS have never taken a case that far in those circumstances.

 

They don't need a photo of the driver to prosecute. The registered keeper is automatically sent the NIP and it's up them to prove they were or weren't driving.

no - that's the tack that the police will take... if you stick it out, a court cannot tell YOU to prove you weren't driving - and there's no balance of probabilities in a speeding case as it's not a civil matter . AFAIK the CPS have never taken a case that far in those circumstances.

 

Are you sure? I remember seeing a news article about someone that was actually sent to prison because he falsified evidence saying it was someone else driving.

 

This isn't the case in this instance, but it has gone quite far in the past. So it's worth being cautious.

im also not sure at the momemt but im pretty sure a hand held has to be forward facing, ill have to do some digging

 

i KNOW there was 2 people in the car lol, thats what suprised me when i saw the photo that it doesn't show anyone, when i applied for the photo i was expecting it to come back, showing the front and i was HOPING it was just the reg plate being a high car, but from the back proves nothing,

 

yes if i went down the road of we dont know who was driving end of, then its a sticky wicket but we are prepared to say who COULD of been driving on that day

 

i also remember a RECENT case where a police officer stated they couldnt identify the driver

I had a copy of Derbyshire Police internal guidelines as to what to do in cases when several people have access to the car and a NIP is issued.

 

If the registered keeper has done everything in their power to work out who was driving but still doesn't know, their guidelines was to drop it rather than take it to court.

 

You probably CAN get out of it - but you (and your Mrs!) will need balls of steel - in theory you could have to go to court and lie convincingly which can be harder than you might think.

I had a copy of Derbyshire Police internal guidelines as to what to do in cases when several people have access to the car and a NIP is issued.

 

If the registered keeper has done everything in their power to work out who was driving but still doesn't know, their guidelines was to drop it rather than take it to court.

 

You probably CAN get out of it - but you (and your Mrs!) will need balls of steel - in theory you could have to go to court and lie convincingly which can be harder than you might think.

 

lol its a matter of we take it in turns to take the lad to school

no set pattern whoever is up, so not a lot of lying :x: needed there m8

as i say im sure there are issues with the hand held but not really going down that route at the moment

bit of a posh car eh? *nudge nudge* lol.....

 

anyway... im not into the legal stuff so cant comment on that part.... :rolleyes:

 

 

:duffer:

I wouldnt worry about lying,as long as you answer all their questions to the best of your knowledge then your not lying,you just dont know who was driving,

 

as far as i know as with any crime,its up to THEM to prove your guilty,

 

good luck,they get far too many motorists cause people just hold their hands up.

 

Paul.

Well, yeah if the police know you're lying they'll go after you for wasting police time & purgery - guess you're talking about the guy who actually flew to europe and sent a postcard home from a ficticious friend who'd supposedly been driving at the time. But we're not really talking about falsifieing (sp.) evidence - the point is that one of the foundations of English law is the burden of proof is on the prosecution...

 

If someone gets arrested for murder, say, you can't get sent to prison for not admitting you did it; the police have to put together evidence and present a case. If THEY can't PROVE you did it, either it never goes to court or you get found not guilty (in an ideal world!). Never ceases to amaze me how, where cars are involved, people just accept that the police follow the rules, and take the points/ fine without question!

 

The general course of events is you'll get a series of letters informing you it is an offence to withhold information about who was driving etc etc - which is true. But if you "honestly" don't know who was driving, then there's no offence...

 

Are you sure? I remember seeing a news article about someone that was actually sent to prison because he falsified evidence saying it was someone else driving.

 

This isn't the case in this instance, but it has gone quite far in the past. So it's worth being cautious.

They don't need a photo of the driver to prosecute. The registered keeper is automatically sent the NIP and it's up them to prove they were or weren't driving.

 

 

Wrong

 

They must prove that you are either the driver or are willfully with Holding evidence as to who the driver is.

 

It could be a ringed vehical, Driven without consent any number of reasons why you cannot Identify the driver.

 

I know this to be true and only yesterday have Mr Brunstroms Speeding Taliban accepted defeat.

 

I have now succesfully defendened 6 cases of Highway Cash Machine robbery. 4 Mobile or hand held and 2 fixed caneras. I can tell you that the law is being broken every time you are prosecuted via any speed camera.

 

The NIP Billynomates has posted has a bit there that declares the image rights belong to the Lancashire Police. WHY??? Has billy signed a contract giving away his legal image rights for himself or his property?

 

I think you'll find under the European Court of Human Rights that the police cannot rely on any Photographic image of you or your property as evidence without your contractual consent unless the first have a court order to obtain such evidence as part of an ongoing crimial investigation.

 

So never fill in the form the CPS send you or you are consenting. Send a letter outlining your positon, ie yep it looks like my car, but I was in Jamca at the time etc. and explain that you feel that the questions on the form were note applicable to the circumstances.

 

That way you are meating all you legal obligationsb but not incriminating yourself.

 

P.S. Never sign any correspondence

Wrong

 

They must prove that you are either the driver or are willfully with Holding evidence as to who the driver is.

 

It could be a ringed vehical, Driven without consent any number of reasons why you cannot Identify the driver.

 

I know this to be true and only yesterday have Mr Brunstroms Speeding Taliban accepted defeat.

 

I have now succesfully defendened 6 cases of Highway Cash Machine robbery. 4 Mobile or hand held and 2 fixed caneras. I can tell you that the law is being broken every time you are prosecuted via any speed camera.

 

The NIP Billynomates has posted has a bit there that declares the image rights belong to the Lancashire Police. WHY??? Has billy signed a contract giving away his legal image rights for himself or his property?

 

I think you'll find under the European Court of Human Rights that the police cannot rely on any Photographic image of you or your property as evidence without your contractual consent unless the first have a court order to obtain such evidence as part of an ongoing crimial investigation.

 

So never fill in the form the CPS send you or you are consenting. Send a letter outlining your positon, ie yep it looks like my car, but I was in Jamca at the time etc. and explain that you feel that the questions on the form were note applicable to the circumstances.

 

That way you are meating all you legal obligationsb but not incriminating yourself.

 

P.S. Never sign any correspondence

 

yep we DIDNT send any of the nip back just a letter attached asking for the photos and £10 :xxx:

interestingly i have just found this (the 2nd photo above is the actual picture the top one is obviously enhanced and YOU CAN'T read our reg number on the 2nd one)

 

Tens of thousands of speeding UK motorists may have their convictions quashed after a loophole in the speed camera laws was recently uncovered. Police have been using computers to enhance the photographs in order to make the numberplates more visible, and easily identifiable. However, as only direct pictures from a speed camera are admissable as evidence, anyone convicted with enhanced pictures is entitled to a pardon

 

 

so maybe plan b lol

 

i am going to complete a LETTER now and say

thank you for the photograph which i asked for to try and assist you to identify who was driving on that day, as it is a rear facing photo it does not assist and unfortunately due to the type of photo and the time taken for it to be sent on we are unable to identify the driver, if i can be of any further help in this matter please do not hesitate to contact me

blah blah blah

No, course it's not. The NIP goes STRAIGHT to the registered keeper and they DON'T need to photograph the driver. What happens at night erh?

here is one example but i have deffo read of a recent case also

(not sure if quoting this case would help or hinder though)

 

I cannot remember who was driving the car (a privately owned car) at the time. Firstly request the photographs as this may show the driver clearly enough to be recognised. If this still does not clarify who the driver was, then you should write and inform the police that you have reviewed the photographs and still are unable to work out who was driving.

Head of Middlesbrough CID, Detective Superintendent Adrian Roberts, appealed against a fixed penalty notice that he had received for allegdedly doing 35 in a 30 zone. Detective Superintendent Roberts, 36, was filmed driving at 35mph in a 30mph zone and a fixed penalty notice was sent to his home. He took the notice to the head of the force's administration of justice department and told him he couldn't remember if he'd been driving at the time. Superintendent Graham Cummings decided to scrap the ticket after ruling the photographic evidence was inconclusive, The Times reports. As the Police are not above the law - you should be treated in the same manner. So if you cant recall who was driving and the photographs dont show the driver then a letter should get it dropped as above. If it does not then another letter detailing the case of Detective Superintendent Adrian Roberts and requesting why his was dropped and yours was not, should bring about a result.

seems as if they REALLY do try it on

i went and checked the road as i wasn't even sure it was a 30mph as its a country road, although i did ask her did she not see the copper and she said DEFFO not, looks like hes a tree hugger who jumps out after you have passed :mad:

 

 

You've admitted your missus commited the crime, why doesn't she take her punishment? It seems like a fair cop to me.

You've admitted your missus commited the crime, why doesn't she take her punishment? It seems like a fair cop to me.

I guess thats where the only stumbling ground is, its way too easy to say something innocently and admit liabilty.

You've admitted your missus commited the crime, why doesn't she take her punishment? It seems like a fair cop to me.

 

that pretty much sums up the ****in mentality of this country at the moment. Who cares if the police don't follow procedures, guidelines or the law, who cares if the officer hasn't been trained to use the equipment, it hasn't been calibrated since 1990 and the police have used unlawful methods to identify the driver...

 

no, i own a car so I'll bend over and accept the punishment - after all the police in this country are the most respected in the world & never get it wrong!! yeah right.

You've admitted your missus commited the crime, why doesn't she take her punishment? It seems like a fair cop to me.

 

yeah RIGHT, i take it your being serious lmao

ive also watched copied dvds sometimes, i guess i should ring sony etc

and cough up, did i read once you were trying to save money on getting your car alarm fitted?? and only relented when it became an insurance issue?

3 points is also an issue lol, ill send her to bed with no tea when she gets in :tongue:

What about a caution also. When you are charged with any offence, you should also be cautioned under the Police and Criminal Evidence act (PaCE). You have the right to remain silent etc. The Road Traffic act removes your right to silence by stating that you MUST identify the driver, if at all possible.

 

There was a big thing about it in Motor Cycle News a while back with a suggested response. I'll see if I can dig it up.

What about a caution also. When you are charged with any offence, you should also be cautioned under the Police and Criminal Evidence act (PaCE). You have the right to remain silent etc. The Road Traffic act removes your right to silence by stating that you MUST identify the driver, if at all possible.

 

There was a big thing about it in Motor Cycle News a while back with a suggested response. I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

yep read a bit about it m8

not sure again if i want to go that way;)

at the end of the day its a case of who was driving and have you made EVERY effort to find out, as i said my reason for asking for the photo was to "help" them to id the driver, it doesn't so..............................

yep read a bit about it m8

not sure again if i want to go that way;)

at the end of the day its a case of who was driving and have you made EVERY effort to find out, as i said my reason for asking for the photo was to "help" them to id the driver, it doesn't so..............................

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=11893

How bout this 4 more crap from the plod :xxx:

 

In late October 06 I had my fzr1000 nicked from the house.

 

Foned plod, got crime number etc etc

 

2 weeks later the plod found it - they werent actually looking for it, some kind soul informed them of an abandonded vehicle.

 

Just b4 xmas I get a letter...youve been caught speeding at 2.30 in the morning........while you were in bed.

 

Fair enough I thought......I'd better tell them that who ever was riding the bike was probably the one who stole it cos it was caught after it was nicked but b4 it was returned to me.

 

OH NO...not that fookin simple, foned plod, it wasnt me etc etc, crime number blah blah blah.

 

I then get this shitty letter saying I'M gonna get 3 points and a £1000 fine if I dont provide them with more info of my friggin whereabouts etc....there trying to make it stick on me :xxx:

 

How much money did they spend on their computers - too much!!!

 

No wonder the :xxx: get a bad wrap - bloody pen pushers n tax collecting :xxx:

 

What is this poxy country coming to!!!

 

Ranty rant rant :headvswal