Well the 14 days are up, (15th) and I have not heard from them. Now the big question is (a) - - do I ring them? or (b) do I keep quiet and see what happens next?.. oeerr lol.. [:o)]
If I ring, It will remind them that my case is unresolved, and may prompt them to persue it further..
If I don't ring, and it gets to court, then I may have a problem explaining why I failed to contact them.. [:I]
A bit of a 'heads I lose, tails I lose' situation, but on balance I think I have to ring them.. [:(!]
Anyone have any other ideas? [:)]
.
Woe,Woe. and thrice times woe.
-
Forth
- Posts: 179
- Joined: 24 Apr 2004, 23:09
<i>Could this be of any relevance, even if only re procedures rather than alleged offence itself?</i>
<font color="blue">from Christopher Booker's Notebook, Sunday Telegraph, 18 Sept 05</font id="blue">
<font color="red"><b>Labour assault on constitution</b></font id="red">
Ministers are said to be so alarmed by the latest twist in the row over the legality of automatic penalties - the billions of pounds raised each year by parking fines, penalties for late tax returns and so forth - that they are considering emergency legislation.
This extraordinary story began with a ruling by Lord Justice Laws in the "Metric Martyrs" case that certain Acts of Parliament, such as the Bill of Rights Act 1689, are "constitutional statutes" which cannot be overridden by subsequent legislation, unless this is made "expressly clear". It was on this point that the judge decided that the Metric Martyrs, including the late Steve Thoburn, should be found guilty.
But a central provision of the Bill of Rights is that no one can be fined except by the judgment of a court. For more than a year therefore, Neil Herron, the Metric Martyrs campaign director, has been questioning the legality of the automatic parking fines imposed by the 142 councils that operate "decriminalised" parking schemes under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, since motorists penalised under these schemes have no recourse to a court. Their only appeal is to the National Parking Adjudication Service, which is run on behalf of and financed by the councils involved, and which is anyway on record denying that it is a court of law.
Sunderland city council -which originally seized Mr Thoburn's scales - had so many motorists using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of these automatic penalties that it sought legal advice. Eleanor Sharpston QC said that, since it was the intention of the 1991 Act that the Bill of Rights should be set aside, the penalties are legal.
Here, however, Miss Sharpston is impaled on a hook, because it was she who represented Sunderland in the metric case, which she only won because of Laws's ruling; and Laws was unequivocal in saying that the Bill of Rights can only be overridden where Parliament makes this "expressly clear".
The 1991 Act does nothing of the kind. The only way Miss Sharpston can defend her latest opinion is by rejecting the very ruling that won her the case. If she is right, the Metric Martyrs' case should be quashed.
So many people are using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of automatic penalties - HM Customs has backed down more than once over refusal to pay surcharges for late VAT returns - that, according to Birmingham city council last week, Government lawyers are considering emergency legislation to override the Bill of Rights.
But, as Mr Herron points out, the Bill of Rights itself only enshrines the Declaration of Rights, which was a solemn contract between Sovereign and People, and which Parliament has no power to undo. When those Sunderland officials seized Mr Thoburn's scales in 2000, they can little have guessed what a constitutional can of worms they were about to open.
<font color="blue">from Christopher Booker's Notebook, Sunday Telegraph, 18 Sept 05</font id="blue">
<font color="red"><b>Labour assault on constitution</b></font id="red">
Ministers are said to be so alarmed by the latest twist in the row over the legality of automatic penalties - the billions of pounds raised each year by parking fines, penalties for late tax returns and so forth - that they are considering emergency legislation.
This extraordinary story began with a ruling by Lord Justice Laws in the "Metric Martyrs" case that certain Acts of Parliament, such as the Bill of Rights Act 1689, are "constitutional statutes" which cannot be overridden by subsequent legislation, unless this is made "expressly clear". It was on this point that the judge decided that the Metric Martyrs, including the late Steve Thoburn, should be found guilty.
But a central provision of the Bill of Rights is that no one can be fined except by the judgment of a court. For more than a year therefore, Neil Herron, the Metric Martyrs campaign director, has been questioning the legality of the automatic parking fines imposed by the 142 councils that operate "decriminalised" parking schemes under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, since motorists penalised under these schemes have no recourse to a court. Their only appeal is to the National Parking Adjudication Service, which is run on behalf of and financed by the councils involved, and which is anyway on record denying that it is a court of law.
Sunderland city council -which originally seized Mr Thoburn's scales - had so many motorists using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of these automatic penalties that it sought legal advice. Eleanor Sharpston QC said that, since it was the intention of the 1991 Act that the Bill of Rights should be set aside, the penalties are legal.
Here, however, Miss Sharpston is impaled on a hook, because it was she who represented Sunderland in the metric case, which she only won because of Laws's ruling; and Laws was unequivocal in saying that the Bill of Rights can only be overridden where Parliament makes this "expressly clear".
The 1991 Act does nothing of the kind. The only way Miss Sharpston can defend her latest opinion is by rejecting the very ruling that won her the case. If she is right, the Metric Martyrs' case should be quashed.
So many people are using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of automatic penalties - HM Customs has backed down more than once over refusal to pay surcharges for late VAT returns - that, according to Birmingham city council last week, Government lawyers are considering emergency legislation to override the Bill of Rights.
But, as Mr Herron points out, the Bill of Rights itself only enshrines the Declaration of Rights, which was a solemn contract between Sovereign and People, and which Parliament has no power to undo. When those Sunderland officials seized Mr Thoburn's scales in 2000, they can little have guessed what a constitutional can of worms they were about to open.
-
drpau
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 16:43
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Forth</i>
<i>Could this be of any relevance, even if only re procedures rather than alleged offence itself?</i>
<font color="blue">from Christopher Booker's Notebook, Sunday Telegraph, 18 Sept 05</font id="blue">
<font color="red"><b>Labour assault on constitution</b></font id="red">
Ministers are said to be so alarmed by the latest twist in the row over the legality of automatic penalties - the billions of pounds raised each year by parking fines, penalties for late tax returns and so forth - that they are considering emergency legislation.
This extraordinary story began with a ruling by Lord Justice Laws in the "Metric Martyrs" case that certain Acts of Parliament, such as the Bill of Rights Act 1689, are "constitutional statutes" which cannot be overridden by subsequent legislation, unless this is made "expressly clear". It was on this point that the judge decided that the Metric Martyrs, including the late Steve Thoburn, should be found guilty.
But a central provision of the Bill of Rights is that no one can be fined except by the judgment of a court. For more than a year therefore, Neil Herron, the Metric Martyrs campaign director, has been questioning the legality of the automatic parking fines imposed by the 142 councils that operate "decriminalised" parking schemes under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, since motorists penalised under these schemes have no recourse to a court. Their only appeal is to the National Parking Adjudication Service, which is run on behalf of and financed by the councils involved, and which is anyway on record denying that it is a court of law.
Sunderland city council -which originally seized Mr Thoburn's scales - had so many motorists using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of these automatic penalties that it sought legal advice. Eleanor Sharpston QC said that, since it was the intention of the 1991 Act that the Bill of Rights should be set aside, the penalties are legal.
Here, however, Miss Sharpston is impaled on a hook, because it was she who represented Sunderland in the metric case, which she only won because of Laws's ruling; and Laws was unequivocal in saying that the Bill of Rights can only be overridden where Parliament makes this "expressly clear".
The 1991 Act does nothing of the kind. The only way Miss Sharpston can defend her latest opinion is by rejecting the very ruling that won her the case. If she is right, the Metric Martyrs' case should be quashed.
So many people are using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of automatic penalties - HM Customs has backed down more than once over refusal to pay surcharges for late VAT returns - that, according to Birmingham city council last week, Government lawyers are considering emergency legislation to override the Bill of Rights.
But, as Mr Herron points out, the Bill of Rights itself only enshrines the Declaration of Rights, which was a solemn contract between Sovereign and People, and which Parliament has no power to undo. When those Sunderland officials seized Mr Thoburn's scales in 2000, they can little have guessed what a constitutional can of worms they were about to open.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks for that Forth, I found that really interesting. I assume this would also apply to these random clampers that we see out and about- been stung by these myself.
Just seen a mobile camera van on the main road in my town -[:D]he moved on after a v.short amount of time, I think he cant have been getting many as everyone was flashing each other as a warning [:p]
<i>Could this be of any relevance, even if only re procedures rather than alleged offence itself?</i>
<font color="blue">from Christopher Booker's Notebook, Sunday Telegraph, 18 Sept 05</font id="blue">
<font color="red"><b>Labour assault on constitution</b></font id="red">
Ministers are said to be so alarmed by the latest twist in the row over the legality of automatic penalties - the billions of pounds raised each year by parking fines, penalties for late tax returns and so forth - that they are considering emergency legislation.
This extraordinary story began with a ruling by Lord Justice Laws in the "Metric Martyrs" case that certain Acts of Parliament, such as the Bill of Rights Act 1689, are "constitutional statutes" which cannot be overridden by subsequent legislation, unless this is made "expressly clear". It was on this point that the judge decided that the Metric Martyrs, including the late Steve Thoburn, should be found guilty.
But a central provision of the Bill of Rights is that no one can be fined except by the judgment of a court. For more than a year therefore, Neil Herron, the Metric Martyrs campaign director, has been questioning the legality of the automatic parking fines imposed by the 142 councils that operate "decriminalised" parking schemes under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, since motorists penalised under these schemes have no recourse to a court. Their only appeal is to the National Parking Adjudication Service, which is run on behalf of and financed by the councils involved, and which is anyway on record denying that it is a court of law.
Sunderland city council -which originally seized Mr Thoburn's scales - had so many motorists using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of these automatic penalties that it sought legal advice. Eleanor Sharpston QC said that, since it was the intention of the 1991 Act that the Bill of Rights should be set aside, the penalties are legal.
Here, however, Miss Sharpston is impaled on a hook, because it was she who represented Sunderland in the metric case, which she only won because of Laws's ruling; and Laws was unequivocal in saying that the Bill of Rights can only be overridden where Parliament makes this "expressly clear".
The 1991 Act does nothing of the kind. The only way Miss Sharpston can defend her latest opinion is by rejecting the very ruling that won her the case. If she is right, the Metric Martyrs' case should be quashed.
So many people are using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of automatic penalties - HM Customs has backed down more than once over refusal to pay surcharges for late VAT returns - that, according to Birmingham city council last week, Government lawyers are considering emergency legislation to override the Bill of Rights.
But, as Mr Herron points out, the Bill of Rights itself only enshrines the Declaration of Rights, which was a solemn contract between Sovereign and People, and which Parliament has no power to undo. When those Sunderland officials seized Mr Thoburn's scales in 2000, they can little have guessed what a constitutional can of worms they were about to open.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks for that Forth, I found that really interesting. I assume this would also apply to these random clampers that we see out and about- been stung by these myself.
Just seen a mobile camera van on the main road in my town -[:D]he moved on after a v.short amount of time, I think he cant have been getting many as everyone was flashing each other as a warning [:p]
-
James.UK
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: 14 Dec 2003, 23:12
- x 2
-
Homer
- Posts: 1503
- Joined: 26 Feb 2003, 10:52
- x 16
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">questioning the legality of the automatic parking fines imposed by the 142 councils that operate "decriminalised" parking schemes under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, since motorists penalised under these schemes have no recourse to a court. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The problem with the Bill of Rights defence in relation to speeding fines is that you <b>do</b> have recourse to a court.
It has been covered on Pepipoo and is being pursued for offences where you have no right to a day in court such as parking.
Not sure if it applies to clampers on private land since that comes under civil law.
Be warned the last attempt to use a basic right (the right to silence) got knocked back by the high court and is being taken through the European court, which is a costly and lengthy process.
The problem with the Bill of Rights defence in relation to speeding fines is that you <b>do</b> have recourse to a court.
It has been covered on Pepipoo and is being pursued for offences where you have no right to a day in court such as parking.
Not sure if it applies to clampers on private land since that comes under civil law.
Be warned the last attempt to use a basic right (the right to silence) got knocked back by the high court and is being taken through the European court, which is a costly and lengthy process.
-
James.UK
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: 14 Dec 2003, 23:12
- x 2
-
drpau
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 16:43
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by James.UK</i>
As Homer rightly says, in the case of 'fixed' speeding penalties you can ignore them thus opting for the legal route and a court hearing.. Which brings me back to my present problem.. [}:)]
(a).. Do I ring them? or (b) do I keep quiet and see what happens next?.. oeerr lol.. [8)] [:I]
.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
As Homer rightly says, in the case of 'fixed' speeding penalties you can ignore them thus opting for the legal route and a court hearing.. Which brings me back to my present problem.. [}:)]
(a).. Do I ring them? or (b) do I keep quiet and see what happens next?.. oeerr lol.. [8)] [:I]
.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
-
Homer
- Posts: 1503
- Joined: 26 Feb 2003, 10:52
- x 16
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by James.UK</i>
(a).. Do I ring them? or (b) do I keep quiet and see what happens next?.. oeerr lol.. [8)] [:I]
.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Tricky.
Like you say.
They may have misplaced your file (it happens) and you might not want them to go digging for it for a few months.
On the other hand they directly said to ring if you had heard nothing so it might look bad if things go further and you hadn't.
It would be interesting to see what excuse they trot out for not getting back to you. I suspect they will try to blank you some more.
But, I would be tempted to wait for the summons. You have done all that you need to do. You can't insist on anything until you have the summons anyway so there is no point pursuing things.
Your excuse would be that you did not want to trouble the obviously busy department unduly (or words to that effect).
(a).. Do I ring them? or (b) do I keep quiet and see what happens next?.. oeerr lol.. [8)] [:I]
.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Tricky.
Like you say.
They may have misplaced your file (it happens) and you might not want them to go digging for it for a few months.
On the other hand they directly said to ring if you had heard nothing so it might look bad if things go further and you hadn't.
It would be interesting to see what excuse they trot out for not getting back to you. I suspect they will try to blank you some more.
But, I would be tempted to wait for the summons. You have done all that you need to do. You can't insist on anything until you have the summons anyway so there is no point pursuing things.
Your excuse would be that you did not want to trouble the obviously busy department unduly (or words to that effect).
-
drpau
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 16:43
-
Paulmi16
- Posts: 167
- Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 02:51
- x 3
Nottinghamshire Police send a letter if you do not respond to the Conditional offer, threatening being taken to court if you do not respond within 10 days.
Interestingly enough my mother's car insurance renewal has been received this week and i've phoned around as you do, only to discover that most companies want to know about the last 5 years convictions, so even though you have speeding points that may be over 3 years old, some insurance companies still load the premium or raise the excess beacause of this!!
Paul.
Interestingly enough my mother's car insurance renewal has been received this week and i've phoned around as you do, only to discover that most companies want to know about the last 5 years convictions, so even though you have speeding points that may be over 3 years old, some insurance companies still load the premium or raise the excess beacause of this!!
Paul.
-
James.UK
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: 14 Dec 2003, 23:12
- x 2
Unfortunately they haven't forgotten me! [}:)] I received a letter from them enclosing a photograph taken by the camera, but nothing else.. The photo has a lot of numbers in the top rh side, none of which I understand, and they offer no explanation whatsoever, they just sent the picture.. Hhmm, they must know its no help to anyone unless you know what all the numbers mean. I can only assume they prefer it if you don't know.. [}:)]
They comment:- "Each camera is calibrated in accordance with the home office guidelines. We do not send out copies of the certificate, however, this documentation would be available at a court hearing." ** [}:)] [}:)]
I find that totally illogical and well out of order, how on earth can I make any sort of informed decision as to whether or not to plead guilty unless I know what their case is? and what evidence they have that indicates my guilt? Presenting me with the information at the hearing is not acceptable as I will have had no time to digest the new information and prepare my case accordingly, my only possible option would be to ask for a postponement to some future date. That wont help anyone and will just waste everyone's time.
They also point out that my time to accept their offer has expired, and have given me another 7 days in which to accept. (Yeah right!) [:p]
** No mention of any other documents? I thought they had to give me a copy of a "Statement of Evidence" verifying that the camera complied with all rules and regulations at the time in question, and said statement had to be signed by the Police officer who checked the camera at the time.. ?? [?]
I have not replied yet.. I am still considering my options... or apparent lack of [:I].. lol... But I do intend to pursue my right to see any evidence they have BEFORE I decide how to plead, and before I appear in court, should I choose that route.. [;)]
My prognosis remains unchanged, I think I'm going to lose this.. [:o)] [:D] [:)] lol..
Anyone have any ideas or helpfull info I could use?
.
They comment:- "Each camera is calibrated in accordance with the home office guidelines. We do not send out copies of the certificate, however, this documentation would be available at a court hearing." ** [}:)] [}:)]
I find that totally illogical and well out of order, how on earth can I make any sort of informed decision as to whether or not to plead guilty unless I know what their case is? and what evidence they have that indicates my guilt? Presenting me with the information at the hearing is not acceptable as I will have had no time to digest the new information and prepare my case accordingly, my only possible option would be to ask for a postponement to some future date. That wont help anyone and will just waste everyone's time.
They also point out that my time to accept their offer has expired, and have given me another 7 days in which to accept. (Yeah right!) [:p]
** No mention of any other documents? I thought they had to give me a copy of a "Statement of Evidence" verifying that the camera complied with all rules and regulations at the time in question, and said statement had to be signed by the Police officer who checked the camera at the time.. ?? [?]
I have not replied yet.. I am still considering my options... or apparent lack of [:I].. lol... But I do intend to pursue my right to see any evidence they have BEFORE I decide how to plead, and before I appear in court, should I choose that route.. [;)]
My prognosis remains unchanged, I think I'm going to lose this.. [:o)] [:D] [:)] lol..
Anyone have any ideas or helpfull info I could use?
.
-
tomsheppard
- Posts: 1802
- Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 14:46
- x 1
-
bxbodger
- Posts: 1455
- Joined: 23 May 2003, 03:34
- x 1
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My prognosis remains unchanged, I think I'm going to lose this.. lol..
Anyone have any ideas or helpfull info I could use?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes......read "You got nothing coming" by Jimmy Lerner......failing that watch that Tom Selleck film "An Innocent Man"- at least then you'll know how to make a shank.......you're gonna need it where they'll send you!!!
Anyone have any ideas or helpfull info I could use?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes......read "You got nothing coming" by Jimmy Lerner......failing that watch that Tom Selleck film "An Innocent Man"- at least then you'll know how to make a shank.......you're gonna need it where they'll send you!!!
-
fastandfurryous
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: 07 Jul 2004, 17:57
- x 4
Have they sent you just the one, or two photographs? As far as I was aware, cameras had to take 2 photos, at a calibrated time apart, and then they can use the calibrated markings on the road to determine the speed you were travelling at.
If there's only one photo, that merely proves you were there at that time, nothing more really. I remember hearing a while ago that if you had a supercar, and went through a gatso at over 145mph, it would get one photo of the car in the calibration, and the car would be missing in the second! No proof of speed available = no conviction!
If there's only one photo, that merely proves you were there at that time, nothing more really. I remember hearing a while ago that if you had a supercar, and went through a gatso at over 145mph, it would get one photo of the car in the calibration, and the car would be missing in the second! No proof of speed available = no conviction!
-
James.UK
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: 14 Dec 2003, 23:12
- x 2
Hi FaF. They sent an A4 sheet with 3 pics on it. Each pic approx 80mm x 60 mm.. As it was totally dark with no street lights on at the time, it's not possible to see the point at which the car tyres touch the road, so continuing a line across from the rib at the foot of the rear bumper skirt the car is level with the 3rd line in the first pic, doing the same on the third pic its about level with the 9th line, (approx 25 lines are visible) the middle pic is just an enlargement showing the number plate more clearly..
In the background you can faintly see the fenceposts at the side of the grass verge bordering the fields on the far side of the road. It was in a rural area so there may not be any street lights, no lights of any sort are visable in the pictures. The camera is sited near the School on the outskirts of the village, I had already passed through the Village as I was heading North, the Village being South of the school.
As it was 04-12 am on a Sunday morning there was clearly no risk to any children, and no risk to anyone else either. The roads were completely deserted. So this prosecution is purely a means of extracting money from a motorist, it cannot be justified on any safety grounds. That is why I am being so uncooperative about paying this particular fine.. In the past I have had quite a few speeding fines, both in cars and on m/bikes. this is the only one I have ever disputed..
As for employing a solicitor, in my dealings with them, they have without exception been far more trouble than they are worth.
.
In the background you can faintly see the fenceposts at the side of the grass verge bordering the fields on the far side of the road. It was in a rural area so there may not be any street lights, no lights of any sort are visable in the pictures. The camera is sited near the School on the outskirts of the village, I had already passed through the Village as I was heading North, the Village being South of the school.
As it was 04-12 am on a Sunday morning there was clearly no risk to any children, and no risk to anyone else either. The roads were completely deserted. So this prosecution is purely a means of extracting money from a motorist, it cannot be justified on any safety grounds. That is why I am being so uncooperative about paying this particular fine.. In the past I have had quite a few speeding fines, both in cars and on m/bikes. this is the only one I have ever disputed..
As for employing a solicitor, in my dealings with them, they have without exception been far more trouble than they are worth.
.