vole Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I do this myself . Is there a difference between being warned to slow down by the Police and by a fellow driver ? Apart from £60 , that is ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12115179 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libs Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Nice to see you can stab someone and get the charges dropped but do what anyone else would do (myself included) and you have a record for life.. This country does have a backward legal system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benellimelody Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 It doesnt surprise me but is a joke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonD Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 It doesnt surprise me but is a joke Yep, the same as the guy in Bedford who put up signs for his lost cat and got threatened with prosecution if he didn't take them down :( All down to anal retentive muppets :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Elvis Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Yep ask DangerousDave he got stopped for the same thing....got away with it though i believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canthitathing Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I am stunned that a charge of Wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of their duty could be applied to this case. Surely the ultimate goal of using mobile speed cameras is to discourage drivers from speeding. Warning other motorists of their approach to a camera does exactly that in slowing drivers down. Is the law different for a permanent camera, and a mobile camera operated by a police officer? Given the perceived crime is the same it would seems unlikely (IMHO). Many permanent speed cameras have signs preceeding the camera to warn oncoming motorists. Is the sign breaking the law by being wilfully obstructive? I know a couple of traffic officers fairly well and I will be asking their (off the record) opinion. The law is an **** in this (un)fair land sometimes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 One and all, Speed enforcement sites tend to be targetted patrols usually following complaints from local residents...............seems to defeat the object of the exercise if one fellow takes it upon himself to warn others. Either way what he has done is straight up obstruction of police. Whats going to stop speeders flying down your street- Police enforcing the limits or one chap 'doing the right thing' in his eyes. On a more important note-off to a field of osr in the morning so must get some shut eye atb fuddster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artschool Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) the law is an ***. my wife was in car related trouble last month and i had to pay a decent solicitor to go to the interview with her or she would have been in magistrates. cost a fair whack and the police charge was total bs but rules are rules and they had her on a technicality. the solicitor tore the interviewing officer a new one and they backed down because they thought we would fight. dumb system the bloke could have got off if he had kept his mouth closed and got decent representation. Edited January 4, 2011 by artschool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno22rf Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Dont the police justify the use of speed cameras as a means of slowing down traffic-surely the motorist coming the other way was doing the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 One and all, Speed enforcement sites tend to be targetted patrols usually following complaints from local residents...............seems to defeat the object of the exercise if one fellow takes it upon himself to warn others. fuddster and I thought tommy cooper was dead!!! KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berties Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 On BBC now ,quintain Wilson has agreed it is a discredit to motoring legislation,and will be thrown out at appeal,and is just a revenue raiser,and there's no proof that the on coming traffic was speeding, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 One and all, Speed enforcement sites tend to be targetted patrols usually following complaints from local residents...............seems to defeat the object of the exercise if one fellow takes it upon himself to warn others. Either way what he has done is straight up obstruction of police. Whats going to stop speeders flying down your street- Police enforcing the limits or one chap 'doing the right thing' in his eyes. On a more important note-off to a field of osr in the morning so must get some shut eye atb fuddster Sorry but its not obstruction...I suggest you read up on some case history and in particular that of a Mr Glendinning who was also prosecuted for obstructing police by warning of a speed trap. He was cleared on appeal, it was then taken to the High Court on appeal by CPS who lost. It was ruled by the High Court that his actions were not obstruction. No need for barrack room lawyers on this one...precedent set. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2333.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 All he has to say is that he thought oncoming traffice was speeding and he was flashing them to slow down. The whole purpose of speed cameras (supposedly)is to reduce accidents by reducing speeding not to raise revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docholiday Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Sorry but its not obstruction...I suggest you read up on some case history and in particular that of a Mr Glendinning who was also prosecuted for obstructing police by warning of a speed trap. He was cleared on appeal, it was then taken to the High Court on appeal by CPS who lost. It was ruled by the High Court that his actions were not obstruction. No need for barrack room lawyers on this one...precedent set. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2333.html good reply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouncer Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 never heard so much ******** in all my life.real criminals are to hard for them to catch so go back to the easy motorists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie10 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Revenue collection is the real reason and this case proves it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peek-at Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 never heard so much ******** in all my life.real criminals are to hard for them to catch so go back to the easy motorists When the results of crime surveys are published the highest priorities the public seem to have are speeding and antisocial behaviour. Not many are worried about being burgled these days. The cops are basically doing what the public tells them are their priorities. Thats not to say criminals are not being caught but it seems to me that what you should be more annoyed about is 'real criminals' getting off at court so easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) When the results of crime surveys are published the highest priorities the public seem to have are speeding and antisocial behaviour. Not many are worried about being burgled these days. The cops are basically doing what the public tells them are their priorities. Thats not to say criminals are not being caught but it seems to me that what you should be more annoyed about is 'real criminals' getting off at court so easily. Call me cynical but I never believe anything I am told when public bodies and the government publish results such as these. Edited January 5, 2011 by Sprackles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie10 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 When the results of crime surveys are published the highest priorities the public seem to have are speeding and antisocial behaviour. Not many are worried about being burgled these days. The cops are basically doing what the public tells them are their priorities. Thats not to say criminals are not being caught but it seems to me that what you should be more annoyed about is 'real criminals' getting off at court so easily. I don't believe that for an instant. Police like to Police the law abiding citizens only because it it easy even ex police have admitted to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 never heard so much ******** in all my life.real criminals are to hard for them to catch so go back to the easy motorists could not have put it better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 When the results of crime surveys are published the highest priorities the public seem to have are speeding and antisocial behaviour. Not many are worried about being burgled these days. The cops are basically doing what the public tells them are their priorities. Thats not to say criminals are not being caught but it seems to me that what you should be more annoyed about is 'real criminals' getting off at court so easily. This is true. And the reason is that the vast majority of people don't bother answering the surveys. The people who do bother to answer them are the tiny minority that make up the ranks of parish councils and community meetings, i.e. the serial moaners. The police, guided by their senior managers simply follow what they think the public want despite that fact that many police community forums are attended by less than 1% of the electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Call me cynical but I never believe anything I am told when public bodies and the government publish results such as these. maybe but I have to say when I lived on a road and we had problems at peak times with people doing close to double the limit you get seriously upset about it. It took living there to actually appreciate that speeding in some places is pretty unacceptable, so I'd have been well up there on the crime survey trying to get something done. As for the main story this crops up from time to time always has done nothing has changed its just someone got caught trying to find every loophole to get out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Sorry but its not obstruction...I suggest you read up on some case history and in particular that of a Mr Glendinning who was also prosecuted for obstructing police by warning of a speed trap. He was cleared on appeal, it was then taken to the High Court on appeal by CPS who lost. It was ruled by the High Court that his actions were not obstruction. No need for barrack room lawyers on this one...precedent set. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2333.html That case is not quite the same. Glendinning claimed his hand signals were an indication to pull into a lay by and not as a warning to other road users about the speed camera. Mr Thompson admitted to flashing drivers to warn them. In the Glendinning case the police could provide no evidence of vehicles speeding (or they were likely to do so) while Glendinning was signalling. That's why the case was overturned. In the Thompson case the police would have to prove that cars were speeding or were likely to do so while he was flashing them. If they have video/photographic evidence of this their case would stand. From the newspaper reports we don't know if they have that evidence, although I would suspect the CPS know of the Glendinning case and it would be doubtful they would bring Thompson to court if they didn't have the evidence to prosecute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
officerdibble777 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 would you as the employer of the policeman (your taxes)be happy for him to stand there with his speed gun for a couple of hours doing nothing because every driver has been warned of his presence,no I don't think so.He has no input to what his duties for the day are going to be,he was told to be there,so don't stop him from doing his duty.If you don't like speed patrols,don't speed and they won't be there.Do the crime ,pay the fine john Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) Extract from proceedings, "However we held that the persons at whom the hand signals were directed had to be persons who were either actually driving in excess of the speed limit or were likely so to drive at that place and time, and in respect of whom the warning could operate to prevent or obstruct the police in the performance of their duty to detect speeding motorists. Unless there was evidence that there were drivers who were driving in excess of the speed limit or who were likely to do so, there was no obstruction of the police. Here is was accepted that there was no evidence that anybody acted in response to the warning and nobody was detected speeding. Its the details that count....charged with same offence, method of warning may be different but nevertheless, same case law applies. I know that stretch of road well, its part of my home turf. He will win on appeal. Even the local bobbies are privately and anonymously condemning the prosecution Humberside Police also publish places where speed checks are to be carried out in our local paper. Are they also guilty of obstructing themselves....looking at some peoples logic, it would appear so. Here's a Lawyers view of it all. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/police-officer-thompson-speed Edited January 5, 2011 by Sprackles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.