|
Post by fascinating on Aug 21, 2015 12:54:25 GMT 1
I suppose I mean the responsible press, such as the Independent.
I was thinking more like Radio 4, rather than a specific ephemeral TV programme. But perhaps they would want to see a set of related cases, rather than just your one case.
On second thoughts maybe you could take it up with a motoring organisation eg the AA?
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Aug 21, 2015 14:24:09 GMT 1
Fascinating.
We DO have chapter and verse on related cases. Without breaking any confidences there was a bus driver clocked at 35 just after leaving his depot. He proved without any doubt (with the help of the same expert witness I have) that it was impossible for his bus to accelerate to that speed in that time. You would think that would be set and match, but no, the case continued.
He had no money at all and was so upset that he borrowed a few thousand to fight it. And the result was that he ran out of money before the CPS or RSS, because they have our money, which is weighed not counted, and he was found guilty. I have read the papers on that one as well and it is disgusting.
And someone booked in a 60 limit at 91. He took his car out after receiving the summons and frightened himself to death at 90 so knew there was a mistake. He was lucky (and bloody tenacious) and proved it, but the costs were well over 40K, which he got back. It turned out the laser had targeted the while line, which is reflective. I don't have the papers on that one.
If, and I am sure you have, you sit and think about it for a while it is not a question of just being unfair, it is a case of not being justice. I am sure that the overwhelming number of people clocked for speeding are guilty, and if indeed I had been doing say 40 I would have simply put my hand up. And the overwhelming number of people clocked just pay up, which is what the system relies on. However there are a few, a very small number no doubt who did not do it, and justice is denied to them by a system which, should they have the temerity to question the figures, sets out to stall, prevaricate delay and indeed sometimes lie until they have no choice but to give up.
I can assure you this is not a case of me shouting 'foul' after the event. Having seen the system at first hand I am actually enraged that this should be allowed to happen. It starts to make me doubt 'experts' that we assume are absolutely genuine and unbiased who give evidence in court on very serious cases.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 22, 2015 8:23:31 GMT 1
I hope you don't let this rest and take it forward to, as I say, a motoring organisation and the serious press and maybe the BBC. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 23, 2015 21:41:11 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 23, 2015 21:46:09 GMT 1
Let it go, mate. Some battles you can win, some you can't; some are worth fighting, even at the cost of everything, some are not worth a minute's aggravavtion.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Aug 24, 2015 11:00:49 GMT 1
Let it go, mate. Some battles you can win, some you can't; some are worth fighting, even at the cost of everything, some are not worth a minute's aggravavtion. I would normally agree Mrsonde, but if anything can be done to perhaps get some fairness into the system I am willing to give it a bit of time. And my expert witness has the bit firmly between his teeth! I have agreed that he can use me as a 'case study' with the resulting publicity.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 17, 2015 12:18:23 GMT 1
Oh I agree: you have right on your side, no question, and it's an important principle of justice at stake. It's merely a matter of practicality - of how much fighting for that principle costs you personally. I think it's worth trying to get the press on your side - though I wouldn't waste my time with the BBC or the Independent. You need a libertarian, not a defender of the Establishment. It might be worth spending half an hour trying to condense the key issue into a paragraph or two - the vital matter at stake is your right to challenge the evidence against you (whether you committed the offense or not.) Then email it to Murdoch. There's also a good chance that Liberty would be strongly inclined to take on such a case - that is, undertake to cover your costs. I'd guess it would depend on the state of their coffers at present. Failing that, I'm 100% certain that you'd get cloud funding within a week or two: I promise I'll put in £200 as soon as you open the account (that's about what I've had to pay over the years to surreptitious and wholly unnecessary speed camera traps.) I can put you in touch with someone who organises that sort of thing if you're interested.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Nov 18, 2015 13:44:32 GMT 1
Mr Sonde.
Time heals. I don't think I have the energy to pursue this one. I have far too much to do and to mount a crusade of this kind would be both difficult time consuming and mentally exhausting. I hate the thought of having been done over by people who have lied and cheated, and what is more done it with our money, but I don't have the sort of funds to fight it and to what avail? Justice for others maybe. I will send you all the paperwork if you are interested!
I am actually going to see my expert witness fairly soon. He lives in Cornwall and I intend to take him out for a damned good dinner. We simply have to set a date. I will see how far he has got with his particular crusade!!
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Dec 7, 2015 16:40:14 GMT 1
I put this on anther board but thought some of you might be amused. After all I am now an expert on this matter. True that expertise has come at some cost, but knowledge is rarely totally free!!
Today I have had an incredibly busy day, and an amusing altercation at lunchtime.
A pair of high vis jackets were in the bus layby with a speed gun. I was deliberately doing 25 but they aimed at me. So I turned around and pulled in for a word.
'Which one of you is qualified on the equipment?'
Both they said. They were these do -gooder civilians who would not have been there if it had been raining
'I see, so can you tell me the difference between primary and secondary evidence.?' Blank looks
So I explained.
'Primary evidence is the evidence the Court recognises. i. e, ''I observed Mr JJ and in my opinion he was exceeding the speed limit.'' And the Court listens and then you produce your secondary evidence, which is from that Taser look alike in your hand.'
More blank looks and a feeling of unease and shuffling of feet.
'But, you are targeting EVRYONE so you clearly can't be forming an opinion for primary evidence, so what you are doing is a complete and utter waste of your time, my time and more important my money cos you are being bloody well paid for this. And you claim to be qualified? By the way, is that thing in your hand type approved, and what do you know about slippage?'
'We are only doing what we have been told to do.'
'Well the bloke who told you to do it is a moron.'
I then left, wishing them a very happy Christmas. I turned round to go back in my original direction and as I passed them they were packing up and going home.
I feel SO much better for that!
|
|
|
Post by aquaculture on Dec 15, 2015 1:10:14 GMT 1
Trouble is, they've got your number, so know where you live.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Dec 15, 2015 11:11:09 GMT 1
A correction. They are not being paid, but there is the cost of them being 'trained' and I had seen them there before with no less than 3 uniformed police. I think those uniforms could have found something better to do in times when resources are stretched.
We used to have a police station. Not any more. We used to have the odd bobby strolling down the high street, or in recent times on a mountain bike. Not any more. But we do have a traffic warden. Sorry, civil enforcement officer.
|
|