Got caught by a Gatso! I'm gonna fight it!
13-08-2005, 06:28 PM
#1
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got caught by a Gatso! I'm gonna fight it!
Hi all, Following on from me showing off on Dingys' post the other day about my clean licence 
I recieved a NIP today for on my way to "Ten of the best".Proper gutted, I won't say where it was, just incase "Big Brothers" watching, but I'm gonna fight it, on a few accounts.
1. I've allready sent this email:-
"I have recieved a NIP (ref:-********) as I am the registered keeper of the vechile.Although your NIP alledges the vechile was travelling at 52 mph, it doesn't say what speed limit the motorway was restricted to?Please could you inform me what the speed limit was that day, and also send me a copy of the "photographic and/or video evidence" that you alledge to have so I may see who the driver was to assist me in the filling out of the form.
Thankyou,
Mr A Harriss"
2. If that fails, I'll use the "where is my right to remain silent" box to tick on the form, even Fred west was given the right to remain silent, so why can't I?
3. On the form it says "UNDER SECTION 172 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC 1988 YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY THE INFORMATIONREQUESTED WITHIN 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ON THE REVERSE OF THIS NOTICE AND SIGN IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE"
Isn't that putting me under duress? which I do believe in our civilised country we live in, is illegal?
4. If a suitable picture of the driver is not produced, I remember that day I picked up a hitchiker, who showed me his details proving to me he was insured fully comp to drive any vechile. I'm sure he drove on the section of road they quoted, but as I dropped him of at his required destination, I don't have his details to give.
Now the only important bit is I have to move fast as the form must be filled out in 28 days, that is the only stumbling block I have. I'll keep you all informed of the ongoing saga, I've done this 3 times before and won each time, hopefully I'll do it again.
and before anyone says you shouldn't speed, I agree, I regularly see the effects of speeding, but I have done driving courses alot better than the advanced driving course that uses alot of the Police Advanced Roadcraft course skills, I think 52 mph was a suitable speed for that section of motorway for the "alledged" driver to of been doing, am I a cocky bugger? Oh yes, and I'll be using this to my best advantage over the next 28 days!
Andy
Follow my post on www.pepipoo.com if you like
http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewto...?p=67026#67026
I recieved a NIP today for on my way to "Ten of the best".Proper gutted, I won't say where it was, just incase "Big Brothers" watching, but I'm gonna fight it, on a few accounts.1. I've allready sent this email:-
"I have recieved a NIP (ref:-********) as I am the registered keeper of the vechile.Although your NIP alledges the vechile was travelling at 52 mph, it doesn't say what speed limit the motorway was restricted to?Please could you inform me what the speed limit was that day, and also send me a copy of the "photographic and/or video evidence" that you alledge to have so I may see who the driver was to assist me in the filling out of the form.
Thankyou,
Mr A Harriss"
2. If that fails, I'll use the "where is my right to remain silent" box to tick on the form, even Fred west was given the right to remain silent, so why can't I?
3. On the form it says "UNDER SECTION 172 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC 1988 YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY THE INFORMATIONREQUESTED WITHIN 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ON THE REVERSE OF THIS NOTICE AND SIGN IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE"
Isn't that putting me under duress? which I do believe in our civilised country we live in, is illegal?
4. If a suitable picture of the driver is not produced, I remember that day I picked up a hitchiker, who showed me his details proving to me he was insured fully comp to drive any vechile. I'm sure he drove on the section of road they quoted, but as I dropped him of at his required destination, I don't have his details to give.
Now the only important bit is I have to move fast as the form must be filled out in 28 days, that is the only stumbling block I have. I'll keep you all informed of the ongoing saga, I've done this 3 times before and won each time, hopefully I'll do it again.
and before anyone says you shouldn't speed, I agree, I regularly see the effects of speeding, but I have done driving courses alot better than the advanced driving course that uses alot of the Police Advanced Roadcraft course skills, I think 52 mph was a suitable speed for that section of motorway for the "alledged" driver to of been doing, am I a cocky bugger? Oh yes, and I'll be using this to my best advantage over the next 28 days!
Andy
Follow my post on www.pepipoo.com if you like
http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewto...?p=67026#67026
13-08-2005, 06:36 PM
#4
just finding my feet
aint ya ment to ignore the first one and reply to the second one mate 
its a mixture of given em a nightmare to follow and also long the time scale
or cant ya get ya missus to plead guilty
hitch hiker wont work though, we used that in court as well as there not being a road of that fucking name, missus got the points as its her car by default
its a mixture of given em a nightmare to follow and also long the time scale
or cant ya get ya missus to plead guilty
hitch hiker wont work though, we used that in court as well as there not being a road of that fucking name, missus got the points as its her car by default
Trending Topics
from a mobile van, its a fuckin joke mate, they really have nowt better to do have they
13-08-2005, 08:22 PM
#10
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wiltshire, Bath, chippenham area!
Posts: 7,428
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
you can get away with it then mate?! (your previous 3 times! )
blimey... i guess you will this time as well then
PS. the hitch hiker excuse is pretty flimsy IMO!! 
blimey... i guess you will this time as well then
PS. the hitch hiker excuse is pretty flimsy IMO!!
13-08-2005, 09:17 PM
#13
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13-08-2005, 09:24 PM
#14
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SE London
Posts: 4,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by b19bal
aint ya ment to ignore the first one and reply to the second one mate
its a mixture of given em a nightmare to follow and also long the time scale
or cant ya get ya missus to plead guilty
hitch hiker wont work though, we used that in court as well as there not being a road of that fucking name, missus got the points as its her car by default
its a mixture of given em a nightmare to follow and also long the time scale
or cant ya get ya missus to plead guilty
hitch hiker wont work though, we used that in court as well as there not being a road of that fucking name, missus got the points as its her car by default
13-08-2005, 09:58 PM
#15
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good luck, let us know how many points you get and the fine when you get taken to court might be better to accept it like a man and take the 3 points than have the book thrown at you by the magistrate
might be better to accept it like a man and take the 3 points than have the book thrown at you by the magistrate
13-08-2005, 11:58 PM
#16
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by andy_st200
good luck, let us know how many points you get and the fine when you get taken to court might be better to accept it like a man and take the 3 points than have the book thrown at you by the magistrate
might be better to accept it like a man and take the 3 points than have the book thrown at you by the magistrateBut cheers for your comments,
Andy
14-08-2005, 12:12 AM
#17
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just found this:-
A NORTH Wales driver was unaware last night he had escaped a motoring ban, after a legal loophole was discovered by a court clerk.
Police fear it could open the floodgates to thousands of motorists across the UK, caught by speed cameras and laser guns, also escaping driving bans.
Last night North Wales police admitted that a change in the law is needed to plug the loophole.
It was discovered by a magistrates' clerk dealing with speeding charges against Phillip Dennis, of Whitford, near Holywell, in his absence. Magistrates said that they had no option but to find the case against him not proved.
The loophole involves a form sent by police to the registered owner of a car caught on speed cameras. The form asks who the driver was at the time. It is an offence not to fill in the form and name the driver - but significantly there is no requirement to sign it. However, for it to be used as evidence in court, the form has to be signed, otherwise a court cannot take any notice of it.
Flintshire magistrates' clerk Paul Conlon realised Mr Dennis's form was filled in but not signed, and so could not be used as evidence. It was, said Mr Conlon, a loophole in the law. Magistrates said they were not happy but had no option but to find Dennis, 34, [address withheld] Whitford, not guilty.
Chairman John Beard suggested police should go back to defendants and ask them to sign the form. But he was advised that as the law now stood, the only requirement was to stipulate the name of the driver and that there was no legal requirement to sign it even if police did go back and request a signature.
One legal expert said later: "Yes, I can confirm that vehicle owners asked to confirm the name of the driver must complete the form but there is no legal requirement to sign the document. On the other hand it is true that it cannot be admitted as evidence unless it is signed. This will need a change in the law. Some people simply pay the fixed penalty and that is the end of it. This only affects those people whose cases go to court and where the prosecution are asked to prove their case. If the form is not signed then they cannot do so. It would be unfair for the police to go back and ask people to sign the form without first cautioning them that the law does not require them to sign it."
A spokeswoman for North Wales Police said later that there was no one available to comment at present.
But one police source said that the loophole had been known about for some time and there was concern that once it became known "it could open the flood gates. The police generally have been waiting for someone to appeal against a conviction on this point but no one had yet. We have basically been keeping our heads down. Some of my colleagues say we should just make sure people sign the forms but others are a bit concerned that to do that is tricking people into something they do not have to do. The trouble is when this is highlighted they will all be sending the forms back unsigned."
A NORTH Wales driver was unaware last night he had escaped a motoring ban, after a legal loophole was discovered by a court clerk.
Police fear it could open the floodgates to thousands of motorists across the UK, caught by speed cameras and laser guns, also escaping driving bans.
Last night North Wales police admitted that a change in the law is needed to plug the loophole.
It was discovered by a magistrates' clerk dealing with speeding charges against Phillip Dennis, of Whitford, near Holywell, in his absence. Magistrates said that they had no option but to find the case against him not proved.
The loophole involves a form sent by police to the registered owner of a car caught on speed cameras. The form asks who the driver was at the time. It is an offence not to fill in the form and name the driver - but significantly there is no requirement to sign it. However, for it to be used as evidence in court, the form has to be signed, otherwise a court cannot take any notice of it.
Flintshire magistrates' clerk Paul Conlon realised Mr Dennis's form was filled in but not signed, and so could not be used as evidence. It was, said Mr Conlon, a loophole in the law. Magistrates said they were not happy but had no option but to find Dennis, 34, [address withheld] Whitford, not guilty.
Chairman John Beard suggested police should go back to defendants and ask them to sign the form. But he was advised that as the law now stood, the only requirement was to stipulate the name of the driver and that there was no legal requirement to sign it even if police did go back and request a signature.
One legal expert said later: "Yes, I can confirm that vehicle owners asked to confirm the name of the driver must complete the form but there is no legal requirement to sign the document. On the other hand it is true that it cannot be admitted as evidence unless it is signed. This will need a change in the law. Some people simply pay the fixed penalty and that is the end of it. This only affects those people whose cases go to court and where the prosecution are asked to prove their case. If the form is not signed then they cannot do so. It would be unfair for the police to go back and ask people to sign the form without first cautioning them that the law does not require them to sign it."
A spokeswoman for North Wales Police said later that there was no one available to comment at present.
But one police source said that the loophole had been known about for some time and there was concern that once it became known "it could open the flood gates. The police generally have been waiting for someone to appeal against a conviction on this point but no one had yet. We have basically been keeping our heads down. Some of my colleagues say we should just make sure people sign the forms but others are a bit concerned that to do that is tricking people into something they do not have to do. The trouble is when this is highlighted they will all be sending the forms back unsigned."
14-08-2005, 12:21 AM
#19
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wooooah, how cool is pepipoo.com, check out this letter to send!Thanks to Mika on the site.
Dear Mr [Chief Constable], (you should be able to get their contact details from this site )
Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution for an alleged motoring offence: I have been informed that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights indicates that the fundamental and enduring principle of a persons right to silence and avoidance of self-incrimination is applicable to Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988.
I would like to exercise my fundamental right to remain silent, and draw your attention to Appendix I of this letter, which contains the case law upon which my defence will rely.
Yours sincerely,
++++
Appendix I
Brown v Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and another Privy Council [2001] 2 All ER 97
John Murray V UK (ECHR 00018731/91para
Case of Weh v Austria- (Application no. 38544/1997) ECHR
Case of Funke v France (Application No 00010828/84) ECHR
JB v Switzerland- (Application no. 31827/1996) ECHR
Heaney and McGuiness v Ireland (Application no. 34720/97)
Debate House of Lords Cols, 447 515, 535 18 November, 1997
White Paper Human Rights Brought Home s2.7 and 2.8
Sections 2 and 3.1 Human Rights Act 1998
Ireland v UK 1979-80 ECHR
Wille v Lichtenstein 1997 ECHR
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr Case 11/70 [1989] AC 66
Article F2 Treaty of Maastricht
Friedrich Kremzow v Republik Österreich. C299/1995
Bernard Connolly v Commission Case C-274/1999
Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte and Planzuge v Republik Osterreich ECJ C-112/2000
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV (LVM) (C-238/1999 P), DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV (C-244/1999 P), Montedison SpA (C-245/1999 P), Elf Atochem SA (C-247/1999 P), Degussa AG (C-250/1999 P), Enichem SpA (C-251/1999 P), Wacker-Chemie GmbH and Hoechst AG (C-252/1999 P) and Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) (C-254/1999 P) v Commission of the European Communities. Joined cases C-38/1999 P, C-244/1999 P, C-245/1999 P, C-247/1999 P, C-250/1999 P to C-252/1999 P and C-254/1999 P.ECR
Grimaldi (Salvatore) v Fonds des Malaides Professionnelles Case C 322/88
Directive 2000/56
Commission Recommendation of 6 April 2004 on enforcement in the field of road safety Celex Number 32004H0345
Hertfordshire County Council, Ex Parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another, R v. [2000] UKHL 11; [2000] 2 AC 412; [2000] 1 All ER 773; [2000] 2 WLR 373 (17th February, 2000)
Dear Mr [Chief Constable], (you should be able to get their contact details from this site )
Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution for an alleged motoring offence: I have been informed that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights indicates that the fundamental and enduring principle of a persons right to silence and avoidance of self-incrimination is applicable to Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988.
I would like to exercise my fundamental right to remain silent, and draw your attention to Appendix I of this letter, which contains the case law upon which my defence will rely.
Yours sincerely,
++++
Appendix I
Brown v Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and another Privy Council [2001] 2 All ER 97
John Murray V UK (ECHR 00018731/91para
Case of Weh v Austria- (Application no. 38544/1997) ECHR
Case of Funke v France (Application No 00010828/84) ECHR
JB v Switzerland- (Application no. 31827/1996) ECHR
Heaney and McGuiness v Ireland (Application no. 34720/97)
Debate House of Lords Cols, 447 515, 535 18 November, 1997
White Paper Human Rights Brought Home s2.7 and 2.8
Sections 2 and 3.1 Human Rights Act 1998
Ireland v UK 1979-80 ECHR
Wille v Lichtenstein 1997 ECHR
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr Case 11/70 [1989] AC 66
Article F2 Treaty of Maastricht
Friedrich Kremzow v Republik Österreich. C299/1995
Bernard Connolly v Commission Case C-274/1999
Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte and Planzuge v Republik Osterreich ECJ C-112/2000
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV (LVM) (C-238/1999 P), DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV (C-244/1999 P), Montedison SpA (C-245/1999 P), Elf Atochem SA (C-247/1999 P), Degussa AG (C-250/1999 P), Enichem SpA (C-251/1999 P), Wacker-Chemie GmbH and Hoechst AG (C-252/1999 P) and Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) (C-254/1999 P) v Commission of the European Communities. Joined cases C-38/1999 P, C-244/1999 P, C-245/1999 P, C-247/1999 P, C-250/1999 P to C-252/1999 P and C-254/1999 P.ECR
Grimaldi (Salvatore) v Fonds des Malaides Professionnelles Case C 322/88
Directive 2000/56
Commission Recommendation of 6 April 2004 on enforcement in the field of road safety Celex Number 32004H0345
Hertfordshire County Council, Ex Parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another, R v. [2000] UKHL 11; [2000] 2 AC 412; [2000] 1 All ER 773; [2000] 2 WLR 373 (17th February, 2000)
14-08-2005, 12:25 AM
#21
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14-08-2005, 12:33 AM
#22
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this was posted by "chadders" on the same forum:-
OK, I'm gonna go for the challenge and test myself based on what I've read in the forums... wait for others to check my post before you take any action based on it, and remember you've got 28 days to reply
<pulls up pants, holds breath & prepares for flaming >
You have a NIP, and they would kindly like you to sign it (in your case as the driver at the time of the offence), and please have my Ł60 and give me 3 points in return.
Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA) 1988 requires you to provide the details of the driver at the time of the offence. If you don't do this, then it too is an offence they can charge you with (failure to identify driver).
s.172 wrote:
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
(3) Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.
On your NIP, you will find words to the effect that it (the signed NIP) can be used in evidence.
So, you need to comply with S172 and provide the driver's details. However, using their form, it then gets used in evidence to prosecute you for speeding (i.e. a conditional offer is sent out to the person who nominates themself on the NIP/s.172 form). This is normally Ł60 and 3 penalty points, providing the offence wasn't too severe.
OK so far(?), so you watch "The Bill" or some such and when someone is arrested they receive a 'caution';
Quote:
You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
So, considering what you're being asked to do with their nice pretty form you would think you would be given a caution, yes?
Enter stage left... the PACE witness statement... you write on their pretty form (NIP/s.172 form they sent to you asking to nominate the driver), "Please see the attached letter" and staple your completed PACE letter.
Firstly, you haven't received the 'caution' - which would be nice (considering what you *were* going to do could be presented in evidence - and which is required by the PACE code (para 10.1) but hey were you to know!?).
So, in theory, your PACE letter 'gets around' you having to sign their form, letting them prosecute you for speeding.
But wait a minute... Don't forget that you need to comply with S172! So in your PACE letter you give them all the correct details of the driver (ie you). Bingo! Job done.
And the cherry on the cake? As you weren't cautioned, they shouldn't use your PACE letter (with your driver details) as evidence to give you those shiney 3 points.
Homework: re-read the sticky at the top of this forum, and in particular the PACE letter - that will then no doubt send you on the wibbly - wobbly journey into the inner workings...
<puts apple on teacher's desk and prays >
NB: don't be too harsh on me, I'm intending to buy a few mugs on Friday so be nice with any criticism
OK, I'm gonna go for the challenge and test myself based on what I've read in the forums... wait for others to check my post before you take any action based on it, and remember you've got 28 days to reply
<pulls up pants, holds breath & prepares for flaming >
You have a NIP, and they would kindly like you to sign it (in your case as the driver at the time of the offence), and please have my Ł60 and give me 3 points in return.
Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA) 1988 requires you to provide the details of the driver at the time of the offence. If you don't do this, then it too is an offence they can charge you with (failure to identify driver).
s.172 wrote:
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
(3) Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.
On your NIP, you will find words to the effect that it (the signed NIP) can be used in evidence.
So, you need to comply with S172 and provide the driver's details. However, using their form, it then gets used in evidence to prosecute you for speeding (i.e. a conditional offer is sent out to the person who nominates themself on the NIP/s.172 form). This is normally Ł60 and 3 penalty points, providing the offence wasn't too severe.
OK so far(?), so you watch "The Bill" or some such and when someone is arrested they receive a 'caution';
Quote:
You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
So, considering what you're being asked to do with their nice pretty form you would think you would be given a caution, yes?
Enter stage left... the PACE witness statement... you write on their pretty form (NIP/s.172 form they sent to you asking to nominate the driver), "Please see the attached letter" and staple your completed PACE letter.
Firstly, you haven't received the 'caution' - which would be nice (considering what you *were* going to do could be presented in evidence - and which is required by the PACE code (para 10.1) but hey were you to know!?).
So, in theory, your PACE letter 'gets around' you having to sign their form, letting them prosecute you for speeding.
But wait a minute... Don't forget that you need to comply with S172! So in your PACE letter you give them all the correct details of the driver (ie you). Bingo! Job done.
And the cherry on the cake? As you weren't cautioned, they shouldn't use your PACE letter (with your driver details) as evidence to give you those shiney 3 points.
Homework: re-read the sticky at the top of this forum, and in particular the PACE letter - that will then no doubt send you on the wibbly - wobbly journey into the inner workings...
<puts apple on teacher's desk and prays >
NB: don't be too harsh on me, I'm intending to buy a few mugs on Friday so be nice with any criticism
14-08-2005, 03:34 AM
#23
BANNED
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Surrey BUT IF UR A FIT WOMEN
Posts: 4,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 ? callibration the light has to flash at a given time ir wrong the speed is wrong
ask when this was done if ever and for it to be done if wrong there wrong no case they say you are nicked for 56mph and should have been 45mph NO CASE
ask when this was done if ever and for it to be done if wrong there wrong no case they say you are nicked for 56mph and should have been 45mph NO CASE
14-08-2005, 10:00 AM
#24
just finding my feet
the problem ya got is the judge ect have to agree with what ya say and not just say bollox
thats the issue i got,
as for mark S1, fook knows where you issue is but im sure bending over and taking it up the arse was gracies job, but you have the right to choose your own route, not everyone will and for some reason people seem to get on with there lives and not worry what the self rightious people on the internet think
anyway back on topic, look at what people have done and MAKE SURE they aint talking about what a "mate" done, ya wanna know if its all true and be nice if its part of the same council enforcement as when we wne to court they never seemed to care, the offence was the issue in question, tbh i recon if it was speeding he would have said the same, speeding is speeding, regardless of the actually speed in question bollox
mike has got of a few in a way, diamonds has, and you have , these are all following legal ways !!!!!
some have got off other ways that aint as legal but they have had a result either way that they found the taste not too bad
so in a nut shell, good luck 
you are soooo right, tooo many people want as easy life and as such they will just pay the cash
we all can change the world if we all stuck togetherm just people dont wanna do things unless they are affected by it
thats the issue i got,
as for mark S1, fook knows where you issue is but im sure bending over and taking it up the arse was gracies job, but you have the right to choose your own route, not everyone will and for some reason people seem to get on with there lives and not worry what the self rightious people on the internet think
anyway back on topic, look at what people have done and MAKE SURE they aint talking about what a "mate" done, ya wanna know if its all true and be nice if its part of the same council enforcement as when we wne to court they never seemed to care, the offence was the issue in question, tbh i recon if it was speeding he would have said the same, speeding is speeding, regardless of the actually speed in question bollox
mike has got of a few in a way, diamonds has, and you have , these are all following legal ways !!!!!
some have got off other ways that aint as legal but they have had a result either way that they found the taste not too bad
so in a nut shell, good luck
you are soooo right, tooo many people want as easy life and as such they will just pay the cash
we all can change the world if we all stuck togetherm just people dont wanna do things unless they are affected by it
14-08-2005, 10:29 AM
#26
Just be carefull mate, I couldn't remember the driver of my car (after receiving a NIP).
Didn't get the first letter from them
Then told them couldn't ID the driver, didn't hear anything for ages...
Then got a court date for failing to provide driver information
Found out this was heavily frowned upon by the ins company, so suddenly remembered it was me driving
Didn't get the first letter from them
Then told them couldn't ID the driver, didn't hear anything for ages...Then got a court date for failing to provide driver information
Found out this was heavily frowned upon by the ins company, so suddenly remembered it was me driving
14-08-2005, 11:12 AM
#27
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have you read the article " how to turn a nip into a rip " in this link i posted the other day. http://www.notsoaccurate.com/
14-08-2005, 12:37 PM
#28
Im pretty sure most loopholes were closed some time ago.
From what I read, for a motorist caught speeding by a camera.
You have NO rights whatseover.
You cannot remain silent, or you will be convicted regardless.
Pretty much if pen touches paper, its regarded as a signature, and eligable in court to crucify you.
If someone else writes it, then you are deemed to have instructed them to do so, and can still be used against you.
This link below covers some footballer, who got caught, and was fighting it ( because he could afford to )
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html
http://www.spr-consilio.com/notice.html
From what I read, for a motorist caught speeding by a camera.
You have NO rights whatseover.
You cannot remain silent, or you will be convicted regardless.
Pretty much if pen touches paper, its regarded as a signature, and eligable in court to crucify you.
If someone else writes it, then you are deemed to have instructed them to do so, and can still be used against you.
This link below covers some footballer, who got caught, and was fighting it ( because he could afford to )
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html
http://www.spr-consilio.com/notice.html
14-08-2005, 02:36 PM
#30
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cheers all, this is a very interesting post
http://www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=7021
Diamonds? where are you?
http://www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=7021
Diamonds? where are you?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
slammedorion
Pictures, video & Photoshop Forum
15
01-11-2015 07:17 PM
t16coupe
General Car Related Discussion.
7
10-08-2015 06:28 PM
