Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Speed Cameras/Human Rights
technically yes........ and technically no.......
the right not to self incriminate is a standing rule ............but more commonly used in America ( the 5th Ammendmennt)
however the way to describe/deal with these things is a little complicated....
if you need some help trying to make it go away , please feel free to contact me by PM
the right not to self incriminate is a standing rule ............but more commonly used in America ( the 5th Ammendmennt)
however the way to describe/deal with these things is a little complicated....
if you need some help trying to make it go away , please feel free to contact me by PM
Quote by GnV
Are our human rights being breached when we are asked to implicate ourselves or our spouse when a car registered to you as keeper is flashed by a speed camera?
Devils advocate here....
If you were flashed by a speed camera, then a hundred yards down the road, you knocked over and killed and pedestrian cos you couldn't stop in time - would the human rights issue come up?
I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions, if you choose to speed, then get caught, you got to accept the consequenses for those actions - not try to palm em off elsewhere
Quote by browning
KIss, the lti 20/20 speed camera, one of the most commonly used cameras in the country, recorded a wall doing 28mph!!.
I don't mind being nicked for speeding, if I was speeding!.
Of course. I don't advocate people getting prosecuted for something they haven't done! :shock:
However, proving who was (or was not) driving the car when somebody was speeding doesn't change the fact that the law was broken.
Quote by Kiss
KIss, the lti 20/20 speed camera, one of the most commonly used cameras in the country, recorded a wall doing 28mph!!.
I don't mind being nicked for speeding, if I was speeding!.
Of course. I don't advocate people getting prosecuted for something they haven't done! :shock:
However, proving who was (or was not) driving the car when somebody was speeding doesn't change the fact that the law was broken.
but surely laws can , in essence be unfair to the point of breaching either International, European, Human Rights or (most importantly ) Natural law............which was the essence of the origonal post..............
plus Kiss.. generally people are prosecuted because it is percieved that they have in-fact broken a law... it is for the trial system to judge if an offence has been committed....
I agree kiss, the problem with being prosecuted for not naming the driver in a speeding offence is that it is not fair.
On the telly the other night 4 lads were in a flat and one of them shot a air rifle at a young girl and hit her in the hand, because none of the lads would say who pulled the trigger, no charges were brought. If you don't name the driver in a speeding offence, you are prosecuted=unfair.
It's all about money getting.
On the telly the other night 4 lads were in a flat and one of them shot a air rifle at a young girl and hit her in the hand, because none of the lads would say who pulled the trigger, no charges were brought. If you don't name the driver in a speeding offence, you are prosecuted=unfair.
It's all about money getting.
Sex God
I just find the whole case interesting....
so we know that it was one of the two person's car....that is not in dispute , and they were both the only people in the car when it was flashed for speeding.... but because neither of them wants to tell the truth, why should they get away with it....
and the amazing thing that i find is that "liberty" are supporting this case...
if, for example, the car had been in an accident and someone has been hurt would they have gotten away with it by both of them saying "wasn't me guv!" i think they would have both been charge with "perverting the course of justice" as well as other things
someone smart will be able to tell me why if they are refusing to co-operate, can the DVLA not put points on both of their license's until one of them finally does the honourable thing!!!
so we know that it was one of the two person's car....that is not in dispute , and they were both the only people in the car when it was flashed for speeding.... but because neither of them wants to tell the truth, why should they get away with it....
and the amazing thing that i find is that "liberty" are supporting this case...
if, for example, the car had been in an accident and someone has been hurt would they have gotten away with it by both of them saying "wasn't me guv!" i think they would have both been charge with "perverting the course of justice" as well as other things
someone smart will be able to tell me why if they are refusing to co-operate, can the DVLA not put points on both of their license's until one of them finally does the honourable thing!!!
:rotflmao: :rotflmao:Quote by fabio grooverider
someone smart will be able to tell me why if they are refusing to co-operate, can the DVLA not put points on both of their license's until one of them finally does the honourable thing!!!
I'm not sure, but would that not mean two people were prosecuted for a single offence ?
Quote by DeeCee
KIss, the lti 20/20 speed camera, one of the most commonly used cameras in the country, recorded a wall doing 28mph!!.
I don't mind being nicked for speeding, if I was speeding!.
Of course. I don't advocate people getting prosecuted for something they haven't done! :shock:
However, proving who was (or was not) driving the car when somebody was speeding doesn't change the fact that the law was broken.
but surely laws can , in essence be unfair to the point of breaching either International, Eurpoean or (most importantly ) Natural law............
ohhhhhhh i love a good mass debate...........................
Of course DeeCee, but I think it also depends on the context.
Speeding is a current gripe of mine due to the fact that in the one piece of road where I live, there has been 6 accidents in the last year. All because people refuse to do the 30mph a limit because it's a 'country' road.
The wonderful council are getting around to deciding whether to install a speed camera or not. Now if I decide to park at the bottom of my drive and my car gets written off (just like my next door neighbour last February) by somebody speeding and they get photographed by the camera, am I really going to care if his/her human rights are affected by them having to say who was driving?
Quote by browning
I agree kiss, the problem with being prosecuted for not naming the driver in a speeding offence is that it is not fair.
On the telly the other night 4 lads were in a flat and one of them shot a air rifle at a young girl and hit her in the hand, because none of the lads would say who pulled the trigger, no charges were brought. If you don't name the driver in a speeding offence, you are prosecuted=unfair.
It's all about money getting.
thats why the law was brought in... so people wouldnt get away with the incident scott free.... they will at least get convicted of failing to identify the driver.........as a citizen i agree with that law .........
as to your example.. my reading of that case is that they should all have been prosecuted under the law, on the basis of it having been a "joint enterprise" ... the CPS had no bottle. they would have had atleast one guilty plea...... im sure of it......
Deecee, my point is that if the powers that be are prepeard to prosecute for failure to indentify the driver, then all 4 lads should have been prosecuted, the problem is the police would never be able to prove who pulled the trigger.
Just imagine this; police get called to a burgalary, there are two robbers in the house, one escapes and the other is arrested, the one that is caught will not tell the police who the other robber is, when the robber gets to court, should he recieve double the sentance for failing to identify the other robber?. We all know it would never happen.
It's revenue raising, pure and simple.
Just imagine this; police get called to a burgalary, there are two robbers in the house, one escapes and the other is arrested, the one that is caught will not tell the police who the other robber is, when the robber gets to court, should he recieve double the sentance for failing to identify the other robber?. We all know it would never happen.
It's revenue raising, pure and simple.
Quote by fabio grooverider
if, for example, the car had been in an accident and someone has been hurt would they have gotten away with it by both of them saying "wasn't me guv!" i think they would have both been charge with "perverting the course of justice" as well as other things
the fault essentially lies with the inability to prove the offence through evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt... the main ingredient of any criminal speeding or if there had have been a crash.. a charge of perverting justice would have been easy to defend with the defence of "it wasnt me" as obviously no evidence exists to prove the identity of the yes, in both examples... and up until the caselaw changes, they look like they will get off.
Quote by fabio grooverider
someone smart will be able to tell me why if they are refusing to co-operate, can the DVLA not put points on both of their license's until one of them finally does the honourable thing!!!
this is a tougher one..... firstly. and i dont mean to patronise. its not the DVLA. its the courts who impose penalties......
as to convicting both until one owns up....... this is not something that could happen in this country... it happens a bit like this in Holland.....
the middle ground is the offence of failure to furnish information as to the driver..... there are the fact that there are only 2 normal drivers sorts of narrows the matter down and im sure the court will make a proper decision
Sex God
Quote by browning
Fabio, if you put points on both thier liceneces until they tell the truth, that is guilty until proven innocent, a very dangerous path to go down.
maybe it would help the "innocent" one regain their memory, or prick the "guilty" one conscience....
it might be guitly till proven innocent, but they both know who was driving.... so they are were prepared to take the risk, and are not denying the fact that they were speeding and broke the law....why should they get away with it on a technically because they refused to co-operate???
Quote by dambusterI'm not sure, but would that not mean two people were prosecuted for a single offence ?
someone smart will be able to tell me why if they are refusing to co-operate, can the DVLA not put points on both of their license's until one of them finally does the honourable thing!!!
The real issue here is that, once again, bad law is being foisted on us. The basic and fundamental principles of English Law are being eroded by this Blairite regime. The presumption of innocence has been with us for 300 years.. the law requires the prosecution to prove their case and not for the accused to prove their innocence. The right to remain silent is fundamental.
That's why Liberty are involved... it's the gradual erosion of these rights that they are most concerned with. The legislature should be making better laws to protect us, not rushing things to the statute book.
Sexpert
It amazes me how anyone who drives in this country can actually break the speed limit due to the gridlock.
Personally I would like to see some sort of video camera that can be used to detect people who use their mobiles whilst driving.
Personally I would like to see some sort of video camera that can be used to detect people who use their mobiles whilst driving.
Human Rights!! 
........using "human rights"......over a speed camera offence.....some people just don't know the meaning of "human rights".......they should try living somewhere where "human rights" don't mean shit!! :x .....some people just don't know their fucking born! :x ........they should just take responsibility for breaking the law instead of bending it!
........using "human rights"......over a speed camera offence.....some people just don't know the meaning of "human rights".......they should try living somewhere where "human rights" don't mean shit!! :x .....some people just don't know their fucking born! :x ........they should just take responsibility for breaking the law instead of bending it! Quote by da69ve
Human Rights!!
harshly put..... but i agree.................
Quote by DeeCeewe lost this right ages ago......... 1995....... it had been on the table for ages before TB got his hands on the criminal justice system........
The right to remain silent is fundamental.
Judges Rules... the old Police caution said that you did not have to say anything unless you wished to do so, but what you said would be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence.. That was then amended to "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."
That change has not removed the fundamental right to remain silent.
Quote by DeeCee
Human Rights!!
harshly put..... but i agree.................
i am sick to the back teeth of people going on about their human rights.....we don't know how lucky we've got it......there are some countries i would not want to live in because of their lack of human rights.....i don't think we do to bad.....we are nothing but spoilt!
