Only in West Yorkshire
Moderators: Gromit, Paul, slparry
-
- Posts: 3711
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:07 pm
- Location: scottish borders
- Contact:
Only in West Yorkshire
http://cars.aol.co.uk/2015/02/25/driver ... d%3D332309
Seemed harsh at first glance.
What age do you start to " grow up"?
Seemed harsh at first glance.
What age do you start to " grow up"?
Fiat Panda.
Fiat Scudo (with speedblock, pipe carrier, reversing sensors, reversing camera, tow bar, some new rust and Fake Plumber logo)
started out with nothing, still have most of it left.
Fiat Scudo (with speedblock, pipe carrier, reversing sensors, reversing camera, tow bar, some new rust and Fake Plumber logo)
started out with nothing, still have most of it left.
I'll precede this with the statement that although I have seen all 7 series of "Boston Legal" - I'm no expert on UK Law
Whilst I know that the "Law" take the charge of "Attempting to pervert the course of justice" - very seriously............
I would expect that you actually have to be committing an offence - in order to "attempt to pervert the course.........."
So - would it not be necessary to prove that he was actually speeding?
I don't think you can presuppose that a crime is "potentially" going to occur, and then apply a law to that supposition?
A bit like getting charged with "Fleeing the scene of a crime" - if there hadn't actually been a crime? All you are guilty of - is "running"
I think a custodial sentence for this fella is way over the top.
Al
Whilst I know that the "Law" take the charge of "Attempting to pervert the course of justice" - very seriously............
I would expect that you actually have to be committing an offence - in order to "attempt to pervert the course.........."
So - would it not be necessary to prove that he was actually speeding?
I don't think you can presuppose that a crime is "potentially" going to occur, and then apply a law to that supposition?
A bit like getting charged with "Fleeing the scene of a crime" - if there hadn't actually been a crime? All you are guilty of - is "running"
I think a custodial sentence for this fella is way over the top.
Al
Last edited by Blackal on Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If I am ever on life support - Unplug me......
Then plug me back in..........
See if that works .....
Then plug me back in..........
See if that works .....
Blackal wrote:I'll precede this with the statement that although I have seen all 7 series of "Boston Legal" - I'm no expert on UK Law
Loved that show. Captain Kirk is brilliant.
A bit like getting charged with "Fleeing the scene of a crime" - if there hadn't actually been a crime? All you are guilty of - is "running"
I think a custodial sentence for this fella is way over the top.
Al
Thing is it is illegal to have a jammer. He knew that and had been warned before. The question of him actually breaking the speed limit on that occasion is moot but with a jammer his intent is clear. Personally I think he's a piss taker. If he'd been given another warning my guess is that he'd just do it again. We all like to press on a bit but we take our chances and keep our eyes open. That jammer gave him a bigger advantage to take the piss with speed and let's face it, most speed traps are in built up or slower speed areas so we can have a good guess at the type of driver he is.
What's the other answer; keep letting him off until he flattens someone whilst driving around over the speed limit because he thinks he's safe in the knowledge that he won't get a speeding fine? He took a chance, broke the law (again) and lost.
That's my tuppence, like it or don't
R1200GS TC. Triple Black
R1200S. It’s gone. Had it 11yrs. My favourite bike in 42yrs riding.
Holdsworth professional
Motobecane C3
Brompton
R1200S. It’s gone. Had it 11yrs. My favourite bike in 42yrs riding.
Holdsworth professional
Motobecane C3
Brompton
But - he doesn't appear to have been convicted of "using a device contrary to the etc etc..............." He has been convicted of "Attempting to pervert the course of justice"
It doesn't seem to be (to me) the appropriate conviction, and therefore penalty.
Al
It doesn't seem to be (to me) the appropriate conviction, and therefore penalty.
Al
If I am ever on life support - Unplug me......
Then plug me back in..........
See if that works .....
Then plug me back in..........
See if that works .....
f90x wrote:Thing is it is illegal to have a jammer. He knew that and had been warned before. The question of him actually breaking the speed limit on that occasion is moot but with a jammer his intent is clear. Personally I think he's a piss taker. If he'd been given another warning my guess is that he'd just do it again. We all like to press on a bit but we take our chances and keep our eyes open. That jammer gave him a bigger advantage to take the piss with speed and let's face it, most speed traps are in built up or slower speed areas so we can have a good guess at the type of driver he is.
What's the other answer; keep letting him off until he flattens someone whilst driving around over the speed limit because he thinks he's safe in the knowledge that he won't get a speeding fine? He took a chance, broke the law (again) and lost.
That's my tuppence, like it or don't
+ 1
Phil.
R1200S and loving it !
Hoch Bergstraßenjäger…………………………………
R1200S and loving it !
Hoch Bergstraßenjäger…………………………………
-
- Member
- Posts: 3619
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:35 am
- Location: North East
Report isn't that clear - it does say that they failed to register his speed on two occasions. It seems to me that is why he's been stopped nd then they "discovered" the device. He has been convicted before for this so likely there is marker against his vehicle reg? Personally after the first time I'd been caught I would have ditched the jammer. I think maybe the courts have had to be seen to act, hence the prison sentence. Be interesting to know if he ditches the jammer when he gets out
'15 R1200GS TE
'06 R1200S
'04 BCR
Yam SR 500 long term restoration
wanna win the lottery and ride my bike
'06 R1200S
'04 BCR
Yam SR 500 long term restoration
wanna win the lottery and ride my bike
I can see blackal's train of logic here.
Perverting the course of justice? Ok, so it's illegal to use one of these devices, but he's not saying he didn't have one. So he's not perverting that particular course.
We can't prove he was actually speeding because the detection devices were unable to detect him.
I guess perverting the course of justice amounts to setting out to disable HM equipment installed for the purpose of catching criminals.
But then (circular logic) we don't know he was guilty of the crime that the devices were put there to detect.
It's beautiful.
Well, to my simple brain it is.
Perverting the course of justice? Ok, so it's illegal to use one of these devices, but he's not saying he didn't have one. So he's not perverting that particular course.
We can't prove he was actually speeding because the detection devices were unable to detect him.
I guess perverting the course of justice amounts to setting out to disable HM equipment installed for the purpose of catching criminals.
But then (circular logic) we don't know he was guilty of the crime that the devices were put there to detect.
It's beautiful.
Well, to my simple brain it is.
Blackal wrote:Sherrif wrote:He had a device that enabled him to break the law - simple
His car falls into that category, too
Ok then his car is able to break the law by going over the designated speed limit and if caught doing so is liable to several penalties.
He has used a device that would or could avoid detection of that lawbreaking and is so perverting the course of justice.
Growing old is compulsory
Growing up is not
Growing up is not
Corvus wrote:Blackal wrote:Sherrif wrote:He had a device that enabled him to break the law - simple
His car falls into that category, too
And, thanks to many years absorbing the techniques of Bruce Lee, my finger ends do too.
Depends where you put that finger - if by consent ok but may cause a certain amount of pleasure or discomfort to reciever of the finger.
If it was an unwanted intrusion then undoubtedly you may have a problem.
Growing old is compulsory
Growing up is not
Growing up is not
Blackal wrote:Sherrif wrote:He had a device that enabled him to break the law - simple
His car falls into that category, too
But it is legal to purchase and use a vehicle within the constraints that are dictated to us. A Jammer is illegal to use in the first place and it is actually designed to pervert the actions used to deter speeding and therefor perverting the course of justice. Or something like that.
My new helmet turned up today. It's lovely.
R1200GS TC. Triple Black
R1200S. It’s gone. Had it 11yrs. My favourite bike in 42yrs riding.
Holdsworth professional
Motobecane C3
Brompton
R1200S. It’s gone. Had it 11yrs. My favourite bike in 42yrs riding.
Holdsworth professional
Motobecane C3
Brompton
popsky wrote:f90x wrote:Thing is it is illegal to have a jammer. He knew that and had been warned before. The question of him actually breaking the speed limit on that occasion is moot but with a jammer his intent is clear. Personally I think he's a piss taker. If he'd been given another warning my guess is that he'd just do it again. We all like to press on a bit but we take our chances and keep our eyes open. That jammer gave him a bigger advantage to take the piss with speed and let's face it, most speed traps are in built up or slower speed areas so we can have a good guess at the type of driver he is.
What's the other answer; keep letting him off until he flattens someone whilst driving around over the speed limit because he thinks he's safe in the knowledge that he won't get a speeding fine? He took a chance, broke the law (again) and lost.
That's my tuppence, like it or don't
+ 1
+ anuvver 1
--
Steve Parry
Current fleet: '14 F800GS, '87 R80RS, '03 R1100S BoxerCup, '15 R1200RT LE Dynamic, '90 K1
Steve Parry
Current fleet: '14 F800GS, '87 R80RS, '03 R1100S BoxerCup, '15 R1200RT LE Dynamic, '90 K1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests