Speed cameras "could be illegal"

Oh dear. More chickens coming home to roost on the government's incompetence, just when they need to bleed us dry to pay for their deficit spending.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to
Oppressed Subject
Loading thread data ...

So not a challenge to the principle of speed cameras, just a minor drafting error, which can be rectified. Parliament can give the necessary approval and everything is fine. I guess they may have to refund the fines but hey, cancel the 20 billion ID Cards programme, and they'll be plenty of cash available.

Reply to
Colonel Colt

According to the government, we need the ID cards to protect us from terrorists. (Yeah right)

I say forget about spending on domestic security. It is a red herring: you spend billions and the terrorists only have to get lucky once. Have a completely open and free architecture, as it should be.

Instead of ever increasing oppression of its subjects, the government could instead have gone for a policy of robust retaliation. In response to a major terrorist incident, give the Islamofascists a lesson in history they will never forget.

Reply to
Oppressed Subject

Because Israel's dependence on mass murder as a foreign policy tactic and as an anti-terrorism measure has been so successful. Committing terrorist murder in response to acts of terrorism is self-defeating and only aggravates the problem. I know that if my nearest and dearest were amongst the innocents hurt in one of your 'robust retaliations' then I would have no hestitation in targetting the country that did it and to kill and kill and kill again, with a song in my heart and a clear conscience.

Reply to
Colonel Colt

Because Hamas and their ilk have no qualms about using human shields, and then sending the television crews in after they have served their purpose glorifying Allah.

Indeed, it is a historical precedent that Israel calls up or sends SMS to their intended targets to get them to vacate the area to minimise casualties. There is no requirement to act in such a fashion under international law, where "collateral damage" is an accepted, if unfortunate, reality.

Under international law, countries are permitted to take measures to defend their citizens. If the enemy moves the goalpost and puts human shields in the way, then it is our enemy we must fault.

formatting link

I think if Mecca or Medina were to be "forgotten", Muslims may see the light that Allah is the ramblings of a paedophillic and bloodthirsty madman, Mr. "More Pig Mad".

Reply to
Oppressed Subject

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

they get away with murder... (HMS Sheffield flammable uniforms... Iraq/ Afghanistan... 7/7 terrorists on MIx payroll etc.) no way they are going to let the courts tell them they now owe all those motorists their fines back.

plus most probably could be taken to have admitted it unless they wrote in a complaint.

Reply to
FriarTuck

So did the IRA. Which is pretty much the moral level on which the Israeli regime is operating.

Reply to
Colonel Colt

I think it was hamas that broke the ceasefire not isreal

Its isreal that suffered rocket attacks Its isreal that suffered suicide bomb attacks its isreal that is retaliating

Until they all give up violence this situation will not change

Reply to
steve robinson

In message , Colonel Colt writes

More to the point, speed cameras are just a means of gathering evidence, they are not a "legal" technicality or anything like that. This looks like utter garbage to me. Even if the presence of the speed camera were deemed to be without the necessary approval, the evidence it has produced would still probably be valid. This isn't America where the slightest technical flaw renders whole proceedings void.

Reply to
Richard Miller

Which is irrelevant to the question of whether the degree of Israel's retaliation is justifiable.

True. But killing hundreds of civilians makes that even less likely.

Reply to
Colonel Colt

It would need type approval to show that the machine does what it says on the tin so to speak. Without type approval it would be very difficult for the plod to get a conviction

Reply to
steve robinson

Hamas have done similar with its bus bombings , thats the problem each feels they ave to exact revenge and so the circle continues

Reply to
steve robinson

If you do not want a ticket, stay within the law, why is that so hard to grasp?

Reply to
Alan Ferris

That shows your total ignorance of Gaza, there is nowhere that is not civilian. With all the land grabs there it is now one of the most densely populated places on this planet.

Reply to
Alan Ferris

So the 400 Palestinian deaths during the cease fire were what exactly?

Must be nice to live in such a one sided world.

Reply to
Alan Ferris

I wonder whether this will also apply to other law enforcement cameras like traffic-light cameras, CCTV etc?

Last year, Robbie the Pict argued along very similar lines in relation to being snapped going through a red traffic light in Nottingham but lost his case in the Magistrates' Court. I don't know whether or not he appealed.

Reply to
Alasdair

Well if he really did break a traffic regulation then why shouldn't he suffer the penalty?

As Richard has already pointed out, cameras merely collect evidence. The case centres on the fact as to whether a traffic regulation was breached or not. Thus, any defence involving the camera can only involve consideration as to whether the camera in question was working properly and accurately. There really is no need of legislation to cover every type of camera that may be in use.

As an aside it might be useful to reflect that prior to these electronic devices, a conviction for speeding could only be obtained as the result of observation by two constables following a suspect car over a fixed distance with one constable keeping a constant eye on his vehicle's speedometer. The net result was that convictions were relatively few.

Reply to
Mel Rowing

The defence involving the camera would surely be that as the camera was unlawfully used to gather evidence, the evidence that was gathered can not be used in court. A long standing principle of British justice I understand.

Reply to
freepo

You understand wrongly.

It is a principle of US justice, but not of UK justice.

Reply to
Alex Heney

In all cases the admissibility of evidence in court is a matter for the presiding judge who applies what have become known as judges' rules. These have evolved over centuries and have no statutory basis. The most well known grounds for inadmissibility are hearsay evidence and verbal evidence obtained from defendants not under caution.

The paramount consideration is that no evidence should be presented that might contribute towards an unsafe conviction.

Courts have accepted photographic as well as evidence obtained by electronic means for a good number of years.

Reply to
Mel Rowing

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.