sippo Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Driver gets fined for warning other motorists about the speed traps. In my opinion the police should be concentrating on other matters!! Driver who flashed headlights to warn motorists of speed trap fined | Mail Online
aerospacemango Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Where, exactly, is the public interest in this case? So, he flashed a few cars to warn them of a speed trap, and that is classed as "perverting the course of justice"? The Police must have soooo little to do, in this country.
Gatt Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 So, he flashed a few cars maybe the police were thinking too much out of the box..
sted Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 it all hinges on what you think speed cameras are for. if they are there to slow down traffic then what he did is fine as it slowed down traffic so job done (same with visible cakeras and signs) if they are there to make money then he did wrong as people slowed down and so diddnt give them any money 1
tech_guy Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 He got what he deserved. He broke the law so must face the consequences. Chin up you whining old fart.
BatchFile Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 it all hinges on what you think speed cameras are for. if they are there to slow down traffic then what he did is fine as it slowed down traffic so job done (same with visible cakeras and signs) if they are there to make money then he did wrong as people slowed down and so diddnt give them any money Absolutely! what does that do to the credibility of the claims that "speed traps are not out to make money, they are there to reduce accidents and speeds" that we keep hearing:rolleyes:
Gatt Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 How did he break the law? Its not illegal to flash people - the Highway code is only advisory unless it states "YOU MUST" or "YOU MUST NOT" in which case it is a legal requirement to comply with that rule .. In fact according the The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 - there is no mention about flashing your headlamps..
tech_guy Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) He was aiding and abetting people. He got caught so should be man enough to take the punishment without whingeing like an old idiot. Edited January 5, 2011 by tech_guy
Gatt Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 aiding and abetting people - by slowing them down?? I still fail to see the crime here? surely if he was encouraging them to speed up then there would be a case to answer.. but for SLOWING them down?! So does that mean that all traffic calming measures are also illegal since they "aide and abet" in the slowing down of traffic?
Max_Power Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 They claim he obstructed the police from doing their duty which is against the law.
Gatt Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 fair enough, but were the police in the process of trying to arrest or otherwise question one of those drivers? if not, they are mearly grasping at straws - possibly due to upcoming cutbacks..
aerospacemango Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 He was aiding and abetting people. He got caught so should be man enough to take the punishment without longeing like an old idiot. He got what he deserved. He broke the law so must face the consequences. Chin up you whining old fart. I could give you negative rep, for that statement, but as it's your own views and opinions, I'd much rather just discuss it! That is an incredibly silly statement to make....There is NO law, as far as I can find, that says you must not flash other cars. Would you flash a car to warn them of anything else? Perhaps an accident, just round the corner, or a fallen tree on the road? The Police have over-reacted to this....especially if the quote "I was going to let you off with a caution - but I’m not now" is true. Sorry, but that gives the Police a bad name.
localzuk Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 This is a typical magistrates court ruling where they of course side with the police, unless the evidence is black and white and in front of them. I've seen it so many times before its ridiculous. If the guy appealed, you can be pretty sure he would be acquitted as a) it is not reasonable to think that flashing your lights is an offence b) that slowing people down is not illegal Obstructing the police is not about something like this, it is preventing them from doing their job (eg. arresting people, detecting crime). At the locality where the person flashed their lights, the police were not doing either of these things. Only further up the road were they doing this.
3s-gtech Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Interesting that this has come up. Had this discussion with a police officer a few years ago, he was of the opinion that it was perverting the course of justice. Technically, he was correct, but I'd say it's a discretionary matter for most cases. They should be advising with a chat; from the content of the article in the Fail, that's what the copper would have done. There's your lesson - don't argue back.
MK-2 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 although i too disagree with the decision, i can see where the argument is. as localzuk says, the job of the police is to detect crime, and by him alerting them to the presence of police, he interfered with them detecting crime. i know its still a very weak argument, and i still think its utter stupidity, as it now means if you pass a speed camera, then want to let a car into a junction or a pedestrian across, you cant flash your lights for fear of being arrested
Hightower Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 So if I stopped someone from murdering, would that mean I'm the one at fault? Bizarre that I'd be called a criminal instead of a hero. 1
sted Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 So if I stopped someone from murdering, would that mean I'm the one at fault? Bizarre that I'd be called a criminal instead of a hero. slightly less exterme example if i noticed there was police activity on a road and advised another motorist to avoid it would that also be the same as they could be the person the police are there to arrest? so locally the police found a canabis factory on an industrial estate if i warned fred not to go that way to work and it turned out he was the one growing the weed would i then be resopnsible?
nicholab Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I think the Highway code need some more speed limit areas rather than the standard 4. As it is very difficult trying to follow the guide line and you then find you self speeding as area has a waky limit. I seen dual-carriageways with 30!!!!! this is the A316 as it passed near Richmond.
Martin Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I take it that the Police had hard evidence that the drivers that were flashed were initially exceeding the speed limit and that soley as a consequence of being flashed (and not, say, by seeing the brightly clothed officer in the distance) reduced their speed to below the legal limit? Because if they weren't speeding in the first place then Mr. Thompson can't have been "wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty"!!!! mb
aerospacemango Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I'm pretty sure that we could all find an example to make us appear right, in this argument. However, the reality is that the CPS seems to have wanted to make an example of this man, for whatever reason, thus spending almost a day in court, for a "crime" that most people would believe is ridiculous. Had this gone to Trial By Jury, I have no doubts that he would have been criminal record-free. A jury of 12 peers would not have allowed the conviction to stand. But, hey-ho, that is just my opinion!
mattx Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 If you don't want the fine, don't do the crime. 'Nuff said.
localzuk Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I'm pretty sure that we could all find an example to make us appear right, in this argument. However, the reality is that the CPS seems to have wanted to make an example of this man, for whatever reason, thus spending almost a day in court, for a "crime" that most people would believe is ridiculous. Had this gone to Trial By Jury, I have no doubts that he would have been criminal record-free. A jury of 12 peers would not have allowed the conviction to stand. But, hey-ho, that is just my opinion! The CPS is a very odd organisation. A friend of mine was prosecuted for operating a street collection once, when he was handing out leaflets somewhere and someone gave him a quid. (There's a whole back story involved, including my friend having been watched for 3 hours by an undercover police officer). The case didn't have a chance in court, as he hadn't asked for donations and that's what the bylaw stated. Yet the CPS allowed the prosecution to go ahead, and my friend spent 2 hours in court, where the CPS had 2 solicitors present, and the magistrates pretty much spent the time telling them off for frivolous prosecution! I think its a case that the CPS are pushed by politics rather than a desire to clean up crime.
DrummerBoy Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I must admit I would have claimed that I was trying to slow speeding motorists down, and the fact that the Police were there was coincidental. That would aiding the Police and is a civic duty!!
SpuffMonkey Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I enjoyed a couple of things on the local news recently - a bloke put up some posters about his missing cat and got a letter threatening a £1000 fine unless they were all taken down and the bloke out playing snowballs with his little kids who threw one at a passing policeman - a stupid thing to do - but I would have thought a stern telling off would have sufficed - but no - 2 days lateer they came round to his house, handcuffed him and took him away and did him for assault - a tad OTT imho
TechMonkey Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Normally these cases go through because the person was an utter arse & of course he isn't going to explain that while he whines to the papers. Now it is up to you if that is wrong in itself but normally I have found if you are respectful and reasonable you get treated fairly, if not positively by the police. The alternative example would be what if the police were coming to raid a criminal enterprise and he was warning someone? As ever I expect there was more behind this than is being reported especially being the Daily Fail.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now