Speed Cameras/Human Rights

27 Sep 2006

Quote by da69ve
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!

dave..... don't hold back mate!!!! honestly smile

:):)
it do think it is nonsense in the grander scheme of things to weasel out of 3 points for speeding by using the "human rights" line,
it might be nieve of me... but if you do the crime shouldn't you do the time so to speak.... or am i livng in cloud cuckoo land.......
you are going to find some advocate's of speed camera's , i do having lived on roads commonly known as the "brunstone speedway" when i lived as a student in leicester, not nice having helicopters whizzing over your house every night and having cars whizz round at 60-80mph.. but you are going to have people that hate them with a passion, but surely to any right-minded person, isn't it going to be about picking the battles that you can win......i mean, how much of the public are going to behind these guys, knowing the danger that they were putting themselves and possibly other people in???

27 Sep 2006

da69, I feel you are missing the point, because we have more human rights than other countrys we should give up some of ours?, I am not worried about other countries, I am worried about what is happening here, if we start accepting what the goverment want to do to us, we could end up like a third world country with no human rights.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by da69ve
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!

Oh dear, I think you miss you the point. Let them get a foot in the door on this one and it could open the floodgates. Ask the DeMenzies family about removing the right of presumed innocence.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
da69, I feel you are missing the point, because we have more human rights than other countrys we should give up some of ours?, I am not worried about other countries, I am worried about what is happening here, if we start accepting what the goverment want to do to us, we could end up like a third world country with no human rights.

i am not missing the point......we act like spoilt little children......and always like to blame someone else for our actions......all this bollocks with the European courts.....and for what.....3 points on your licence!......money that could have been spent on much worthier causes!

27 Sep 2006

Quote by GnV
The right to remain silent is fundamental.

we lost this right ages ago......... 1995....... it had been on the table for ages before TB got his hands on the criminal justice system........
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.
i beg to differ............ the fact that one can now ( in certain circumstances) be the subject of an adverse inference ( ie guilt can be presumed through silence) is fundamentally different to the old days when there was no inference to be drawn from silence.
the right to silence (without inference of guilt) has obviously gone if now it can go against you if you if you fail to give your defence.
also the silence issue doesnt just relate to the caution upon arrest...
its applicable at
1) interview
2)charge
3)trial
at all of these stages, your failure to comment might end up being regarded as evidence of your guilt........... this was never the case before........ and pre PACE they just used to say " your nicked"
in the old days u could stay silent throughout, without inference as to guilt
now i might not know alot........... but i do happen to have a slight bit of experience in these matters.....

27 Sep 2006

Quote by GnV
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!

Oh dear, I think you miss you the point. Let them get a foot in the door on this one and it could open the floodgates. Ask the DeMenzies family about removing the right of presumed innocence.
what has the DeMenzies got to do with some weasel using the human rights act to getaway with a speeding fine.

27 Sep 2006

da69, did you see the programme on bailiffs last night, they were charging illegal fees, if that happenend to you, would you say, "well, i'm better of than some other people so I will pay"?.
The problem with goverments, and this one is the worst I can remember, is that if you give an inch they take a mile!!!.
Our rights are being slowly erradicated and it has to stop.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
da69, did you see the programme on bailiffs last night, they were charging illegal fees, if that happenend to you, would you say, "well, i'm better of than some other people so I will pay"?.
The problem with goverments, and this one is the worst I can remember, is that if you give an inch they take a mile!!!.
Our rights are being slowly erradicated and it has to stop.

actually i'm the same age as you .....and i remember a worse government than this one.....you remember, the one before under John Major!....i didn't see the program on Bailiffs....so i can't comment!

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
da69, did you see the programme on bailiffs last night, they were charging illegal fees, if that happenend to you, would you say, "well, i'm better of than some other people so I will pay"?.
The problem with goverments, and this one is the worst I can remember, is that if you give an inch they take a mile!!!.
Our rights are being slowly erradicated and it has to stop.

But what about the rights of people like children for example when some idiot drives past their school at 55mph and it's a 30mph limit?

27 Sep 2006

Quote by GnV
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!

Oh dear, I think you miss you the point. Let them get a foot in the door on this one and it could open the floodgates. Ask the DeMenzies family about removing the right of presumed innocence.
i was waiting for the "jean charles de menzies" situation to come up in this...
I was one of the stronger critics in here of the met police in the days after the story broke.. i still believe that as a organisation that are responsible... and i do believe that someone higher up in the chain should be charged amd made accountable rather than being promoted (if you know the key players, you'll know the people i mean)
i think the point dave made is that this is a trivial matter to be taken to the highest court on the continent, should it held on the same level as the demezies case.... not on any given day of the week!

27 Sep 2006

Quote by fabio grooverider
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!

Oh dear, I think you miss you the point. Let them get a foot in the door on this one and it could open the floodgates. Ask the DeMenzies family about removing the right of presumed innocence.
i was waiting for the "jean charles de menzies" situation to come up in this...
I was one of the stronger critics in here of the met police in the days after the story broke.. i still believe that as a organisation that are responsible... and i do believe that someone higher up in the chain should be charged amd made accountable rather than being promoted (if you know the key players, you'll know the people i mean)
i think the point dave made is that this is a trivial matter to be taken to the highest court on the continent, should it held on the same level as the demezies case.... not on any given day of the week!
Exactly Fabio :thumbup:

27 Sep 2006

Quote by da69ve
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!

Oh dear, I think you miss you the point. Let them get a foot in the door on this one and it could open the floodgates. Ask the DeMenzies family about removing the right of presumed innocence.
what has the DeMenzies got to do with some weasel using the human rights act to getaway with a speeding fine.
The removal of his right of presumed innocence meant that the poor sod got shot in the head 7 times by armed police!! That's what.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
da69, I feel you are missing the point, because we have more human rights than other countrys we should give up some of ours?, I am not worried about other countries, I am worried about what is happening here, if we start accepting what the goverment want to do to us, we could end up like a third world country with no human rights.

well most of us have acepted this law until this case has arisen.........I don't know if you have had a speeding ticket but I assume that if you have you didn't try to fight a case against it ......why just jump on the bandwagon now........
as da69ve says there are much better areas where the money spent on this court case could go........

27 Sep 2006

Quote by GnV
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!

Oh dear, I think you miss you the point. Let them get a foot in the door on this one and it could open the floodgates. Ask the DeMenzies family about removing the right of presumed innocence.
what has the DeMenzies got to do with some weasel using the human rights act to getaway with a speeding fine.
The removal of his right of presumed innocence meant that the poor sod got shot in the head 7 times by armed police!! That's what.
and what has that got to do with speed cameras...........

27 Sep 2006

I think we have gone off topic a bit.
If I do not name the driver in a speeding case i get prosecuted.
If I commit robbery with someone and do not name them, I don't get prosecuted.
The law should apply to all crime, simple.
If it does not, then it is against my human rights.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by da69ve
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!

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!
Fair comment Dave, but I think that the point being made is that its all these little nibbles at our rights, that by themselves do not really seem so draconian, if allowed to go on without scrutiny, may very well lead to the sorts of environments that you are describing.
The law discussed doesnâ€™t concern me one way or another, what does concern me however is the ever increasing number of â€˜littleâ€™ changes, and of so called amendments that slip by with, little or no notice.
One small example is the explosives (amendment) act. This little piece of genius slipped by under the guys of a HSE revamp to make the act less complicated and more workable, which to a very high degree, it did.
So whatâ€™s the problem? dunno

Well hidden in amongst all the legal mumbo jumbo is a right granted to the police to enter and search your premises, without a warrant, without, you being there, without in fact so much as a by your leave, if they â€œsuspectâ€ that you may have an unsafe gas canister in your house :shock:
Bang (pardon the pun) went our statutory right under the search and seizures act, to insist on a warrant before allowing your home to be entered and searched. No-one batted an eyelid.
So although I do agree that sometimes people banging on about civil and human rights can seem a little frustrating, especially when it seem over something so trivial, but we have to bear in mind the undercurrent of the police state mentality that seems to prevail in this age.
Rights are hard to win, but oh so easy to loose, mainly through apathy.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
I think we have gone off topic a bit.
If I do not name the driver in a speeding case i get prosecuted.
If I commit robbery with someone and do not name them, I don't get prosecuted.
The law should apply to all crime, simple.
If it does not, then it is against my human rights.

I understand your point, but somebody isn't going to borrow your registered face to commit a robbery.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by Kiss
I understand your point, but somebody isn't going to borrow your registered face to commit a robbery.

true........but people will clone your licence plates and then use them on their vehicles......

27 Sep 2006

Posh, I do see your point. I used to pay illegally issued parking tickets until I found out the law, I have had a speeding ticket in the past and always put down the driver(me), but I will not do it anymore, why?, because the law should apply to everybody.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by poshkate

I understand your point, but somebody isn't going to borrow your registered face to commit a robbery.

true........but people will clone your licence plates and then use them on their vehicles......
but if a driving offence was commited wouldn't the reg not match the make of car?

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
Posh, I do see your point. I used to pay illegally issued parking tickets until I found out the law, I have had a speeding ticket in the past and always put down the driver(me), but I will not do it anymore, why?, because the law should apply to everybody.

how do you know what an illegally issued ticket is?

27 Sep 2006

Whats all this nonsense about human rights its only a speeding fine ffs, its a well known fact if you don't want a speeding ticket either stick to the speed limit or become a police officer as they can do as they please even when off duty and thats a different matter alltogether but i don't hear anyone dissing them, everyone should be treated as equal and thats the problem in this day and age. some are immune to the system so i fully understand when it comes to things like this when people stick to there guns... easier to pay up though biggrin

27 Sep 2006

da69, there are loads of different illegal tickets, thats a whole new thread.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by Fun Scottish Couple
become a police officer as they can do as they please even when off duty and thats a different matter alltogether but i don't hear anyone dissing them,

That's a very sweeping and unfair statement.
I agree about paying the fine if you've committed the crime though.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by da69ve

I understand your point, but somebody isn't going to borrow your registered face to commit a robbery.

true........but people will clone your licence plates and then use them on their vehicles......
but if a driving offence was commited wouldn't the reg not match the make of car?
probably not.....I was just thowing that one out there............

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
da69, there are loads of different illegal tickets, thats a whole new thread.

i was just curious......as i was issued an illegal parking ticket.....but i knew exactly i was in the right as i was parked legally....i won that one!

27 Sep 2006

Quote by browning
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.

can i dispell a common myth here with regards to speed camera's....
2005 figures from the department of transport with regards to the revenue raising prowess of our good friend "the speed camera"
in 2005 the amount of revenue generated from speed camera's was 19 million pounds...
if you want to put that into some sort of context, Simon Cowell's tax bill from 2005 was reported to be 25 million...
All the revenue generated by speed camera's is actually ploughed back into traffic calming methods.. whether that is addition speed camera's (which can only actually go into a place where there has been 3 accidents in the previous 12 months) , speed humps, extra traffic lights, extra mini roundabouts ect........
and besides... if all the speed camera positions in the uk are posted on the dept. of transport website, is there really any excuse for people not knowing....
parking tickets may be revenue raising... but speed cameras are not

27 Sep 2006

Quote by poshkate

I understand your point, but somebody isn't going to borrow your registered face to commit a robbery.

true........but people will clone your licence plates and then use them on their vehicles......
but if a driving offence was commited wouldn't the reg not match the make of car?
probably not.....I was just thowing that one out there............
thats ok..........you keep throwing them out there.......especially with an avatar like that.

27 Sep 2006

da69, thats the point, they issued a illegal ticket, against your human rights, your human rights allowed you to fight it.

27 Sep 2006

Quote by Pete_sw
The law discussed doesnâ€™t concern me one way or another, what does concern me however is the ever increasing number of â€˜littleâ€™ changes, and of so called amendments that slip by with, little or no notice.
One small example is the explosives (amendment) act. This little piece of genius slipped by under the guys of a HSE revamp to make the act less complicated and more workable, which to a very high degree, it did.
So whatâ€™s the problem?
Well hidden in amongst all the legal mumbo jumbo is a right granted to the police to enter and search your premises, without a warrant, without, you being there, without in fact so much as a by your leave, if they â€œsuspectâ€ that you may have an unsafe gas canister in your house :shock:
Bang (pardon the pun) went our statutory right under the search and seizures act, to insist on a warrant before allowing your home to be entered and searched. No-one batted an eyelid.

So although I do agree that sometimes people banging on about civil and human rights can seem a little frustrating, especially when it seem over something so trivial, but we have to bear in mind the undercurrent of the police state mentality that seems to prevail in this age.
Rights are hard to win, but oh so easy to loose, mainly through apathy.

But Pete surely if you had nothing to hide then you wouldn't care ? :dunno: