1
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Surrey – 57mph in 50 – LTI 20:20 calibration certificate question
« on: Yesterday at 04:38:05 pm »
No, yes.
No
Who cares?
No
Who cares?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
The Flame Pit / Re: The Yellow Box Guru meets The Greek Doctor. Bus Lane advice for London tickets.
« on: September 08, 2026, 10:49:37 pm »
Is or was? The hearing was 10 hours ago.
3
The Flame Pit / Re: The Yellow Box Guru meets The Greek Doctor. Bus Lane advice for London tickets.
« on: September 07, 2026, 11:10:37 pm »
This legislation cited appears to have been lifted wholesale from s. 20(8 ) Road traffic Offenders Act 1988. This was the subject of an appeal to the Divisional Court by the DPP in DPP v Thornley [2006] EWHC 312 (Admin)
In Thornley the inferior court found that failure to disclose the certificate 7 days in advance rendered the evidence, given by the operator as a live witness inadmissible, but the Divisional Court held that ss(8 ) only negated admissibility under s. 20(1) or (6) and did not preclude the evidence being given in the normal way (by a live witness under oath or affirmation.
As an aside, Owen J royally laid into the DPP's counsel for not doing his homework before presenting what the DPP's arguments should have been himself - the applicability of the same identical provision in a drink driving case.
The fact that the authorised representative required the attendance of the witness and the witness CBA to turn up, suggests that in this case there was no alternative admissibility.
In Thornley the inferior court found that failure to disclose the certificate 7 days in advance rendered the evidence, given by the operator as a live witness inadmissible, but the Divisional Court held that ss(8 ) only negated admissibility under s. 20(1) or (6) and did not preclude the evidence being given in the normal way (by a live witness under oath or affirmation.
As an aside, Owen J royally laid into the DPP's counsel for not doing his homework before presenting what the DPP's arguments should have been himself - the applicability of the same identical provision in a drink driving case.
The fact that the authorised representative required the attendance of the witness and the witness CBA to turn up, suggests that in this case there was no alternative admissibility.
4
The Flame Pit / Re: Have I been caught?
« on: September 06, 2026, 06:17:01 pm »
Probably because it contained fake news - such as the NIP to the RK must be posted within 14 days.
5
News / Press Articles / Re: Sadiq Khan
« on: September 02, 2026, 03:06:35 pm »
It could be worse. Being a criminal conviction, there is provision for making a statutory declaration for free which compels the court to set aside the conviction. Private or local authority penalties could have been far more troublesome.
Obviously, the stunt was borne out of far right racism, and nothing to do with his oppressive and anti-car policies.
Obviously, the stunt was borne out of far right racism, and nothing to do with his oppressive and anti-car policies.
6
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Giving way to emergency vehicles
« on: August 30, 2026, 12:03:50 pm »
And "How does this help the OP?" would be Southpaw of the Yard
7
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Caught twice recently
« on: August 30, 2026, 09:09:47 am »
You won't get 2 courses.
8
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Giving way to emergency vehicles
« on: August 29, 2026, 12:42:51 pm »
If this goes to court, tickets are irrelevant.
You can ask for a spicy meatfeast pizza, but it doesn't mean you're going to get it.
What he probably said was that obstructing an emergency vehicle is not a specific offence if you are not aware that you are obstructing it.
However, if he told you, on bodycam, that he doesn't think you committed any offence whatsoever, but he's going to stick you on anyway because who are the court going to believe, then you probably want to get a copy of the unredacted footage, including the earlier footage of him loosing his sh*t when Lord Lucan overtook him riding Shergar.
If hew was behind you for a significant time with blues and twos on, far enough back that he would have been clearly visible in your mirrors, and you failed to see him, that would seem to be evidence that your driving fell below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver.
That said, on the many, many times I have seen police with blues and twos being held up by oblivious drivers, I've never seen said drivers pulled over for obstructing an emergency vehicle, as the occifer had something more pressing to deal with - hence the blues and twos. However, if Morse had instructed Lewis to put the blues and twos on because he was fed up of sitting in traffic, he might be more inclined to stop and throw the book at someone who had failed to respect his authoritah.
You can ask for a spicy meatfeast pizza, but it doesn't mean you're going to get it.
What he probably said was that obstructing an emergency vehicle is not a specific offence if you are not aware that you are obstructing it.
However, if he told you, on bodycam, that he doesn't think you committed any offence whatsoever, but he's going to stick you on anyway because who are the court going to believe, then you probably want to get a copy of the unredacted footage, including the earlier footage of him loosing his sh*t when Lord Lucan overtook him riding Shergar.
If hew was behind you for a significant time with blues and twos on, far enough back that he would have been clearly visible in your mirrors, and you failed to see him, that would seem to be evidence that your driving fell below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver.
That said, on the many, many times I have seen police with blues and twos being held up by oblivious drivers, I've never seen said drivers pulled over for obstructing an emergency vehicle, as the occifer had something more pressing to deal with - hence the blues and twos. However, if Morse had instructed Lewis to put the blues and twos on because he was fed up of sitting in traffic, he might be more inclined to stop and throw the book at someone who had failed to respect his authoritah.
9
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Statutory Declaration – S172 + speeding, NIP/S172 never received – chances of successful defence?
« on: August 27, 2026, 11:15:46 pm »
Presumably the landlord will not be able to state categorically that no NIP was delivered addressed to you. Would he be able to state categorically that all post addressed to you was passed to you? If not, I would be very surprised if a bench found as fact that it was not served.
10
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Advice on handling a speeding ticket that was never sent
« on: August 27, 2026, 02:31:11 pm »
I've never read any Kafka, but I know what Kafkaesque means.
We are dealing with two intransigent and incompetent state bodies who both both consider themselves to be *the law* (or otherwise above the law), and that this isn't their problem. Taking what the OP has told us at face value, one of them has f*cked up (possibly both, but Occam's razor suggests that that is unlikely).
Both bodies are overseen (to a greater or lesser extent) by the relevant ministers, and the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over all public bodies that are not directly answerable to Parliament.
The "appeal of last resort" is an application for Judicial Review (the High Court). If all else fails, IMHO the last resort would be to apply for a Judicial Review against both parties - Nottinghamshire Magistrates' Court and the DVLA. Whilst presumably one of those parties is innocent, the guilty party would be responsible for the innocent party necessarily being dragged through the process.
A Judicial Review application, as with virtually all litigation, has a pre-action protocol. That protocol (basically a Letter Before Action) might serve to readjust their "not my problem" attitude, although I wouldn't hold my breath.
Logically, if the court will inform the DVLA that they never ordered the endrosement of your licence, then it would seem to be irrational for the DVLA not to rescind the endorsement, and in the same vein, if the court were minded to do that, it would seem irrational for them not to further instruct the DVLA to rescind the endorsement.
What it is important to *focus* on what you know, rather than what you merely suspect, if this issue is the result of fraud (and perjury/perverting the course of justice/contempt of court/etc.) then the court could potentially have been blameless in their actions (although as a matter of law the conviction must be wrong, regardless of whether they should have known) - but *if* they did convict you wrongly due to fraud, they were IMHO clearly wrong not to find any record of it.
Personally, I consider endorsing a driver's licence without retaining a copy of the instruction to be exceedingly arrogant and systemically incompetent - or from the DVLA's perspective, business as usual.
We are dealing with two intransigent and incompetent state bodies who both both consider themselves to be *the law* (or otherwise above the law), and that this isn't their problem. Taking what the OP has told us at face value, one of them has f*cked up (possibly both, but Occam's razor suggests that that is unlikely).
Both bodies are overseen (to a greater or lesser extent) by the relevant ministers, and the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over all public bodies that are not directly answerable to Parliament.
The "appeal of last resort" is an application for Judicial Review (the High Court). If all else fails, IMHO the last resort would be to apply for a Judicial Review against both parties - Nottinghamshire Magistrates' Court and the DVLA. Whilst presumably one of those parties is innocent, the guilty party would be responsible for the innocent party necessarily being dragged through the process.
A Judicial Review application, as with virtually all litigation, has a pre-action protocol. That protocol (basically a Letter Before Action) might serve to readjust their "not my problem" attitude, although I wouldn't hold my breath.
Logically, if the court will inform the DVLA that they never ordered the endrosement of your licence, then it would seem to be irrational for the DVLA not to rescind the endorsement, and in the same vein, if the court were minded to do that, it would seem irrational for them not to further instruct the DVLA to rescind the endorsement.
What it is important to *focus* on what you know, rather than what you merely suspect, if this issue is the result of fraud (and perjury/perverting the course of justice/contempt of court/etc.) then the court could potentially have been blameless in their actions (although as a matter of law the conviction must be wrong, regardless of whether they should have known) - but *if* they did convict you wrongly due to fraud, they were IMHO clearly wrong not to find any record of it.
Personally, I consider endorsing a driver's licence without retaining a copy of the instruction to be exceedingly arrogant and systemically incompetent - or from the DVLA's perspective, business as usual.
11
The Flame Pit / Re: Access restrictions to stop rat running
« on: August 26, 2026, 11:06:43 am »How heavy is the reverse burden to prove you stopped?
A reverse burden is generally "to the civil standard" (on the balance of probabilities).
As the authority would generally be unable to directly disprove any such defence, it would seem to fall to whether or not the adjudicator found the appellant (or their defence) to be credible.
12
News / Press Articles / Re: Call You and Yours: What's your experience of dealing with car parking companies?
« on: August 25, 2026, 10:00:25 pm »
IMHO the BBC are not interested in the facts, unless they support its agenda.
13
The Flame Pit / Re: Access restrictions to stop rat running
« on: August 25, 2026, 09:59:20 pm »
Generally a reverse burden of proof would only apply if -
the legislation specified as much (e.g. it shall be a defence if..., or the legislation creates a presumption),
the legislation would be unenforceable without a reverse burden (e.g. insurance),
or the authority have already proven their case to the applicable standard.
Presumably, the authority are of the opinion that evidence that a vehicle exited the scheme (at a different point to that at which it entered it) within a certain time period is sufficient evidence that it was not for access.
the legislation specified as much (e.g. it shall be a defence if..., or the legislation creates a presumption),
the legislation would be unenforceable without a reverse burden (e.g. insurance),
or the authority have already proven their case to the applicable standard.
Presumably, the authority are of the opinion that evidence that a vehicle exited the scheme (at a different point to that at which it entered it) within a certain time period is sufficient evidence that it was not for access.
14
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Is it worth getting a lawyer?
« on: August 25, 2026, 03:59:51 pm »
Not on my watch, thankyou very much.
15
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Advice on handling a speeding ticket that was never sent
« on: August 25, 2026, 08:05:01 am »
If the DVLA are being helpful (which I believe is one of the signs of an impending apocalypse), then I would be minded to try to get as much info from them as possible - to try to narrow down exactly what info was provided by the court - before asking the court again.
A question that the webchat people would probably need to escalate is what they (the DVLA) would require (presumably from the court) in order to rescind the endorsement applied in response to an ostensibly lawful instruction from the court.
A question that the webchat people would probably need to escalate is what they (the DVLA) would require (presumably from the court) in order to rescind the endorsement applied in response to an ostensibly lawful instruction from the court.