|
In another football-related case, Gerard Pique of FC Barcelona was recently stopped and found to have an invalid licence, having lost all 15 points. bit.ly/2Ck5P7V As the director of the DGT (Spanish DVLA) commented, it's a mystery why someone so rich would even bother to drive himself. €6 million a year should more than cover the services of a decent chauffeur. Horses for courses...
|
|
Interpretation Act 1978
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression ” give ” or ” send ” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
Practice Direction [1985] 1 All ER 889 states that, unless the contrary is proved, First class mail is deemed delivered on the second working day after posting, and Second class the fourth working day after posting. “Working Day” means Monday to Friday not including Bank Holidays.
|
|
|
|
His speedo probably read 65 mph, in a 40 mph zone. I hope he gets done. But the expensive lawyer will probably get him off.
Yes, it's all a lot of fun trying to dodge these things by arguing about technicalities - it's just distracting everyone from the basic fact, which is usually not in dispute: that a person clearly committed a traffic offence. That side of it is where the border-line lawyers make their money.
|
|
One of many quotes from a book entitled "disorder in the American courts". (You get the idea...)
Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--"
Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment."
Lawyer: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
Doctor: No.
Lawyer: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
Doctor: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Lawyer: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
Doctor: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive, practising law somewhere...
|
Yes, it's all a lot of fun trying to dodge these things by arguing about technicalities -
It's not a "technicality" any more than accusing a driver of doing 35mph when he was only doing 30mph is. The law is quite clear - a NIP must be properly served within 14 days or a prosecution will fail. This particular aspect of the procedure is heavily weighted in favour of the prosecution (with the presuption of service which the defendant must successfully rebut). If it can be shown that it was not properly served then then the details of any allegation are irrlevant.as a prosecution will not succeed.
Mr Beckham seems to have the makings of a good defence. From what I've read (and only from what I've read as none of us knows the full details) it seems whilst the first NIP was posted on Day 11 or 12, the recipient (Bentley Motors, or similar) has it stamped as "Received" on day 16 or 17. Of course that does not prove that it was actually reeceived on that day and that will no doubt be the issue to be tested in court. But Mr Beckham is entitled to take advantage of this deficiency if it transpires to be true.
Edited by Middleman on 05/09/2018 at 19:25
|
|
None of them are legal, a picture of a numberplate and a car that appears to be yours is only circumstantial evidence - it's easy to clone plates. The only real evidence they have is you sign a confession and return it, strictly speaking, a confession as the only real piece of evidence against you is insufficient to convict you for obvious reasons. We've sleep walked into this situation where we allow basically unsound convictions to become "normal". If I were a millionaire, I'd fly through a rear facing camera and fight the court to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the car in the picture is mine. Winning that landmark case should put all Gatso's in the scrapyard where they belong. Oh and BTW, they're not film cameras anymore, is it really photographic evidence? These sort of legal descriptions were defined before the digital era. The whole thing stinks, it's the police force and councils turning tax collector.
|
Oh and BTW, they're not film cameras anymore, is it really photographic evidence?
Yes
|
Oh and BTW, they're not film cameras anymore, is it really photographic evidence?
Yes
No, it probably is by dint of some dodgy type approval.
|
Oh and BTW, they're not film cameras anymore, is it really photographic evidence?
Yes
No, it probably is by dint of some dodgy type approval.
If it's not a phtograph then what is it?
|
|
A digital image, a photograph has to be printed from a negative where as a digital image though it can be printed is first put onto a computer or the slot on a compatable printer. We don't refer to images even when printed at the camera club as photographs.
|
A digital image, a photograph has to be printed from a negative where as a digital image though it can be printed is first put onto a computer or the slot on a compatable printer. We don't refer to images even when printed at the camera club as photographs.
I've got to admit I find that quite odd. To me a camera takes photos - doesn't matter if they are stored digitally or not.
|
|
So what are my slides (aka transparencies or positives) and prints made from them?
|
|
|
|
I hope we don't get too bogged down in this silliness. But just to address one or two points:
If I were a millionaire, I'd fly through a rear facing camera and fight the court to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the car in the picture is mine.
It would be beyond reasonable doubt that a car bearing your registration mark and of the same make and model was yours.(Why on Earth would anybody think otherwise bearing in mind "cloned plates" are rarer than hens' teeth)? If you want the court to consider an alternative you would have to bring evidence to support it.
Oh and BTW, they're not film cameras anymore, is it really photographic evidence?
Yes it is. It has been established that digital images are "photographs". However, in the case of speeding it doesn't matter. Nothing in the statutes involved mention the word "photograph". The evidence provided by such images is to identify the vehicle and the offence. As above, if you want the court to consider another explanation for the vehicle's presence in the image (other than it is the one as alleged) you will need to produce some evidence.
None of them are legal, a picture of a numberplate and a car that appears to be yours is only circumstantial evidence..
Lots of evidence is "circumstantial" (i.e. there may be another explanation for it other than the one alleged). The relative plausibility of the version offered by the prosecution versus another explanation is a matter for the court to decide.That's what trials are for
If it was as simple as you suggest don't you think that a millionaire (such as Mr Beckham) would have instructed somebody like Mr Freeman (aka "Mr Loophole") to run such a straighforward defence by now instead of fannying about with "Late NIPs"? Have you considered why nobody has?
Hopefully we can return to a sensible discussion.
Edited by Middleman on 05/09/2018 at 23:49
|
|
If you were to clone a plate you'd be a bit thick to pick a different make, model or colour as a target car! It's not as if it's hard to hit Autotrader or dealer websites to find a suitable car/model/colour combo for a victim registration number. One of my vehicle's plate was cloned - the cloned vehicle was identical to mine so I changed my plate - 15 NIPs later and I threatened both police forces and the DVLA with legal action for harassment - not a peep since. Under the Data Protection Act you have to have systems in place to keep your records accurate and must not use the data you keep to harass someone. Again, the police\the DVLA get away with misusing the data at their disposal simply becasue no-one challenges them - even when the law is black and white on the matter - which it is with the Data Protection Act.
A picture of a car which appears to be yours IS circumstantial evidence, particularly as plate cloning is hugely under-reported. Now a forward-facing camera, where the driver appears to be you with a car that appears to be yours - that's a different matter, you'd have to consider that enough evidence if the picture of you is clear enough.
|
|
A picture of a car which appears to be yours IS circumstantial evidence,
Indeed itt is - as I accepted in my earlier answer. How strong it is rests with the court. You are citing your unfortunate (and extremely rare) experience to discredit the entire speed enforcement process. Effectively you are saying that because, in your case, the circumstantial evidence against you did not hold up then it should not do so in any case. It doesn't work like that. Courts are entitled to make reasonable assumptions and it is far more reasonable to assume that a number plate is genuine than to necessarily consider the remote possibility that it is not as a matter of routine. "Beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean beyond any doubt whatsover..
|
|
|
|
None of them are legal, a picture of a numberplate and a car that appears to be yours is only circumstantial evidence - it's easy to clone plates. The only real evidence they have is you sign a confession and return it, strictly speaking, a confession as the only real piece of evidence against you is insufficient to convict you for obvious reasons. We've sleep walked into this situation where we allow basically unsound convictions to become "normal". If I were a millionaire, I'd fly through a rear facing camera and fight the court to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the car in the picture is mine. Winning that landmark case should put all Gatso's in the scrapyard where they belong. Oh and BTW, they're not film cameras anymore, is it really photographic evidence? These sort of legal descriptions were defined before the digital era. The whole thing stinks, it's the police force and councils turning tax collector.
So in summary you oppose speed restrictions and don’t care if reckless drivers put lives at risk?
|
|
|
|
|
<< It's not a "technicality" any more than accusing a driver of doing 35mph when he was only doing 30mph is. The law is quite clear >>
It's a technicality in the sense that it is unrelated to the original 'alleged' offence. It sets off other arguments, probably enjoyed by some legal eagles as a useful source of income.
|
|
Nice to have erudite info from Middleman - sounds as though he's a good authority on this. We mustn't moan too much about being caught speeding; apart from the ubiquitous static cameras strict enforcement is still thankfully lax. In our neck of the woods they even publish where the roving vans are going to be! As for Mr B, I suspect that every time he takes his Bentley out he exceeds the limit somewhere.
|
|
With parking infringements and speeding charges, the law seems to have shifted irrevocably to a default position of "guilty until proven innocent". WIth speed cameras, ANPR and instant access to the DVLA database, it's easy pickings for those unfortunate enough to get caught - except for those with the time and resources to fight it. With an obligation to declare who was driving (even genuinely stating "I can't remember" is as good as an admission, and the threat of perjury or obstruction hovers menacingly...) rather than the procesution having the onus (as in practically every other criminal prosecution!) to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt it's clear that the flash of the Gatso is all that it takes to convert circumstantial evidence into rock solid proof and ker-ching, job done.
In every other country in the world, of course, a car's insurance policy covers any driver, so there isn't a presumption that the "Named driver" or "registered keeper" was at the wheel when the heinous crime of "35 in a 30 zone" took place. (Police resources are not so often tied up in chasing uninsured drivers with helicopters and the occasional ARV, and programmes like "Road Wars" never really took off.
However, in continental jurisdictions the "freedom from incriminating oneself" - going right back to Napoleonic, if not Roman, law - is also slipping away and "failure to name the driver" also means a trip to the naughty step.
|
In every other country in the world, of course, a car's insurance policy covers any driver,
Firstly, I don't think that's necessarily true. But having said that, it is true in the UK that insurers have to provide RTA (i.e. Third Party) cover even if the vehicle is stolen, However, insurance is nothing to do with speeding.
so there isn't a presumption that the "Named driver" or "registered keeper" was at the wheel when the heinous crime of "35 in a 30 zone" took place.
Nor is there such a presumption in the UK. The only way a driver can be prosecuted for speeding (when he is not stopped at the time) is if he admits to being the driver at the time of the allegation by way of a Section 172 declaration. If no such declaration is available then a speeding conviction cannot succeed.
However, in continental jurisdictions the "freedom from incriminating oneself" - going right back to Napoleonic, if not Roman, law - is also slipping away and "failure to name the driver" also means a trip to the naughty step.
And of course you will know that the right to refuse to name the driver was tested all the way to the European Court of Human Rights (not a body too well known for its fascist tendencies). The court found that such a requirement was compatible with the ECHR (Idris Francis and Gerard O'Halloran were the applicants in the case). You will also know that in many continental jurisdictions speeding allegations are levelled at the Registered Keeper and no effort to establish who was driving is made. I don't know how Messrs Hertz and Avis get on with that but it seems a bit odd that a criminal conviction might be registered against a person simply on the basis that they were the RK of a vehicle.
|
|
The bottom line is, I used to think David Beckham was an honest role model who would own up to this sort of thing and take it on the chin. Now, having obviously hired "Mr Loophole" to get him off, he has proved himself to be neither. Just another wealthy scum bag!
|
The bottom line is, I used to think David Beckham was an honest role model who would own up to this sort of thing and take it on the chin. Now, having obviously hired "Mr Loophole" to get him off, he has proved himself to be neither. Just another wealthy scum bag!
That is not really the bottom line. People up and down the country challenge speeding allegations on the basis of "Late NIPs" all the time. It is not something confined to the rich and famous. As has been mentioned, the process is heavily weighted in favour of the police when it comes to contested speeding allegations. As far as this particular issue goes, Mr Beckham is in a somewhat envious position because the Registered Keepers of the car actually stamped their NIP with "Received on [Day15]". I imagine the trial will centre around whether the notice was actually received on that day or whether it was merely stamped on that day but received earlier. The prosecution, for their part, have the "presumption of service" (date of posting plus two working days) on their side and it falls to Mr Beckham to rebut that. But he is as entitled as anybody to ensure that the process has been followed to the letter. I don't think it's fair to label him a scumbag just for ensuring he is not wrongly convicted.
|
|
<< the Registered Keepers of the car actually stamped their NIP with "Received on [Day15]". I imagine the trial will centre around whether the notice was actually received on that day >>
As evidence goes, that must be as circumstantial as it gets. Provided the date-stamp is not actually in the future, it could be set to any date of choice? Perhaps Day 15 is a bit suspicious, Day 16 or 17 might be more convincing.
|
|
Not at all. It's just making sure that the proper process is followed.
Remember seeing a TV interview with our learned colleague Mr Freeman many years ago after he had just successfully got a not guilty verdict for his Client on a drink driving charge. I think he was also a famous footballer !
He stated that the only way he wins is when the Police or CPS do not follow the process, or do something wrong. In this case it was delivering the NIP within the precribed time.
I think in drink drive case it was about the Policeman giving evidence. He gave his evidence under oath and this was accepted in court. At the end of his evidence the defence lawyer asked the Police Officer if he was chewing gum. The answer was no. However the lawyer did not give up and persisted the questioning. After a short time it was established the Officer was indeed chewing gum. The defence lawyer promptly stated that he has lied under oath and hence could his evidence be believed. The Judge agreed it could not, and the case was dismissed. All because of a moment of stupiditly by the Officer, had he immediately replied "yes is that OK" then the conviction would have held.
|
|
I'm afraid I don't believe in getting off on technicalities. All a technicality does is let a guilty person go free. He shouldn't have even considered contesting the conviction, I wouldn't on princilple. If I've done something wrong then I expect to be punished, end of.
|
I'm afraid I don't believe in getting off on technicalities. All a technicality does is let a guilty person go free. He shouldn't have even considered contesting the conviction, I wouldn't on princilple. If I've done something wrong then I expect to be punished, end of.
The law is framed in technicalities, it operates in technicalities and requires due process. This sort of moral grandstanding just muddies the issue. Exceeding the speed limit by 19mph may indeed be an indication of stupidity, arrogance or boorishness, or simple inattention, but it doesn't in itself make DB deserving of "punishment"; he simply has to face the (possible) consequences. (I daresay he's given up hoping for the knighthood, after the potty-mouthed emails were published...)
|
|
Moral grandstanding? DB is a role model for youngsters, and he admits driving dangerously fast, and yet tries to get off on a technicality or whatever you want to call it. I could understand 45 in a 40, but almost 60? ,
|
As evidence goes, that must be as circumstantial as it gets. Provided the date-stamp is not actually in the future, it could be set to any date of choice? Perhaps Day 15 is a bit suspicious, Day 16 or 17 might be more convincing.
Indeed. And that's almost certainly what the trial will focus on. Because of the "presumption of service" it falls to Mr Beckham's lawyer to rebut that presumption.
I'm afraid I don't believe in getting off on technicalities. All a technicality does is let a guilty person go free.
But if his defence is successful he will not be guilty. Neither side can pick and choose what bits of the legislation it would like to leave out or have ignored. The law is quite clear. It (Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act) says this (and I've left out the bits that don't matter in this case:
A person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies unless:-
(a) [He was warned at the time that he might be prosecuted]
(b) [Within 14 days he is served with a summons]
(c) Within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of intended prosecution...was served on him or the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.
It's quite clear that a NIP must be served in time or the driver cannot be convicted. You may call it a "technicality." I prefer to see it as a provision which must be complied with.
Subject to section 2 of this Act, [F1a per
Edited by Middleman on 06/09/2018 at 20:31
|
I'm afraid I don't believe in getting off on technicalities. All a technicality does is let a guilty person go free. He shouldn't have even considered contesting the conviction, I wouldn't on princilple. If I've done something wrong then I expect to be punished, end of.
Surely you mean "...if I am caught then I expect to be punished..."?
Do you hand yourself in every time you break a speed limit?
I don't think Beckham is quite as selfless as his image, as his leaked emails ranting about not getting a knighthood demonstrate, but I think neither more nor less of him for batting this away. If the proper process hasn't been followed, then he is entitled to object.
He hasn't skipped to Brazil. A court has made the decision.
|
|
Yes, it's all a lot of fun trying to dodge these things by arguing about technicalities -
It's not a "technicality" any more than accusing a driver of doing 35mph when he was only doing 30mph is. The law is quite clear - a NIP must be properly served within 14 days or a prosecution will fail. This particular aspect of the procedure is heavily weighted in favour of the prosecution (with the presuption of service which the defendant must successfully rebut). If it can be shown that it was not properly served then then the details of any allegation are irrlevant.as a prosecution will not succeed.
Mr Beckham seems to have the makings of a good defence. From what I've read (and only from what I've read as none of us knows the full details) it seems whilst the first NIP was posted on Day 11 or 12, the recipient (Bentley Motors, or similar) has it stamped as "Received" on day 16 or 17. Of course that does not prove that it was actually reeceived on that day and that will no doubt be the issue to be tested in court. But Mr Beckham is entitled to take advantage of this deficiency if it transpires to be true.
You might not think it a technicality but I bet most people see this sort of thing and come to the conclusion that the law is for the benefit of lawyers and their rich clients. Most people don’t have the financial muscle to hire an expensive lawyer to get them off in this way, and instead would plead guilty. Beckham has previous hasn’t he? I seem to recall he was in court for driving at high speed and he claimed he was escaping someone trying to chase him. He got off. No doubt only because he had a highly paid lawyer. And didn’t that football manager get off a charge of driving along the hard shoulder of a motorway on the grounds of ‘bladder urgency’? Nick Freeman claims that he is totally honest and does no more than fight his clients case, but most of us could not get away with this sort of behaviour. Incidentally I do favour speed l8mits, and speed cameras, when used sensibly. But some of these cases are taking the mickey.
|
Most people don’t have the financial muscle to hire an expensive lawyer to get them off in this way
An expensive lawyer (or indeed any lawyer at all) is not necessary. I have seen people successfully defend themselves on just this issue.
|
|
The "court of public opinion" seems evenly divided on this one, but the sticking point IMHO is not the "technicality" of the paperwork arriving or not arriving in time; it is the fact that DB was seriously speeding at the time, not 1 or 2 mph over the limit, but almost 50% over (no one is questioning that, or querying the accuracy of the speed camera). That reveals an inattentive driver who broke the law by some margin, so it was initially a "fair cop".
Having the burden of being a role model, etc., the simple action of manning up to it and paying the fine (which he can WELL afford) would earn him some respect (as happened when Princess Anne was caught speeding, three times IIRC!); Slithering out of it like this rightly earns him opprobrium, as he is NOT facing a ban or loss of livelihood and he is one driver who could certainly afford a chauffeur.
|
.... he is NOT facing a ban or loss of livelihood and he is one driver who could certainly afford a chauffeur.
... who could also take the rap if he went over the limit.
|
|
|
|
Most people don’t have the financial muscle to hire an expensive lawyer to get them off in this way
An expensive lawyer (or indeed any lawyer at all) is not necessary. I have seen people successfully defend themselves on just this issue.
I bet that is the rare exception, and requires a lot of confidence and hard work. Incidentally I’ve never come across a lawyer that isn’t expensive. I had to deal with lawyers when my mum died, and for an associated boundary dispute. I was shocked by the fees. Dealing with the other parties lawyers was unpleasant. Later on I was preparing to take a trade to court myself with no lawyer. It was very stressful and very hard work, taking up,huge amounts of my time. In the end I got compensation, but lost money as a result of their incompetence.
|
|
<< I’ve never come across a lawyer that isn’t expensive. >>
Brings to mind the story (I probably saw on here) of a solicitor's bill:
- To: crossing the road to discuss matter with yourself 5.00
To: crossing back after finding it was not yourself 5.00
|
<< I’ve never come across a lawyer that isn’t expensive. >>
Brings to mind the story (I probably saw on here) of a solicitor's bill:
- To: crossing the road to discuss matter with yourself 5.00
To: crossing back after finding it was not yourself 5.00
That is funny.
If they didn't spend so long itemising bills they would be cheaper.
|
|
DB's acquittal, sorry, cancelled prosecution, makes a mockery of the justice system, doesn't it?
|
DB's acquittal, sorry, cancelled prosecution...
It wasn't a cancelled prosecution. It was a failed prosecution. The law says that without a properly served NIP the driver cannot be convicted. It does not say he cannot be prosecuted. Mr Beckham was prosecuted.He faced a trial and had to prove his defence.
...makes a mockery of the justice system, doesn't it?
On the contrary. The law is quite clear: no properly served NIP, no conviction. The court believed that the NIP was defective. What would you have in those circumstances? A conviction contrary to the law? That's what would be a mockery. You cannot pick and choose what bits of the law you would like to see applied and what bits you'd prefer to be conveniently ignored (perhaps depending on who is facing prosecution).
Edited by Middleman on 27/09/2018 at 21:50
|
|
Legal technicalities aside (pretty please?), DB would have earnt quite a few brownie points - as well as a few speeding points - if he'd put his hands up, admitted to speeding (there was never any doubt that he was driving at nearly 50% over the speed limit) and paid the fine. This would have been far from a mockery if it had set a good example to his legions of young fans, which, I would argue, is his moral responsibility. In this case he did not even show up for what turned into a five hour trial, no doubt slowing down the wheels of justice for others - another reason for a tad of annoyance at this outcome IMHO.
Switching from football to cricket for a moment: "The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws." (c) Marylebone Cricket Club
|
|
Very interesting, for me the big question is whether any "ordinary" person would be able to utilise the technicalities of the law as a defence without expensive legal representation ... the threat of a large legal bill is a big deterrent .... I wonder whether DB will have his legal costs met for him.
|
|
Good luck to him, no point in being wealthy if you can't reap the benefits of it.
I wouldn't be wearing a hair shirt either, i'd have been straight on to that very brief in the same circs if i had that sort of dosh.
|
Morally he should have just accepted it, he did after all do it, perhaps it is the training as a professional footballer that you try and get away with it even though you know you are guilty.
He was happy to represent his country when picked and accept the honour awarded to him, he should have done the decent thing.
What would have happened if there had been an accident, it does not set a good example to the many kids who look on him as a god.
Disappointing behaviour from another famous personality.
Rant over :-)
|
|
I disagree. I find it comforting that the rules apply to rich and poor. They apply to us and the prosecution The state created the rules and if you can't stick to them don t bleat because you didn't do your job properly. Good luck to him on this. Now having said that he should use this experience as a warning and drive within the rules from now onward. I feel zero "moral obligation " to plead guilty when following your own rules clearly you have no case.
Edited by Ethan Edwards on 27/09/2018 at 23:53
|
|
In the previous speeding case he was actually convicted, but subsequently got it overturned as he was "being chased".
Not many ordinary folk could either;
a) afford to challenge the conviction, or
b) use such a crap excuse (and actually get away with it).
|
|
Could it be that the prosecution authority delayed sending out the documents on purpose? Perhaps this should be investigated.
|
|
The envy is strong here Luke.
|
|
I don't think there is any envy here, I just think people are disappointed that he is not quite the role model that people portray him to be. Certainly, I have lost any respect I had for him but then I don't suppose he will lose any sleep over that.
|
|
Other people have successfully used the same defence, unrepresented. The difficulty is getting proof that the letter was delivered late. If you are out at work and the postman puts letters through your letterbox, you'd struggle to find a witness to its late delivery. Beckham was only able to employ this defence because the incoming post was date stamped in the post room.
Agree he'd have got far more brownie points by accepting he'd been speeding and then going through due process. However in law he cannot be convicted of the S172 offence because, quite simply, it didn't occur.
|
I've always wondered why there's a time limit on motoring offences like this.
If I commit any other offence I don't get let off after 14 days.
|
However in law he cannot be convicted of the S172 offence because, quite simply, it didn't occur.
There is also the small matter that he was never charged with a S172 offence and that is almost certainly because he responded to his own NIP as required and in time. He was only charged with speeding. That is what the"late NIP referred to and it was late being served on the Registered Keeper (Bentley Motors) not Mr Beckham..
|
|
As I mentioned in the post '70 mph speed cameras' a couple of weeks ago, it happened to me that I was definitely speeding, was definitely clocked by a camera, but nothing was done about it. I suspect staff shortages lead to many NIPs not going out in time and this is accepted. But possibly in Beckham's case the authorities hoped (optimistically) that he might put his hand up.
|
. But possibly in Beckham's case the authorities hoped (optimistically) that he might put his hand up.
Have you ever witnessed a footballer admitting ANYTHING was his fault (on or off the field)? :)
|
|
I have no brief for Mr Beckham but I absolutely go along wit the 'good luck to him' argument. It is only fair that whilst the authorities have the advantage of 000s of automated speed cameras they still have to comply with antiquated postal procedures. The traditional staff-intensive NIP process does something to redress the balance in favour of the long suffering motorist
|
|
Just out of curiosity.... Can anyone explain to me the principle behind spending £10,000 (or whatever the fees were) on a sharp brief, to save the sum of, £ 100, 200 or 500 on a speeding fine, plus maybe another couple of grand in insurance hikes over the next five or six years?
Question: was it really worth it, Dave?
|
Just out of curiosity.... Can anyone explain to me the principle behind spending £10,000 (or whatever the fees were) on a sharp brief, to save the sum of, £ 100, 200 or 500 on a speeding fine, plus maybe another couple of grand in insurance hikes over the next five or six years?
Question: was it really worth it, Dave?
Do we know how many points he has on his licence? Perhaps he wanted to avoid a ban. This simply proves that we have the best legal system you can buy. If you are filthy rich, you can hire lawyers to get you off. I think he is a complete scum bag. He should have not contested it given that he was driving dangerously.
|
Just out of curiosity.... Can anyone explain to me the principle behind spending £10,000 (or whatever the fees were) on a sharp brief, to save the sum of, £ 100, 200 or 500 on a speeding fine, plus maybe another couple of grand in insurance hikes over the next five or six years?
Question: was it really worth it, Dave?
Do we know how many points he has on his licence? Perhaps he wanted to avoid a ban. This simply proves that we have the best legal system you can buy. If you are filthy rich, you can hire lawyers to get you off. I think he is a complete scum bag. He should have not contested it given that he was driving dangerously.
You're entitled to your opinion of course.
I reserve terms like 'scum bag' for burglars, vandals, violent lawbreakers etc. And I doubt very much if he was driving dangerously.
|
|
Just a reminder that the purpose of the NOIP system is to advise drivers who have committed a serious road traffic offence of possible prosecution by the authorities so that they can prepare their defence. The 14 day (15 plus day of offence) rule so that 2 3 months later does not apply and hence still to mind of the offender. It seems there is to be a of this review of this but I personally think it shoud remain.
What this indicates is poor procedure by the authorities in not ensuring the law is applied in that the noip is served in time consdering through electronic availabity of data.
As to Derek he is so egotistical the cost of defence is well worth the publicity attracted, his adiction, money being no object. He should however realise his goal of a knighthood (god forbid) has not been enhanced.
dvd
Edited by Gerry Sanderson on 29/09/2018 at 15:42
|
Just out of curiosity.... Can anyone explain to me the principle behind spending £10,000 (or whatever the fees were) on a sharp brief, to save the sum of, £ 100, 200 or 500 on a speeding fine, plus maybe another couple of grand in insurance hikes over the next five or six years?
Question: was it really worth it, Dave?
Do we know how many points he has on his licence? Perhaps he wanted to avoid a ban. This simply proves that we have the best legal system you can buy. If you are filthy rich, you can hire lawyers to get you off. I think he is a complete scum bag. He should have not contested it given that he was driving dangerously.
You're entitled to your opinion of course.
I reserve terms like 'scum bag' for burglars, vandals, violent lawbreakers etc. And I doubt very much if he was driving dangerously.
You are entitled to your opinion, but he was doing 60 (65 on the speedo) in a 40. So I am happy to call him a scum bag.
|
You are entitled to your opinion, but he was doing 60 (65 on the speedo) in a 40. So I am happy to call him a scum bag.
You're just making stuff up now. You don't know what his speedo was reading, he was clocked at 59, and you don't know whether his speed was dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
