Tue 16 Apr 2002 18:40 Right to Silence court case Monday, and publicity - Idris Francis

Guildford Hearing on Right to Silence 15/4/02 Media: Present Meridien TV, AP (news service), Solent News Serice and one other reporter present. See publicity received at the end. The hearing Although we had stated well in advance that we would not be challening any facts, the CPS called a witness from Surrey Police speed camera unit - a chapr who, it turned out later, did not know the casualty figures, but appeared less impressed by the rise in fatalities in Surrey than by the fall near speed cameras - presumably on the basis that its not whether you die but where you die that really matters.......... The case took 90 minutes instead of the anticipated 30, not a problem as the court had set aside the entire day for the hearing despite our pointing out that this was unecessary! We were told in advance that the normal fine for would be similar to that for the speeding offence the authorities could not proceed on - 47 in a 30 area - £150 plus 3 penalty points. The CPS barrister stated the case, and handed over a statement that we accept the facts. Michael set out the events in sequence, and that this is a vital issue affecting 3,000 people per day. Having put forward our view and the support behind it, and also that I have produced an analysis which shows that speed cameras certainly do not casualties below the previous trend, but also that the previous fall in fatalities had ground to a halt overall, and in many areas, particularly those with large numbers of cameras, are rising sharply for the first time for 30 years. He submitted by analysis to the Clerk of the Court and the CPS barrister for information, though not part of the argument proper. MS said that camera prosections should stop until the ECHR result is known - CPS said no! He then said that we accept that as the law stands the magistrates have no ability to acquit, and invited them to convict, albeit no plea had been entered. Which they did. The costs of £250 and 3 penalty points were as expcted, but the magistrates claimed to be imposing a penalty according to normal guidlines related to income, of £750 - 5 times the normal figure! Has anyone ever heard of a fine of £750 for 17mph over the limit? It seems quite extaordinary, if not vindictive, even though we argued that we have a valid arguable point of law, and also that speed cameras are leading to increased fatalities! When MS said we would appeal the fine, the magistrate said it was based on the going rate - adjusted for 6 previous points and income level. I find that difficult to believe, but the risk of appealing is more cost of £500 for the court and £300 other, so as we probably could not get it knocked down much below £300, hardly a sensible bet. I seem to recall a few years ago that the parliament did , via the courts introduce (at least for motoring offences) a scale of fines related to income, but I thought, and Michael is sure, that there were such howls of rage that it was abandoned some time ago. Does anyone know whether higher fines for higher incomes (as opposed to refuced fines for those unable to pay) are still part of the normal system? Perhaps easier to wait until we win at the ECHR in 5 years time and then get it back - with interest! Of course we knew what the result would be before we went - other than the level of fine - and this changes nothing, the application to the ECHR goes ahead. Submission May, accepted or not next summer.verdict 3 years after that. Bloodied but unbowed, the fight continues. Idris Publicity afterwards Meridien News Good 3 minute lead item on Meridien 6-ish news and late news, even before the titles came up. Shot of Speed 25 (15 ft 9", 1/2 of which is bonnet, pulling up alonside a fortuitously-parked Smart car! Interview included pointing out that speed cameras are not working, that fatalities have stopped falling after 22 years, and in many places are rising again for the first time since 1972. Also the importance of the right to silence as defence against a police state etc. BBC Item I did not see. Secondhand report and old film but covered anyway, probably in South only. Interview Monday pm on radio in South Wales and Tueday on County Sound, Hampshire. Long article in Daily Mail page 19, 2/3 page showing 'Road Casualties Rise' as speed camera fines double to £25m, then 1/3 page on my case, with picture. Also Leader 'Hollow Pretence' saying that it is wrong that police as raising money under pretence of safety measures that are not working, and that the camera system should be 'subject to a searching official review rather than extended' As the Mail is not on the Web I will retype it this evening. Tuesday 16 April 2002 Speed camera case heads for human rights court (Filed: 15/04/2002) A retired company director pledged after being convicted of a minor motoring offence today that he would be taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights. Idris Francis, 62, was convicted by magistrates at Guildford, Surrey, of failing to supply information about who was driving his 60,000 1938 vintage Alvis car when it was clocked by a speed camera doing 47mph in a 30mph zone last year. Failing to give the information is an offence under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Francis was fined £750 and ordered to pay 250 costs, and given three penalty points on his licence. The court had heard that his 3.5 litre Alvis was photographed at 47mph on the A325 at Merrow, Guildford, on June 12 last year. Mr Michael Shrimpton, defending, argued in court that being forced to identify the driver would contravene his right to silence and his right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Francis, the former director of an electronics firm who owns several other vintage cars, and who is being backed by the civil rights group Liberty, was convicted after making admissions of fact, although he pleaded not guilty to the offence. He said he would also appeal in the Crown Court over the severity of today's fine. Mr Shrimpton told the court that the issue was "one of law and not of fact" and that the use of speed cameras to catch speeding drivers throughout the UK would now be taken to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Any final decision is likely to take at least five years. Mr Shrimpton told the court: "My client has taken a point of principle of very great significance. The right to silence is a cherished right." After the hearing Francis, of West Meon, near Winchester, Hampshire, said: "The Government, the Home Office and the police are saying in my case and thousands of cases every day is 'Because we don't have sufficient evidence to prove this in court we insist that you confess'. If you don't confess, they impose another penalty on you. We are on a stepping stone to state tyranny. The law compels motorists to name the driver of their vehicle when an alleged offence is committed. In a normal criminal case a suspect has the right to silence and to choose not to answer a police officer's questions. They have no right to take away motorists' rights to silence. The right to silence is a fundamental right. The right of a suspect to say nothing is one of the most vital rights in any free society." Mr Francis, originally from Wales, said he was prepared to pay 20,000 in estimated court costs over the next few years to win the battle. He added: "I believe I have vast support from the majority of motorists across the country." Liberty director John Wadham, who is acting as Mr Francis's solicitor, said: "Section 172 is an assault on the basic right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. It is unreasonable to require people to 'confess' on the basis that if they don't they will anyway be committing another criminal offence. Although it may not seem as serious to force people to confess in traffic cases, the principle must apply here as in all other criminal cases." © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002. Terms & Conditions of reading. Commercial information. Privacy Policy. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 18:47 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Mark (Brazil)

>Having put forward our view and the support behind it, and also that I have >produced an analysis which shows that speed cameras certainly do not >casualties below the previous trend, but also that the previous fall in fatalities >had ground to a halt overall, Which is relevant to the right to silence in what way ?? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 19:01 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

Very simple, as agreed with Counsel from the beginning Our application to the ECHR will say that Article 6 , fair trial etc etc, itself states that it can be bypassed only 'in times of war or when the life of the nation is in grave danger' So S172 ins invalid Second line of defence - that if the courts are allowed to balance the public good achieved by removing the RTS against the importance of that principle, then the onus falls on the govt to prove the public good they achieve that relies on taking away the RTS The Privy Council that validated S172 after it had been invalid (but still used) for a year, did so in a drink driving case and on the evidence linking road casualties with drink driving In my case they could only do so if the evidence shows speed camers save lives and cut accidents it doesn't so they can't. So we have to point out that this is the case, hence my analysis. Available to anyone who wants it, with graphs for any areas Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 19:05 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Mark (Brazil)

>>In a normal criminal case a suspect has the right to silence And another thing which occurs... If you didn't do it, which you state when asked, but you refuse to name who did, then you are not a suspect in the speeding offence anymore, but you are in the failure to disclose. Where is the justification in being able to protect a criminal and have that right protected in law ? You talk all the time about how the evil big brother will take away the right to silence here, and then follow it up elsewhere. How this will lead to an esscalation of the removal of rights. What about the other side, where people having found that they can buck the law on this one, will then accelerate to bucking the law on other points resulting, conceivably, in anarchy ? Still, you'd be able to fight on the other side then since they would have broken a law which you have decided they should obey, mostly on the basis that you don't want to break it yourself. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 19:32 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

I did not say that I was not the driver, or that I was I just refused to answer - which I could have done in the dock without penalty, but not earlier - totallly illogical Just law always has to be a balance between tyranny on the one hand and total freedom risking anarchy on the other hand For 400 years or more Britain felt that the needs of justice included the right to silence for all. America believed that foe 200 years and still does. I do not accept that thers is any valid argument for changing that position It really is as simple as that. That speed cameras lead to more rather than fewer casualties is a side issue Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 19:43 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Mark (Brazil)

>>I did not say that I was not the driver, or that I was A question which I would understand if you chose not to answer - did you set this whole thing up ? i.e. intentionally speeding with a view to this campaign ? >Just law always has to be a balance between tyranny on the one hand and total freedom risking anarchy on the other hand Clearly agreed. Equally clearly the general public have about as much idea where that balance is as the politicians do. >For 400 years or more Britain felt that the needs of justice included the right to silence for all. America believed that foe 200 years and still does. Well, it isn't quite that clear cut, but ok point taken. However, just because something does exist, does not neccessarily mean that it should continue to do so (e.g. laws around witchcraft), or that it shouldn't. Neither does the fact that the majority believe something make it right or wrong. >I do not accept that thers is any valid argument for changing that position Perhaps. But what is the argument for not changing it ? If one is innocent, where does the right to silence help you ? I can think of occasions where it can be harmful. e.g. someone commits murder and I know who did it, but refuse to name them. But I can't think of a situation where the RtoS would help an innocent person - I would be genuinely interested in a realistic example. >That speed cameras lead to more rather than fewer casualties is a side issue Idris - maybe that is your opinion, without knowing you its difficult to say; But how many people, including ABD, are supporting you because of finer feelings about the RtoS, and how many because its a method of defeating the hated speeding cameras and being able to return to dodging the waiting policeman rather than the "infallible" camera ? Not to mention a whole bunch of people to whom reflected publicity and attention is better than none. With respect, I can't help but feel that you are enjoying the campaign for the sake of the campaign; The whole Andy Warhol thing. M. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 19:46 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Tomo Stick in there Idris! Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 19:50 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Mark (Brazil)

Take you a long time to compose that and ensure that the message delivered was perfect, did it Eckie ? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 20:26 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - steve paterson Go for the KO Mark, you're winning on points so far - all of them. Reply | Report as offensive | Link Tue 16 Apr 2002 20:34 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Tomo Look, Mark, We can't all go swanning around the world enjoying various sorts of motoring, and we have to endure the UK anti motoring culture which started even before there were motors (we could have had the earliest motor industry in the world if the steam carriages had not been put down to gratify certain interest groups). And it goes on, so full marks to anybody who may do something about it, a lot of us think. OK? As to Eckie, who or which has become another bee in your bonnet, seemingly; well, I quite like him! Regards, Tomo Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 20:34 Questions... - ian (cape town)

Some straight questions.... 1) were you doing 47 in a 30 zone? 2) If it had been raining/foggy/night/windy, would 47 in an antique vehicle been safe in said zone? 3) Where would you draw the line at which laws you will or won't admit to?would it be rape? Murder? robbery? leaving the scene of an accident? driving whilst drunk? shoplifting? 4) If you weren't driving, who was? And if it weren't you, who was it? and if it weren't you, but Mr X, did he (a) have your permission to drive? (b) Have insurance to drive the old Alvis? (c) Have the requisite knowledge to drive it safely? As much as I've disagreed with Mark (Brazil) in the past, I tend to go along with his Warhol analogy. As unfair as the law may seem, it is still the law - set by the then-government. As I recall, more people voted for Big Brother TV than voted at the last election. Maybe you would be better employed standing for parliament? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 20:40 Re: Questions... - Tomo "Maybe you would be better employed standing for parliament?" No need; enough anti motorists there already. Oh for Alan Clark, even if he was not consistent (anti fox hunting - being a shooter - I wonder what he'd be saying now, though, when wanting a firearm opens one up to all sorts of harrying and insolence; just like motoring). Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 20:49 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Mark (Brazil)

>And it goes on, so full marks to anybody who may do something about it, a lot of us think. > >OK? Actually, yes. That is quite a reasonable basis to like or dislike something. I don't agree with you, but that is hardly the point. And I can forsee the possiblity that there are implications from what Idris is doing that may benefit all, including myself. Equally I can see possibilities which we might all live to regret. However, fighting the law is his perogative, and so far as I recall, I haven't at any time suggested he shouldn't. But...... Setting it up as some knight on shining armour riding in from the sunset to protect us all is more or less what Tony Blair does, and its no different or less laughable whoever it comes from. Also, I find the whole "we hate speeding camera, speeding camera are wrong, we don't need to obey them, I am too good to need to be told maximum speeds, police who nick me are evil" etc. etc. ad nauseum offensive, erroneous, dangerous, irresponsible and for the most part, either pitiful or at worst illegal. And the lack of respónsibility is amazing. I assume that if I leave a load of razor blades on the floor and a baby plays with them then it is the parents fault. If I am caught selling drugs down the local school, it is the parent's fault. Of course there is a primary responsibility, but there is equally secondary, joint or community responsibility. This whole thing of "its not my fault, I was obeying the law" is ridiculous. Onthe one hand people maintain the law is wrong, but on the other hand maintain they have no blame because they obeyed it. My nephew was killed in a very similar way to the other thread. Although the driver was clearly at fault in that case. He also said he wasn't breaking the speed limit. Which was true; he was bouncing off other,parked, cars, ploughing through hedges and killing 4 yr olds, but he wasn't speeding. There is a responsibility involved. And at least a moral duty of care, if not a legal one. A car is potentially a lethal weapon, or at least a dangerous blunt instrument. As an adult this should imply a responsibility. Finally, does everybody realise that speed limits are maximums, not targets ? If we could trust everybody to drive safely we wouldn't need them. However, time and time again it is proved that we cannot. And if 85% behave and 15% do not, and if those 15% are killing and injuring, then that speed limit needs to come down. Frankly I would rather have a blanket limit of 50 on all high speed roads than I would have a child of mine killed, or be even partially responsible for killing someone else's. It is the motivation for hating speed cameras that I find offensive, not the actually hating of them. It is the motivation for fighting them, the reasoning behind ignoring them and the blatant violation of speed limts. The majority do not do it in a responsible way, the majority do not care about the right to silence or the freedom to enjoy motoring in a mature way - the majority simply believe in driving how they want to and @!#$ the rest of the world. >As to Eckie, who or which has become another bee in your bonnet, seemingly; well, I quite like him! Imagine. Mark. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 23:50 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Trevor Potter Wonderful - Wonderful. It's about time the "cowboys" think that because they shout loudly, the silent majority are in agreement. No way. The ABD says "Education is the way forward - Enforcement is terrible" Sound OK does it not? Then I get this email from a spokesman for this "peoples champion car group" "From :- Nigel Humphries A few questions for advanced driving instructor TrevorP who wants speed cameras because of bad drivers, Even though he admits it is the bad driving that is dangerous not the speed. 1) Why does he think people have such poor hazard perception skills? Could it be because they are constantly told that all they have to do is stick to the speed limit to be safe? 2) How does he expect to teach anybody advanced driving skills if they are not allowed to go fast enough for these skills to be relevant? 3) What is the point of acquiring advanced driving skills if you are relentlessly persecuted should you dare to use them? It is illogical arguments like this from people who should know better that has allowed the extremists behind govt. policy to get away with driving down standards through a campaign of terror." What? The phrase "a brick short of a hod" springs to mind. Reply | Report as offensive | Link Wed 17 Apr 2002 12:22 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Derek Is withholding evidence of a crime, or obstructing the police in pursuit of an enquiry, still an offence? Or have I missed something along the way? Reply | Report as offensive | Link Wed 17 Apr 2002 01:37 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - The Mark (Brazil) wrote: > Take you a long time to compose that and ensure that > the message delivered was perfect, did it Eckie ? As you've decided that you prefer the long argument after all I thought I'd jump in: > Also, I find the whole "we hate speeding camera, speeding > camera are wrong, we don't need to obey them, I am too good > to need to be told maximum speeds, police who nick me are > evil" etc. etc. ad nauseum offensive, erroneous, dangerous, > irresponsible and for the most part, either pitiful or at > worst illegal. Still not noticed the reference to the second "police letter" which claims that half of the speed trap sites in their area are illegally signed? And what's the betting that the other half are inappropriately low, though legal? And what is your attitude to those who say we love speed cameras and hate those who oppose them. But speed themselves? > And the lack of respónsibility is amazing. I assume that if I > leave a load of razor blades on the floor and a baby plays > with them then it is the parents fault. If I am caught > selling drugs down the local school, it is the parent's fault. ? I, like many others, am quite happy to accept it is our responsibility to drive SAFELY and RESPONSIBLY. To look out for the unsupervised children let out to run wild by irresponsible parents. To look out for the incompetent drivers who think that they are driving safely within the speed limit, though they are failing to do at least one, if not both, but probably support the scameras, if in fact they hadn't campaigned for them in the first place. And probably "support" the unsupervised children running wild. > Of course there is a primary responsibility, but there is > equally secondary, joint or community responsibility. This is the responsibility of the pro scamera hypocrites to surrender their licences because they've all broken the speed limit? > This whole thing of "its not my fault, I was obeying the law" > is ridiculous. On the one hand people maintain the law is > wrong, but on the other hand maintain they have no blame > because they obeyed it. Now what tangent are you flying off on? Are you now arguing against arbitrary and inappropriate signing? > My nephew was killed in a very similar way to the other > thread. Although the driver was clearly at fault in that > case. He also said he wasn't breaking the speed limit. Which > was true; he was bouncing off other,parked, cars, ploughing > through hedges and killing 4 yr olds, but he wasn't speeding. Mark, I don't know how else to say this. This is clearly a tragedy, and obviously affected many people. But, and please take this in the spirit it is meant: it doesn't matter how many people get done for doing 31 in a former 40, or even 47 in a former 60, you can't bring him back. You can't even bring him back by putting Gatsos in gardens. What you can do is ensure that, though you can never protect every child from every danger, you protect as many children from as many dangers as possible. And you will never do that concentrating your efforts on promoting speed cameras. Or even slagging me off. That, like the SPECS cameras on the Nottingam ring road, won't help the half dozen or so unbelted kids I saw in a Volvo estate, including one kneeling on the front passenger seat, yesterday. Even if the driver had been doing 45, instead of the newly fashionable 35. A proper traffic cop, looking out for proper criminals, including driving ones, might. All the SPECS, and other, scameras are doing is diverting loonies down the residential streets. To get those kids when they get out. > There is a responsibility involved. And at least a moral duty > of care, if not a legal one. So, again, are the moralisers going to surrender their licenses? > A car is potentially a lethal weapon, or at least a dangerous > blunt instrument. As an adult this should imply a responsibility. So why are people playing politics with them? > Finally, does everybody realise that speed limits are > maximums, not targets ? Why does everybody not realise that if you lower limits to totally inappropriate levels people will begin exceeding, never mind aiming for, ALL limits, and the worst speeders will be forced as far from the camera sites (always on safe high speed roads rather than residential roads) as possible. > If we could trust everybody to drive safely we wouldn't need > them. However, time and time again it is proved that we cannot. How? Almost all accidents happen within the speed limits. So how on earth is it proved that we need speed cameras? > And if 85% behave and 15% do not, and if those 15% are > killing and injuring, then that speed limit needs to come down. Are we talking about shooting? Stabbing? Poisoning? Bludgeoning? No: driving. And the connection with speed limits is? > Frankly I would rather have a blanket limit of 50 on all high > speed roads than I would have a child of mine killed, or be > even partially responsible for killing someone else's. Would you rather your child was killed by a 175 train or a car doing 50? Have you stopped beating your wife yet? What on earth are you talking about? I take it you never drive above 49 now? > It is the motivation for hating speed cameras that I find > offensive, not the actually hating of them. It is the > motivation for fighting them, the reasoning behind ignoring > them and the blatant violation of speed limts. So you don't like the blatant violation of speed limits? And the blatant violation of children is OK as long as you're not speeding? Which is when it almost always happens (we have two perfect examples being discussed at the moment, neither of which would have been prevented by speed limits, nor cameras, and both of which are perfectly typical). > The majority do not do it in a responsible way, the majority > do not care about the right to silence or the freedom to > enjoy motoring in a mature way - the majority simply believe > in driving how they want to and @!#$ the rest of the world. Really? These would be the "average" majority of the public who have to drive half a billion miles to kill a pedestrian, but have to keep their eyes open for speed cameras instead of pedestrians in case they miss an inappropriately low stealth sign? Or the average (real) criminal driver the majority of whom are real criminals, who should be being chased by real traffic cops (and who are the only reason that the "average" fatality rate is as bad as one in half a billion miles). Or do you think that it's the vicar, and the district nurse who cause the CAR-nage? And the robber and the murderer and the rapist who are the model drivers? > Imagine. Reply | Report as offensive | Link Wed 17 Apr 2002 10:32 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Matt Kelly "Mark, I don't know how else to say this. This is clearly a tragedy, and obviously affected many people. But, and please take this in the spirit it is meant: it doesn't matter how many people get done for doing 31 in a former 40, or even 47 in a former 60, you can't bring him back. You can't even bring him back by putting Gatsos in gardens. What you can do is ensure that, though you can never protect every child from every danger, you protect as many children from as many dangers as possible." Whatever your reservations about saying that, I think it's really low to have said it, he knows that child can't be brought back and if he were an unreasonable person this particular story would have wheeled out in the multitude of speeding & enforcement related discussions that have occurred in the past on this site. Reply | Report as offensive | Link Thu 18 Apr 2002 11:48 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - The Matt Kelly wrote: > > Mark, I don't know how else to say this.................. > Whatever your reservations about saying that, I think it's > really low to have said it, he knows that child can't be > brought back He would, if he thought about it. He's a very intelligent, perceptive guy, with an incisive mind. Also a very human and sensitive one I would guess. Which is why I "know" that he's wrong (ie I think he's letting emotion cloud his judgement). > and if he were an unreasonable person this > particular story would have wheeled out in the multitude of > speeding & enforcement related discussions that have occurred > in the past on this site. And if he were a reasonable one he'd leave it until now. Doesn't make it, or him, right. I don't want him to get a knock on the door one day and be handed a carrier bag with what was left of his daughter in it after she's been run over by a truck doing 3mph. And realise it was his fault. Rather a nasty low blow now, than a nasty low blow when it's too late. Fortunately it's never happened to me. But it does happen. All too often. And it will continue to happen as long as people have this hysterical emotional reaction to speeding. Another low blow: The next time you pick up the paper and read about ANOTHER unsupervised six or seven year old run over by a driver driving within the speed limit on a busy main road it will be YOUR fault, not the anti speed camera campaigners. People don't get killed now by vicars and district nurses doing 31 in a 30, or Idris doing 47 safely on what used to be an NSL road. The average person has to drive half a BILLION miles to kill a pedestrian (and cycle far fewer). But that figure is only that "bad" because of the deaths (most of them) caused by the real criminal drivers, whilst the current approach, apparently supported by most here, targets safe drivers and safe driving. Rather than dangerous driving, and dangerous drivers. However, if we all have to drive everywhere at 40, watching our speedos, and looking out for speed cameras, then pretty soon we will ALL be driving everywhere at 40, watching our speedos, and looking out for speed cameras, then pretty soon we will ALL be driving dangerously. And surprise, surprise, the upward fatality trend will continue. And that won't be my fault. It won't be the anti speed camera campaigners fault. It won't even be the real dangerous drivers fault. It will be the fault of the do-gooder, nanny, safety brigade. As usual. Reply | Report as offensive | Link Wed 17 Apr 2002 10:53 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - David W Bogush said.... >..........like the SPECS cameras on the Nottingam ring road, won't help the half dozen or so unbelted kids I saw in a Volvo estate, including one kneeling on the front passenger seat, yesterday. Even if the driver had been doing 45, instead of the newly fashionable 35. A proper traffic cop, looking out for proper criminals, including driving ones, might. David says.... Errrr....like a proper traffic cop trying to deal with the Volvo "occupant's representative" who, when stopped, said "I may or may not have been driving, I may or may not be the registered keeper, I may or may not have an MOT, I may or may not be insured, I sorry I can't tell you who these children are in the car......in fact one of them may or may not have been the driver!" You see I am reading and taking notice where required. David Reply | Report as offensive | Link Thu 18 Apr 2002 12:00 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - The David W wrote: > > Bogush said.... > > >..........like the SPECS cameras on the Nottingam ring road, > >won't help the half dozen or so unbelted kids I saw in a > >Volvo estate, including one kneeling on the front passenger > >seat, yesterday. Even if the driver had been doing 45, > >instead of the newly fashionable 35. > > > >A proper traffic cop, looking out for proper criminals, > >including driving ones, might. > > > David says.... > > Errrr....like a proper traffic cop trying to deal with the > Volvo "occupant's representative" who, when stopped, said "I > may or may not have been driving, I may or may not be the > registered keeper, I may or may not have an MOT, I may or may > not be insured, I sorry I can't tell you who these children > are in the car......in fact one of them may or may not have > been the driver!" > > > You see I am reading and taking notice where required. Double Errrrrmmmm No. The traffic cop would have caught him red-handed. Or are you arguing that this respectable, middle aged (grandfather?), middle class, "safe" driver, who is probably all for speed cameras, and probably campaigned for speed humps outside his house (probably even a notLabour or "Liberal" councillor, or maybe a Guardian and Telegraph reading Chief Constable on his day off - hope he's reading this!) would do a runner, so we need to remove the rights which an ordinary murderer would enjoy from him? Reply | Report as offensive | Link Thu 18 Apr 2002 14:21 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - David W >The traffic cop would have caught him red-handed. Like the camera caught Idris you mean? David Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 22:38 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - The

> Finally, does everybody realise that speed limits are maximums, not targets ? > If we could trust everybody to drive safely we wouldn't need them. However, time and time again it is proved that we cannot. The ring road in Nottingham is a 40, good for more on many sections. (Before anyone starts whinging about "certain" people believing they know better than the councillors who decide these things: there are official guidelines around for what the limits should be). Since the SPECS cameras were introduced speeds have dropped to 35 on the fast stretches, and 30 on the ordinary bits. But accidents in the area have gone up. It doesn't take a genius to indulge in a bit of lateral thinking and work out where and why those accidents must be occuring. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 16 Apr 2002 23:57 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - The...Reclaim the Streets Camp

Excellent counter argument there, as usual, Potty! Keep up the Good Work. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 00:16 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - ChrisR

Mark I think we're finding out a great deal about the state of the opposition in this country. It's a shame that we don't have a useful opposition - I speak as a socialist who is sometimes with Blair and sometimes not. But just at the moment they are going for soft targets, and have no solutions or alternative policies. It's a back road, for them, and a back road for the centre right, as well. As I said, it's a shame. Democracy needs proper debate; this kind of garbage, which is turning up on Newsnight as well from the Tory spokespeople, just wastes everybody's time. I'm right with you on this one. Chris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 01:21 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - mybrainhurts

Idris Keep us informed, please. I have a sneaking suspicion there are more of us with you than against. While I'm here, I was asked a question that I couldn't answer yesterday. Can anyone help? Question was : which well-known wag coined "Q. what do you call a sunken ship, full of lawyers? A. A good start." Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 01:36 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

This is a bit of a grey area. Failure to disclose when you know and can prove that you were not the driver is presumably not a right to silence issue. In law right to silence applies to anyone who has reason to believe he might be a suspect, (ie not just from when he is told he is or charged) He ceases to be at risk only if he can prove it was not him, not just when hje says so without proof. When in the clear diffrent issues apply. --------------------------------------- I thought I had gone over and over this but once more briefly It is a question of balance of the rights and power (and unlimited cah) of the state against the individual. To get any sort of balance the individudal's rights must be protected. If the state can force a confession by threats of similar penalties for not answering they can clearly get confessions for anything - what is the point ot arguing if you will be penalised the same either way? The issue os not whether the suspect is guilty - the issue is whether the State can be allowed to ecxtrac confessions even from the innocent - which happens quite a lot with NIPs, when people who do not even know whether they were driving, or even that they were not, submit because of the threats We moved away centuries ago from the Star Chamber and confessions extracted under duress. We should not go back! But we are doing, gradually --------------------------------------- You talk all the time about how the evil big brother will take away the right to silence here, and then follow it up elsewhere. How this will lead to an esscalation of the removal of rights. What about the other side, where people having found that they can buck the law on this one, will then accelerate to bucking the law on other points resulting, conceivably, in anarchy ? Still, you'd be able to fight on the other side then since they would have broken a law which you have decided they should obey, mostly on the basis that you don't want to break it yourself. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 01:56 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

\"A question which I would understand if you chose not to answer - did you set this whole thing up ? i.e. intentionally speeding with a view to this campaign ?\" No, I would much have preferred it had not happened. But once it had, it was an opportunity to fight on an issue in an area in which I was already active as a free-lance heckler. (and founder member of the Magna Carta Society and, incidentally, the driver who drove 4 Peers to Buckingham Palace to present HMQ with a Petition under Clause 61 of Magna Carta against the Nice Treaty -------------------------------------------- some points agreed - good --------------------------------- >I do not accept that thers is any valid argument for changing that position Perhaps. But what is the argument for not changing it ? If one is innocent, where does the right to silence help you ? That speed cameras lead to more rather than fewer casualties is a side issue Idris - maybe that is your opinion, without knowing you its difficult to say; But how many people, including ABD, are supporting you because of finer feelings about the RtoS, and how many because its a method of defeating the hated speeding cameras and being able to return to dodging the waiting policeman rather than the \"infallible\" camera ? reply I welcome support from anyone whatever their reaons. The issue is too important to reject help because of different reasons for helping. ------------------------------------------------- Not to mention a whole bunch of people to whom reflected publicity and attention is better than none. With respect, I can\'t help but feel that you are enjoying the campaign for the sake of the campaign; The whole Andy Warhol thing. reply Some time ago someone asked how much I would pay to be famous. I replied \'Nothing, but if I were famous I could well imagine paying a great deal to cease to be famous. Over the years since 1976 I have taken old cars to quite a number of film sets, and been in the last 10 years to at least 300 political meetings, and spoken from the floor at most, on issues of freedom, the EU and motor cars. I have met briefly quite a large number of \'famous\' people, and know a few well enough to pass the time of day. I do not envy them their fame AT ALL There canbe nothing worse than being umable to walk along a street without being recognised every 10ft. I am therefor entirely happy that mym present \'fame\' ie one person in 1000 might recognise me until Tuesday\'s papers reach the fish and chip shop, is almost over. For 5 years anyway. others can speak for themselves Idris M. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 15:26 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Trevor Potter I am afraid "I defend the right to silence, because to lose it means inevitably that false confessions can be extracted under duress" is indefensible logically. "This" means "that" only exists in your mind. Reply | Report as offensive | Link Wed 17 Apr 2002 19:50 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - The Trevor Potter wrote: > > I am afraid > > "I defend the right to silence, because to lose it means > inevitably that false confessions can be extracted under > duress" > > is indefensible logically. > > "This" means "that" only exists in your mind. As ever Potty: You're going to have to explain WHY it is logically indefensible for us thickos. Reply | Report as offensive | Link Thu 18 Apr 2002 09:41 The...you stand charged of having double standards - Flat in Fifth The wrote: > > Trevor Potter wrote: > > > As ever Potty: > > I am so going to regret this but, Bogush, quite a number of times you have complained, and rightly so, about people corrupting your name into other forms which you find disagreeable. Fine. The chap's name is Potter NOT Potty, kindly remember that please. Please do not claim you were using the word in another grammatical sense, the capitalised P tells otherwise. Double standards eh! Choosing which rule you are going to obey and which you are not. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm^(infinity+1) Reply | Report as offensive | Link Thu 18 Apr 2002 11:15 Re: The...you stand charged of having double stand - The Flat in Fifth wrote: > > The wrote: > > > > Trevor Potter wrote: > > > > > > As ever Potty: > > > > > > I am so going to regret this but, Bogush, quite a number of > times you have complained, and rightly so, about people > corrupting your name into other forms which you find > disagreeable. Fine. This would be people who corrupted my name into an unpleasant and, to many, unacceptable (it means "Gift of God" - so apt!;-) insult, as an adjuct to a stream of other insults, in an attempt to hide the fact that they have no answer to my points, and no basis for their attempts to getting me banned. > The chap's name is Potter NOT Potty, kindly remember that > please. Please do not claim you were using the word in > another grammatical sense, the capitalised P tells otherwise. Ooooh You spotted the capital "P". I'd noticed that too late (if only we had an edit button;-) Yes, and "Potty" is quite an acceptable "corruption" for a chap called Potter in your country, isn't it? And, I would submit, quite acceptable for someone who claims that you, at best, talk gobbledegook, at worst calls you a liar and a thief and a murderer. I can't be "arsed" to check "back" and see if he's corrupted my name too. > Double standards eh! Choosing which rule you are going to > obey and which you are not. But he is the guy who accused me that I do that anyway isn't he? Claims he's an "advanced" driving instructor. Admits to having run a kid over in a Lotus (and boasts that his blonde bomshell PA bought him a sports car for his birthday). And advises people to ignore the safety rules in the Highway Code. Or am I getting him confused with someone who is Potty? > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm^(infinity+1) I reserve the right to defend myself with good old British schoolboy playground pushing and shoving and name calling when attacked. Or is that non-PC as well now? Oh, yes, the victim is supposed to call the Police and take a crime number from the automated reply. Reply | Report as offensive | Link Thu 18 Apr 2002 15:00 Short Interleaved replies, avoid if attention span - Flat in Fifth The wrote: > > Flat in Fifth wrote: > > > > The wrote: > > > > > > Trevor Potter wrote: > > > > > > > > > As ever Potty: > > > > > > > > > > I am so going to regret this but, Bogush, quite a number of > > times you have complained, and rightly so, about people > > corrupting your name into other forms which you find > > disagreeable. Fine. > > This would be people who corrupted my name into an unpleasant > and, to many, unacceptable (it means "Gift of God" - so > apt!;-) insult, as an adjuct to a stream of other insults, in > an attempt to hide the fact that they have no answer to my > points, and no basis for their attempts to getting me banned. REPLY: Mostly, in case you misunderstood, I'm on your side on that point. > > > The chap's name is Potter NOT Potty, kindly remember that > > please. Please do not claim you were using the word in > > another grammatical sense, the capitalised P tells otherwise. > > Ooooh > > You spotted the capital "P". I'd noticed that too late (if > only we had an edit button;-) REPLY: I'll take that as a "Hands up, it's a fair cop guv" then. > > Yes, and "Potty" is quite an acceptable "corruption" for a > chap called Potter in your country, isn't it? REPLY: No it isn't. > > And, I would submit, quite acceptable for someone who claims > that you, at best, talk gobbledegook, at worst calls you a > liar and a thief and a murderer. > REPLY: No > I can't be "arsed" to check "back" and see if he's corrupted > my name too. > REPLY: No > > Double standards eh! Choosing which rule you are going to > > obey and which you are not. > > But he is the guy who accused me that I do that anyway isn't > he? REPLY: Quod Erat Demonstrandum > > Claims he's an "advanced" driving instructor. REPLY: Apparently > > Admits to having run a kid over in a Lotus (and boasts that > his blonde bomshell PA bought him a sports car for his > birthday). > REPLY: If you say so. > And advises people to ignore the safety rules in the Highway > Code. > REPLY: No > > Or am I getting him confused with someone who is Potty? > REPLY: Are you asking us or telling us? ah question mark. Answer : Pass > > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm^(infinity+1) > > I reserve the right to defend myself with good old British > schoolboy playground pushing and shoving and name calling > when attacked. > REPLY: But others cannot it appears. > Or is that non-PC as well now? REPLY: No idea what is or is not PC, please refer to previous comments re double standards. > Oh, yes, the victim is supposed to call the Police and take a > crime number from the automated reply. REPLY: Crime, what crime? Criminal use of HJ's webspace whereas all it really required was a ""Hands up, it's a fair cop guv" love-40 Bogush serving, 3 match points. Reply | Report as offensive | Link Fri 19 Apr 2002 00:55 Re: Short Interleaved replies, avoid if attention - The Flat in Fifth wrote: > Mostly, in case you misunderstood, I'm on your side on that > point. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Must have missed the post where you pulled up Pottyer ( I said Potter, Sir, honest, ouch;-) and showed him the yellow card. > > > The chap's name is Potter NOT Potty, kindly remember that > > > please. Sorry, Sir, just got confused by the evidence Sir, didn't you read what he'd put on the toilet walls Sir? > I'll take that as a "Hands up, it's a fair cop guv" then. Yes, Sir, of course, Sir! > > Yes, and "Potty" is quite an acceptable "corruption" for a > > chap called Potter in your country, isn't it? > > No it isn't. I'll swot up on my English homework Sir, honest I will sir! > > And, I would submit, quite acceptable for someone wo claims > > that you, at best, talk gobbledegook, at worst calls you a > > liar and a thief and a murderer. > > No Sorry, Sir, from now on I'll call him Lucy Dean Honest, Sir > > I can't be "arsed" to check "back" and see if he's corrupted > > my name too. > > No You've checked his homework then, Sir? > > > Double standards eh! Choosing which rule you are going to > > > obey and which you are not. > > > > But he is the guy who accused me that I do that anyway isn't > > he? > > Quod Erat Demonstrandum Is the burglary victim in the wrong to steal his property back (when the police turn a blind eye to the crime?). Should the assault victim be imprisoned for harming the assailant whilst the assailant gets sympathy, counselling and compensation? QED > >Claims he's an "advanced" driving instructor. > > Apparently > > > > Admits to having run a kid over in a Lotus (and boasts that > > his blonde bomshell PA bought him a sports car for his > > birthday). > > > If you say so. It would appear that you haven't actually read the posts, but are happy to judge?:-( > > And advises people to ignore the safety rules in the Highway > > Code. > > > No Errrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm YES! So you haven't read the relevant posts. > > Or am I getting him confused with someone who is Potty? > > > Are you asking us or telling us? ah question mark. > Answer : Pass Either he isn't an advanced driving instructor, and Potty. Or he is, and is dangerous. > > > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm^(infinity+1) > > > > I reserve the right to defend myself with good old British > > schoolboy playground pushing and shoving and name calling > > when attacked. > > > REPLY: But others cannot it appears. Errrrrrmmmmmmmmmm If I put my point in class, I'm quite happy for another, even the teacher, or head, to argue the toss. If, instead, they fail to put forward any argument, but instead attack me, they forfeit the right to expect a civilised response. However, unlike my "opponents" and detractors, I rarely sink to uncivilized behaviour. > > Or is that non-PC as well now? > > REPLY: No idea what is or is not PC, please refer to previous > comments re double standards. ? > > Oh, yes, the victim is supposed to call the Police and take a > > crime number from the automated reply. > > Crime, what crime? Criminal use of HJ's webspace Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Allday? > whereas all it really required was a ""Hands up, it's a fair > cop guv" Happy to oblige. WHEN it is. > love-40 Bogush serving, 3 match points. That's what I love about the British. They think that because they invented the game they can make up the rules to suit themselves;-) Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 02:03 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Mark (Brazil)

ChrisR, The state of the political parties is a nightmare, whatever one's personal politics are. As far as I can see the Right doesn't care what you want and the Left tells you what you want. Neither particularly suits me. There will always be the raving protestors, and the world needs even them. However, there is little point in trying to argue individual points, since that takes an openness of mind that rarely, if ever, exists in fanatics. Fortunately, in the end they will lose as they lost over the helmet law, the seatbelt law and the drink/drive law. Then it will be on to the next protest. Oddly, I believe that they do improve the things they argue about, but this holer-than-thou attitude is tough to stomach. However, I will be buggered if they will shout me down when they spout about how "everybody wants...", "everybody thinks...." etc. etc. If I am the only one in the world who disagrees, that still stops it being "everybody" and it is fairly clear that I am not. You would think that somebody would have read me closely enough to see that I have never [rarely ?] argued about the appropriateness or otherwise of a speed limit. My argument is usually based around that of law breaking and abuse of the police. And the willingness of too many people to see responsibility as someone else's. Mark. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 02:09 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Mark (Brazil)

>>Will you now agree that for this simple, clear and obvious reason, even the innocent need the right to silence, because to lose it means inevitably that false confessions can be extracted under duress No. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 02:11 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

Some straight questions.... 1) were you doing 47 in a 30 zone? The car was. I was in the car, on one side or the other.# ------------------------------------------------------ 2) If it had been raining/foggy/night/windy, would 47 in an antique vehicle been safe in said zone? This particular 'antique' is good for 97mph. has independent front suspension, servo brakes, all-synchor gearbox, 3.5 litres and shock absorbers not only adjustable from the dash but automatically adjusted by a pump on the back axle. I have driven 50,000 miles plus in it without hitting anything or anyone, and other competent drivers drive it without problems. Bad conditions would have made things less safe as for any other car, In those conditions the driver at the time would have driven appropriately. 50,000 miles without hitting anything suggests that were I driving at the time, the speed was probably not dangerous, If someone else were driving i would have ensured the same. ----------------------------------------- 3) Where would you draw the line at which laws you will or won't admit to?would it be rape? Murder? robbery? leaving the scene of an accident? driving whilst drunk? shoplifting? I have no intention of commtting any of those, so it is theoretical. However, for reasons explained elsewhere, the rightt of silence is vital to prevent people being browbeaten into false confessions. For the same reasons all British laws and most other civilised countries and the ECHR believe that it must be the responsibility of the State to prove their cases beyond reasonable doubt - the suspect is not and must not be required to prove his innocence. Greater legal minds than ours have agreed this for centuries, ---------------------------------------- 4) If you weren't driving, who was? And if it weren't you, who was it? and if it weren't you, but Mr X, did he (a) have your permission to drive? (b) Have insurance to drive the old Alvis? (c) Have the requisite knowledge to drive it safely? 28m people (approx) are insured to drive my cars r anyone elses on minimum 3rd party cover on their own insurance as long as I give permission. Many others drive my cars routinely - and this 1938 one is perfectly easy to drive. No special techniques at all. In fact the lead guy from Men Behaving badly drove my 1939 Alvis 4.3 for a ITV film last year inYorks when I was not even there, no pronblems/ (Film on Haig, acid math murderer ---------------------- As much as I've disagreed with Mark (Brazil) in the past, I tend to go along with his Warhol analogy. See other reply fame sucks ------------------------------- As unfair as the law may seem, it is still the law - set by the then-government. As I recall, more people voted for Big Brother TV than voted at the last election. reply It is the right of any British subject and the duty to challenge any law he considers to be bad. That is how bad law gets changed. ------------------------- Maybe you would be better employed standing for parliament? Too old, too late, more interested in engineering, old cars, radio control mode aircraft. all of which are suffering at present but not mucn longer. cheers idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 02:28 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

Date: 16-04-02 19:49 Equally I can see possibilities which we might all live to regret. Name one Idris ------------------------------------------------------------ However, fighting the law is his perogative, and so far as I recall, I haven't at any time suggested he shouldn't. reply Indeed the right of anyone under our constitition. ------------------------------------- But...... Setting it up as some knight on shining armour riding in from the sunset to protect us all is more or less what Tony Blair does, and its no different or less laughable whoever it comes from. reply Pistols at dawn! As laughable as Blair? How dare you! he plans to save the entire world, I am fighting one narrow issue. To win ----------------------------------------------------- Also, I find the whole "we hate speeding camera, speeding camera are wrong, we don't need to obey them, I am too good to need to be told maximum speeds, police who nick me are evil" etc. etc. ad nauseum offensive, erroneous, dangerous, irresponsible and for the most part, either pitiful or at worst illegal. Not what I am saying. I sday - for all the theory - look at the results"! speed cameras are NOT saving lives eg Tuesday Mail. They may well be costing lives. ------------------------------------------- My nephew was killed in a very similar way to the other thread. Although the driver was clearly at fault in that case. He also said he wasn't breaking the speed limit. Which was true; he was bouncing off other,parked, cars, ploughing through hedges and killing 4 yr olds, but he wasn't speeding. Precisely - what did speed cameras do to prevent that> What might a patrol car have done tom prevent it - if there had been any? ----------------------------------------------------------- Finally, does everybody realise that speed limits are maximums, not targets ? If we could trust everybody to drive safely we wouldn't need them. However, time and time again it is proved that we cannot. Reply I have the evidence on Montana USA - lowest casualties ever when all limits removed, shot up by large factor as soon as restored Why is no one asking me for the graphs and analhysis on UK? --------------------------------------------------- And if 85% behave and 15% do not, and if those 15% are killing and injuring, then that speed limit needs to come down. B.........s The 15% need to be caught by police patrols and taught to drive safely. -------------------------------------- Frankly I would rather have a blanket limit of 50 on all high speed roads than I would have a child of mine killed, or be even partially responsible for killing someone else's. reply Why not a 5mph limit and avoid all deaths - except those who die because they cannot get help in time? Every 1mph decrease in average speed costs this country £10bm pa in lost output. Far better to stay as we are, spend that money more effectively in health etc. Hospitals kill 35,000 people a year (10 time the road farality) by incompetence, error, infections, Kitchens alone kill 35,000 pa same as road, due to bad hyygiene alone! If we all slowed to 50mph to save 10% of fatalities, we could not pay even for the poor hospitals we have and deaths would treble Please do not make such ludicrous suggestions based on emotion only - think it through! ------------------------------------------------ It is the motivation for hating speed cameras that I find offensive, not the actually hating of them. It is the motivation for fighting them, the reasoning behind ignoring them and the blatant violation of speed limts. reply I hate them because they are costing lives, and because a fundamental freedom has to be denined to allow the system to work. -------------------------- The majority do not do it in a responsible way, the majority do not care about the right to silence or the freedom to enjoy motoring in a mature way - the majority simply believe in driving how they want to and @!#$ the rest of the world. reply - may I remind you that we have the safest roads in Europe and within the top 2 or 3 in the world? half the accidents of France despite much more congestion. 10m times better than Portuga; 1/3 of the accidents per veh mile of 1972, 1/10 of 1949 That aint bad - its good Idris >As to Eckie, who or which has become another bee in your bonnet, seemingly; well, I quite like him! Imagine. Mark. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 02:39 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

Author: Mark (Brazil) (---.ig.com.br) Date: 17-04-02 01:09 >>Will you now agree that for this simple, clear and obvious reason, even the innocent need the right to silence, because to lose it means inevitably that false confessions can be extracted under duress No. reply In that case I give in. If you will not agree that it is unacceptable for the State to be able to extract confessions even from the innocent, by applying duress, then there is no point in continuing this debate. Though I would like to see how manu others agree or not on that one clear and specific point. Remeber this - removing a suspects right to silence does not make his lips move, it only gives the power to apply further pressure until he does start talking The logic of Marks reply is that if the State can have that power, they have the right to apply ever greater duress until the suspect gives way. That means he approves of Nazi torture of prisoners thought to have information, it means he approves of thumb screws and the rack - anything that will give the State the answers it wants. Why do I bother? Idris s Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 02:44 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - The

And Mark is one of the more (most?) intelligent and educated of the "liberals" here, you'll find. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 02:46 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Mark (Brazil)

>>Will you now agree that for this simple, clear and obvious reason, even the >>innocent need the right to silence, because to lose it means inevitably that >>false confessions can be extracted under duress >> >>No. > >In that case I give in. If you will not agree that it is unacceptable for the >State to be able to extract confessions even from the innocent, by applying >duress, then there is no point in continuing this debate. You asked would I agree that FOR THIS SIMPLE REASON. I do not. Neither do I agree that the loss of right to silence means that confessions would be forcibly extracted. Or is your idea that they would have beaten and tortured the confession, breaking all laws, but at the moment think "damn, and we can't torture and beat him because he has the right to silence" None of which implies I agree with the assumption that false confessions should be extracted. Try reading - it will help, honestly. >The logic of Marks reply is that if the State can have that power, they have >the right to apply ever greater duress until the suspect gives way. No it isn't. >That means he approves of Nazi torture of prisoners thought to have You steaming great Prat. Neither this, nor your comments in your e-mail to me will browbeat me into agreeing with you. Clearly you are resorting to this having run out, rather quickly I might add, of sensible arguments. >Why do I bother? I really have only the one idea - just for the 15 minutes. Clearly you love the attention. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 02:54 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

Final reply to Mark, then over and out If you do not understand how the right to silence has protected people for centruries from the excesses of earlier regimes - and would have been greatly beneficial to thousand ensnared in more recent evil empires, then you do not know much about the history of these matters The Founding fathers of the USA, thought this so important that it became the Fifth Amendment, still virtually sacrosanct even re Enron Of course it is not a 100% watertight guarantee - what ever is? But it ia a very substantial and vital protection against not only against the State itself but the servants of the State, who are less tempted to apply duress if they know that doing so is illegal and that they could one day be held to account. Thats it, over and out Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 03:06 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Mark (Brazil)

And these regimes didn`t respect the right not to be beaten and tortured. They didn`t respect the right not to be threatened and brow-beaten. But they were scared of breaking the right to silence law ?? Yeah right. Enron will be relieved to have escaped the thumbnails and the rack. Forever they will sit there untortured with all their finger nails in place, secure that the right to silence protected them. No doubt they will contribute to your campaign in gratitude. Ridiculous. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 03:06 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

>>I do not know how old you are, but if you think cheap fast cars are new, you probably think that sex was invented when you happened to be 14......... I think I probably have better things to do then stoop to these levels. reply A famous authour wrote of the swinging 60s that those involved thought that 'sex was invented in 1963' and the saying became very well known for a time But perhaps not to you, and you missed the point I was jokingly making - that all too many relative younsgters think that speed starred with the Escort in the 70s. Well it didn't Braver men than I were averaging 100mph in road races in 1910, in 10 or 12 litre cars. The Bentley 8 litre 80of 1929 would do 100mph with an 8 seater saloon body, the Alfa 2.9 of the mid 1930s, 8 cylinders twin blowers would do 140 There were very fast cars in the 40s and 50s and 60s - and as the car population was so low their proportion of the total was not that different Anyway, sorry you were offened , not intended Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 03:09 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Mark (Brazil)

oh, I thought you had signed out and left ? For the others, the first paragraph was in an e-mail from Idris to me, the single line was my reply. >>I do not know how old you are, but if you think cheap fast cars are new, >>you probably think that sex was invented when you happened to be 14......... >I think I probably have better things to do then stoop to these levels. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 08:11 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Dwight Van Driver

VOTE NOW Mark (Brasil) X Idris DVD. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 08:34 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Dave

I honestly think the right to silence can only protect the guilty, or those who wish to conceal the truth about the guilty. HOWEVER. If Criminals get a right to silence so should motorists. QED. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 09:34 Right to Silence - David W There is a sort of logic to that Dave but to turn it on its head a bit... Surely we all accept the need for drivers to have a licence, cars to be registered, taxed (assuming that is the current revenue system), MOT'd and insured. OK so one of the ways we enforce those requirements is with the Police. Now say we take away the "right" of the Police to get an answer to the simple questions that would enable them to tell if the law was being upheld and where do we go from there........ Excellent battle Mark/Idris. I don't agree with you Idris and also question the point that intelligence of argument comes into it, everyone has a say in such issues.....that is a basic human right. Also there is a danger the strength and forceful repetition of your argument is creeping into the "I can't be wrong" category. Perhaps the one thing that worries me most about Bogush is (please correct me B if I'm wrong but I deduce/support this with your own personal statement on you site) he appears to say that those who "meekly do nothing" against an authority that "he" doesn't agree with are almost worse that those at the top in that authority. I and many others are "meekly" contributing to the well being of society on a daily basis (and I don't mean just by going to work and paying taxes, much broader than that). I don't feel the need to publicly pursue a cause but this doesn't make my "vote" any less worthy. And sometimes I may even exceed the speed limit when I *know* it's safe to do so (ironic or what) so I can't be all bad. Someone (mybrainhurts?) said they thought that everyone would agree with Idris. No I think a minority might but perhaps they are the ones who are likely to shout the loudest. Anyway good luck to you in this pursuit, anyone who likes classic cars and model aircraft can't be all bad. ;-) David Reply | Report as offensive | Link Thu 18 Apr 2002 10:52 Re: Right to Silence - The Oops, apologies. I seem to have missed a chunk of this thread (looking at my speedo!;-) David W wrote: > Surely we all accept the need for drivers to have a licence, > cars to be registered, taxed (assuming that is the current > revenue system), MOT'd and insured. But WHY do WE accept it? Cyclists kill more pedestrians per passenger mile, per mile probably, than motorists (3 pa in the 90's). Don't even have to have insurance. Don't even have to wear helmets. Almost never done for breaking the law, never mind infringing the highway code. And never done for killing pedestrians (I'm sure it would be in the papers if they were, or has a war always broken out on the day?) Ditto train drivers (or even train companies) despite more people being killed on the railways per passenger mile (and as for hospitals, homes...........). And why are they going after Garry Hart('s insurance). Don't the railways have to be insured for when their drivers fail to stop in the distance they can see to be clear? > OK so one of the ways we enforce those requirements is with > the Police. Now say we take away the "right" of the Police to > get an answer to the simple questions that would enable them > to tell if the law was being upheld and where do we go from > there........ No, the question being asked is why have the police been given those rights, viv a vis motorists, that criminals aren't forced to accept. > Excellent battle Mark/Idris. > > I don't agree with you Idris and also question the point that > intelligence of argument comes into it, everyone has a say in > such issues.....that is a basic human right. Indeed. Takes me back to the good old days when if there was a "right wing" speaker at uni your way would be blocked by militant heavies. And if it was a left wing one you would be "marshalled" into the debate. Really used to wind me up and p!ss me off. Because they blocked the only access to the bar. And that's why I'll fight them to my dying day. And now they're supporting this government if not actually running the country. But how often do you see someone having their say insisting that you don't have a right to choose which laws you want to obey, admitting that they speed, implying that they haven't surrendered their licences, and even advising you ignore fundamental safety instructions from the Highway Code. Practically in the same breath. > Everyone has a say in such issues.....that is a basic human right. > But the intelligence of argument comes into it, > Also there is a danger the strength and forceful repetition > of your argument is creeping into the "I can't be wrong" > category. Sorry, but the last time I looked we weren't sitting in a cave trying to invent fire and chatting about whether or not we should invent speed cameras before or after the wheel. Speed cameras are here. The anti motorist lobby is here. All the anti motorist paraphanelia (speed humps, traffic "calming", 24 hour bus lanes - where are the 24 hour buses?, etc, etc - are all in place, and all counter productive) are here. Are you saying that we should write one single polite letter to our MP pointing out our objections to the fait accompli and then shut up? For ever more? > Perhaps the one thing that worries me most about Bogush is > (please correct me B if I'm wrong but I deduce/support this > with your own personal statement on you site) he appears to > say that those who "meekly do nothing" against an authority > that "he" doesn't agree with are almost worse that those at > the top in that authority. A poster to another forum (most mild mannered) signs off with: "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"... Edmund Burke And, yes, I pinched that from someone else who plagiarised it from another. (BTW EB was the proselytizer who was plagiarised, not the poster who was pinched. Potty I know, but there you go). > I and many others are "meekly" contributing to the well being > of society on a daily basis (and I don't mean just by going > to work and paying taxes, much broader than that). I don't > feel the need to publicly pursue a cause but this doesn't > make my "vote" any less worthy. And sometimes I may even > exceed the speed limit when I *know* it's safe to do so > (ironic or what) so I can't be all bad. Ahhh You spotted that I spend my days in the public or college library trolling motoring forums. My weekends chaining myself to trees, frightening horses, or "freeing" diseased or non-indigenous animals to spread the diseases, kill the indigenous wildlife, or starve to death. Or blowing up kids in chip shops. And my evenings in Islington begging daddy if I can borrow the car. David: it makes your vote useless. The politicians, of either side, will only propose the policies sponsored by those who shout loudest, that they think the meek won't rebel against (so that would be all of them). Your vote counts for nothing: you are merely rubber stamping what the anti-car lobby have told the politicians to do. > Someone (mybrainhurts?) said they thought that everyone would > agree with Idris. No I think a minority might but perhaps > they are the ones who are likely to shout the loudest. Let's just test this shall we: So the few Sun readers would disagree that motorists should be punished more severely than murderers? The few Mirror readers would agree that murderers should have more rights than motorists. The odd Star and Sport reader would agree that speeders should be treated more harshly than murderers. A small number of Mail and Express readers would agree that it's acceptable that the basic rights you would enjoy if you killed someone should be removed to facilitate revenue raising by tone's crones. Perhaps a larger number of Telegraph readers would support the ancient right to silence being stripped from British motorists. But the overwhelming majority, Guardian readers to a wo/person, think that the police and courts have every right to deprive human beings of their basic human rights. Yeah, right! > Anyway good luck to you in this pursuit, anyone who likes > classic cars and model aircraft can't be all bad. I can only afford "classic" cars, and I can't even afford a DIY model aircraft. Probably down to all the tax I pay on my Giro ;-( PS I never did get round to appraising the Xantia, did I? Well: the glove compartment is excellent. Not only can you get the drivers and front seat passengers gloves in, but probably a kids pair from the back. If they were light ones!;-( Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 09:56 Re: Right to Silence - Dave

"Now say we take away the "right" of the Police to get an answer to the simple questions that would enable them to tell if the law was being upheld and where do we go from there........" To the British justice system which, as I understand it, gives people a right not to incriminate themselves or others. It does nt give th police a right to get questions answered. Now I agree that only the guilty use this right & there are lot's of people I'd like to see legally compelled to admit their guilt. To be honest I don't think I'm a million miles away from the views of others on this thread. I do think the right to silence helps people get away with crime and should be ended ASAP. However, if someone pushes his wife of Beachy Head he has a right to silence. Someone steals my car and drives through a speed camera I get three points for failing to declare the driver unless I can name him. Also bear in mind this goes beyond speed cameras. The rozzers could also be allowed to force a drink driver/hit and run driver to admit their guilt. And abolition of the right to silence isn't a bad thing. I just think I should have all the rights in my car that I would have if I killed someone with a sharpened screwdriver. "anyone who likes classic cars and model aircraft can't be all bad." Too right! And he's an anarchist of sorts. I love this guy! Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 10:52 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - J Bonington Jagworth

A Bentley people-carrier? Woo-hoo! BTW, what happened to your petition about the Nice treaty? Was HM able to do anything about it? All power to your elbow, I say. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 10:59 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - J Bonington Jagworth

No doubt things are different in S.America. It was you who wrote the joke about the Brazilian police and the pig a while back, wasn't it? (the pig insisting it was a rabbit to avoid further punishment). The right to silence might not prevent false confessions, but it makes them less useful in court because the corollary is that the accused would not have incriminated himself if he hadn't been beaten up... Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 12:41 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Dave

Derek, are you thinking that there arleady is *no* right to silence? Interesting. If true would solve the whole issue. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 12:47 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Flat in Fifth

Thought you might like to know the current vote on this in the DT. Should car owners be forced to reveal etc. Yes 24% No 76% Nice to see a Mark/Idris rematch of the rumble in the jungle. Can we book the next one for the NIA, perhaps Murdoch would be interested in the TV rights? Personally think both right in some ways and wrong in others. (ooh errr missus this fence is distinctly uncomfortable!) Frankly I'd be much happier if the battle was over an alleged offence with a camera measuring in a road with NSL rather than a 30. But that's just me being picky. I just remember a battle I had with a nameless city council where it insisted on charging me 50% poll tax on a property it agreed I no longer owned. Basically because the new owner had refused to register and they had to balance the books somehow. Not motoring related I know, but it typifies the argument on the "I'm big, you're small, I'm right, you're wrong" which smacks about this case. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 13:30 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Brian

This has generated a lot of debate, much of it outside the scope of the topic which is the right to silence and refusal to self-incrimination. It might be worth looking at a scenario outside the motoring area to exclude the emotion over death and injury, appropriate speeds, revenue raising etc, and see what this right actually means. So: A robbery takes place at an unoccupied property miles from anywhere where only one person can be at that location at a time (use your imagination). The police pick up a suspect and find that his mobile phone was used at the time and location of the robbery. They ask him "Did you make that phone call?" Obviously, if he answers in the affirmative he is by implication admitting his guilt. Or he can exercise his right of silence, in which case the police must prove that it was he that made the phone call. As I understand it, Idris is merely advocating that the same right of silence should be applied equally to all cases. This seems to be a reasonable state of affairs and one in which I have had some experience, having found that if a principle is not applied across the board, one exception leads to another and the system eventually becomes unfair and unworkable. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 14:14 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

for clarity - my 'over and out' was to Mark only. Sorry! Dear Dave Thanks for agreeing on the second point anyway. I am puzzled by your first point however, as you do not seem to have accepted what seems to me to be inescapable: Suppose you are innocent, but cannot prove it (eg no alibi, lots of circumstantial evidence against, but nevertheless you know you are innocent. But the police think you are guilty. As things stand, in all matters other than being the registered keeper of a car, you can refuse to answer, and force the authorities to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, in court, in front of a jury if appropriate. But not having the right to silence means that the authorities can penalise you simply for refusing to say what they want you to say. If the penalties for silence are less than the penalties for the offence of which you are unjustly accused, you still keep silent. But what if the penalties for silence are as severe, or more severe, than for the original offence? What do you do then? There ceases to be any point in maintaining your innocence, so you give in and take the easier way out by admitting an offence you have not committed. Or at least the vast majority do. For S172 NIPs, the cost of fighting is far greater than giving in, and I now know many people who have paid up and had penalty points for offences they KNOW they did not commit, simply because they could not be bothered to fight it, or could not afford to. Is it not clear therefore that the innocent need this protection as much as the guilty? Or more? This has been the basis of most legal systems in the free world for centuries - how can it be wrong now? Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 14:33 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Derek Idris, you may know many people who have pleaded guilty to offences they didn't commit, but then presumably have been canvassing evidence. I don't know anybody in that situation. If you're innocent, you're innocent, in which case you argue your case, don't you? Unless, of course, you KNOW who was 'guilty' (driving in this case) and you don't want to land them in trouble. Very laudable, if you're prepared to take the consequences of protecting somebody. As I asked before, isn't there a law about withholding evidence or obstructing the police? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 14:19 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

I recommend a book Vigilance, a Defence of British Liberty, by Ashley Mote if you wish to understand these issues. HMQ received tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of protests agains the Nice Treaty, and we received non-commitial replies. She allowed it to be ratified in the UK while she was in Australia, but it cannot come into effect unless the Irish hold another referendum and change their minds compared to Sept last year. Theres another thing - have a referendum every few months until we agree with what the government want , and then never have another one even when it all goes wrong! Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 14:25 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

I do not know the detailed rules, but if often happens that two or more contradict each other - which is why we have lawyers. Usually the later Act takes precenence, but there is no doubt whatever that where the RTS is in conflict with witholding evidence' the RTS takes priority - except perhaps for motorists The ECHR recently ruled the Guinnes trial unfair because the 4 defendents had been denied the RTS Jeffrey Archer was the most recent prominent case, where he refused to give evidence when charged with perjury, with no (direct) repercussions. No one made an issue of it at all - it was just understood to be his right. Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 14:29 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

Of course there is - except for motorists I could copy confirmation from the recent RTS and S172 judgements confirmation that even motorists (!) have the RTS when in the dock - but not when filling in a NIP Quite mad! Judges have said that the RTS in the dock is worthless unless it is also available from the first moment that anyone might reasoably think he is a suspect - not just when charged or asked Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 14:31 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Dave

I.F. - On NIPS you're pushing against an open door. One set of laws for us all. On right to silence I haven't changed my view that this principle, the corner stone of civilised law, is wrong. But, to be honest, almost everyone in the world accepts this established principle so don't waste your breath convincing me - just go out and fight those bad guys! Oh and post a thread on the site about the car you were driving on the fateful day! Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 15:01 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Mark (Brazil)

>No doubt things are different in S.America.... Well, in theory they are not so different, although in practice it can be very different. >>that the same right of silence should be applied equally to all cases. There are two ways that can happen. If Idris wins, they will simply use other measures. If Idris loses, then it will [may] have repurcussions in many areas. If the desire is to dispose of cameras, it would be much better attacking the disease rather than the sympton. The disease would probably be why people think speeding is bad - and the sad reality is, that many people do think it is bad, without understanding why. And they do not consider themselves anti-motoring, are frequently motorists, are don't understand the objectives. The perception is that if you are travelling at 70 or 50, you are less likely to kill or even hit at the lower speed. It seems to be the perception that lower speeds make things safer, and higher speeds make them more dangerous. And live with it, its true ! You can avoid something more easily at lower speeds and you will do less damage to it. There is no point in arguing against this. Instead of ranting and raving about this, why not focus on the other factors which overtake this and affect the results more than the change in speed. It matters not whether these things are true or not, it is the image to be battled against. Proving these facts to be wrong might be satisfying, and might justify your sense of outrage, but it doesn't help with the actual problem. I would assume that the problem is probably two-fold; 1) How can roads be made safer ? Buggered if I know; education, enforcement, responsibility, and many other things I guess. 2) How can one stop people making knee jerk, political, ineffective or damaging moves. (which it is frequently argued would include speed cameras) I suspect the only way that would work with Speeding Cameras would be for everybody not to speed for a year. The revenue would drop, but the accident rate would not (perhaps). Even then its not definite, they could drop the limits further, they could just leave the cameras there, or most likely, people will, in time, get used to them and they will no longer be an issue in the mind. Trouble is, these things are a lot easier to get than to get rid. And typically you can't stop people having these reactions. David is very calm about the road outside his house - was it me I'd be wanting rumble strips, speed bumps, gun emplacements, etc. And that's the problem. What I want outside my house is subjective, what I want on my route to work is equally so, what I believe to be suitable for the country as a whole is probably reasonably objective. And its probably the same for many, if not most, people. What I believe, is that you won't get rid of speeding cameras by hating them, flaunting them, vandalising them or anything else. They will go when they serve no purpose to anyone, or more likely, they are replaced by other forms of control. If it is the speeding one which matters more than anything else to you, then you need to go after the limits, the regulations used to set the limits, and the people setting them. Sadly, it would be a huge political risk for someone to increase a speed limit. It would take one bus of children to crash and that political career would be over, and potentially an authority sued. The Right to Silence debate has some merit as a debate. I still don't see how it helps innocent people, but its relevant. It will disappear in the future for sure, maybe now is the time, maybe not. What also needs doing is separating the issues. Inappropriate speed limits low quality of driving speed cameras responsibility (or lack) attitudes enforcement police practices and strategy etc. etc. You can't argue, or at least it is silly to do so, that enforcement of a law is wrong. It may well be that the law is wrong, but enforcement of that law is a part of society's foundation. It is also, IMO, to try to disrupt enforcement. In the end, you will only strengthen resolve against you. Changing attitudes is, in the end, the only thing that changes anything of importance in this world. And when you are a person against a government, it is usually your only long-term effective weapon. Or does everybody think that Idris will win and the speeding cameras will go away, speed limits will become magically higher and you will be able to drive how you like, using your judgement. If that is so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in buying..... Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 09:49 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Flat in Fifth Mark Brazil wrote "If the desire is to dispose of cameras, it would be much better attacking the disease rather than the sympton. The disease would probably be why people think speeding is bad - and the sad reality is, that many people do think it is bad, without understanding why. And they do not consider themselves anti-motoring, are frequently motorists, are don't understand the objectives. The perception is that if you are travelling at 70 or 50, you are less likely to kill or even hit at the lower speed. It seems to be the perception that lower speeds make things safer, and higher speeds make them more dangerous. And live with it, its true ! You can avoid something more easily at lower speeds and you will do less damage to it. There is no point in arguing against this. Instead of ranting and raving about this, why not focus on the other factors which overtake this and affect the results more than the change in speed." and "If it is the speeding one which matters more than anything else to you, then you need to go after the limits, the regulations used to set the limits, and the people setting them." Absolutely Spot on Mark, hear hear! (submits post into competition for shortest answer to longest quote" Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 15:25 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Brill

Time for the old fave . . . "Steady the Buffs" (Rudyard Kipling) Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 17 Apr 2002 15:35 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Dave

Brill read "The Tour" by Kipling. Dogberry and Waterbury are right on topic in this thread! Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 00:54 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

1938 Alvis Speed 25 (25 from RAC horsepower, is 3.5 litres Drop head coupel as seen in Enemy at the Door (1976, ITV), The Body in the Library (Agatha Christie, BBC mid 1980s,) The Charmer (Nigel Havers ITV late 1980s, etc Black with Olympic Blue sides and interior. 6 cylinders, 105 bhp, (real hp), competing with Lagonda, Bentley etc when new. 97 mph, all synchro gearbox, servo brakes, IFS, 15 mpg. Cruises 70-75, OK on motorways etc. Outperforms equivalent Bentley 3,5 by a significant margin, and better engineered. Bought as a wreck 1972, bent chassis, body in 2 halves, totally rebuilt 72 to 75, 50,000 miles since. try www.google.com and search for Alvis. Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 00:57 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

Several of those who have contacted me in recent weeks have told me they have admitted to being the driver when they did not know whether they were or not - eg shared car. The NIP fails to point our the legal position, that if they do not know they cannot be fined either for speeding or not knowing. of course that has to be the case because of hire cars, fleer mamagers etc As before I do not know the detail of withholding information or obstructing justice but there is no doubt at all that the right to silence takes precedence Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 01:00 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

"I defend the right to silence, because to lose it means inevitably that false confessions can be extracted under duress" beyond changing 'can' to 'could' I cannot see how anyone could dispute this statement. Not least because I know people who HAVE made false statements incriminating themselves even when they were not the driver or were unsure whether they were the driver - the duress forced them to dom it because they did not know that they were entitlled not to know Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 09:10 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - J Bonington Jagworth

Actually, I think we have to explain it to him... Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 09:17 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - J Bonington Jagworth BTW, that was reply to Bogush, further up. Working in flat view - sorry. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 10:58 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Brian

The missing word is "Relative". Car at 25 mph pedestrian or tree at 0 mph. Impact speed 25 mph. Car at 60 mph. Car at 65 mph. Impact speed 5 mph. Ok, you might get a secondary impact with a stationary object (in either case) but the initial effects are going to be worse in the first case. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 14:34 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Brill

Idris... 'Still nursing the unconquerable hope, Still clutching the inviolable shade' (M.A.) IMHO, Stu. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 14:52 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

I did not say that 'intelligece of argument' comes into the issue of debates like this In my view, even thickos have the right to express their views, on any issue at any time. Forget who it was who said centuries ago 'I detest what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it' Even Mark Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 14:55 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Dave

It was Voltaire, Idris. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 15:27 Re: Oh no it wasn't - Matt Kelly and this isn't the first time it's cropped up on here either : www.honestjohn.co.uk/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=40464&t...2 Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 14:56 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Brill

Voltaire Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 14:56 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Dave

Ironic that Idris is campaigning both for a right to silence & free speech! Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 14:57 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

It won't be the anti speed camera campaigners fault. It won't even be the real dangerous drivers fault. It will be the fault of the do-gooder, nanny, safety brigade. As usual. reply - the law of unintended consequences as usual because the pratts making the laws cannot see beyond nexty Wednesday witnes End of Life directive = abandoned cars littering the roads Refrigerator laws = export of old refurbished fridges to Africa banned, councils spending millions storting old fridges they cannot scrap Scar yard laws destroy an effective recycling system etc etc etc Why would we be surprised? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 16:47 Labels - Derek This is just one case of 'labelling' that mars your own campaign. 'Do-gooder', 'nanny', etc. are meaningless labels that just indicate what you see as people without a right to hold a view. 'Safety brigade' is a great one. Is a concern with safety somehow unacceptable to you? In the last couple of days I've seen 'sandal wearing yoghurt eaters' thrown in by somebody else who can't stand his ground in an intellectual argument. So, Idris, whilst I'm tempted to throw a couple of labels at you myself, I'll resist that in the hope that we can resume a reasoned discussion in this forum. Reply | Report as offensive | Link Fri 19 Apr 2002 02:05 Re: Labels - The Derek wrote: > > This is just one case of 'labelling' that mars your own > campaign. Actually, he was quoting me (hint: the word "reply" gives it away). > 'Do-gooder', 'nanny', etc. are meaningless labels Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm Do-gooder n. a person who is well-meaning but unrealistic or officious in trying to promote social work or reform. A naive idealist who supports philanthropic or humanitarian causes or reforms. Nanny n&v. an unduly protective person, institution, etc. (the nanny state). Nanny State inf. massive state paternalism > that just indicate what you see as people without a right to > hold a view. No, I view them as people who have a right to have a view, even if it perfectly accords with the definitions of them. What I object to is their belief that they have a right and a duty to force their ideological claptrap, mumo jumbo, gobbledegook, even, on the rest of the world, especially when it results in death and destruction. > 'Safety brigade' is a great one. Yes, I like it too. In fact I liked it so much I patented it. Ok. I'll hold my hand up and admit I made that one up. But give it time. > Is a concern > with safety somehow unacceptable to you? On the contrary, I'm all for it. It's the counter-productive safety countermeasures that pour out of the "Safety Brigade" HQ I object to. > In the last couple of days I've seen 'sandal wearing yoghurt > eaters' thrown in by somebody else Yup, that was me too. But if you're going to quote, it helps if you quote what was said: > > Is this a 'dummy spit'/reaction to the recent infiltration of > > the The Back Room by Luddites like myself........ > It's because they object to the yoghurt sandal knitters being given a fraction > of the same kind of treatment that they give motorists. Not cricket, what. > who can't stand his ground > in an intellectual argument. But if you would like to give a few, ok, just one, example of where I have failed to stand my ground in any kind of an argument. Or even an example of where you, or the yoghurt sandal knitters, have put forward an intellectual argument. Oops, but then they were probably lost in the threads deleted when I refused to give ground against their intellectual arguments cunningly camouflaged as humourless ad hominem attacks and calls for censorship. > So, Idris, whilst I'm tempted to throw a couple of labels at > you myself, I'll resist that in the hope that we can resume a > reasoned discussion in this forum. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Tennis seems popular today. Backhanded? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 15:06 Re: Right to Silence court case Monday, and public - Idris Francis

Nottingham figures - bear in mind that they were part of the 6 counties camera trial scam, after 1999 97 98 99 00 01 Fatalities 85 85 64 72 83 Serious Inj 1030 1030 871 957 892 Slight Inj 4961 4966 4792 5131 4332 2001 based on Jan-Nov x 12/11 Fatalities now again higher than 92, after a 22 year decline So much for the success of speed cameras Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 15:07 Re: Short Interleaved replies, avoid if attention - Mark (Brazil)

>I detest what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it' > >Even Mark > >Idris Well aren't you just a big, generous, old Hector. I neither need your permission or approval to speak, neither will the insults stop me. Quite clearly,with the progress of your case, your lawyer is a somewhat more capable communicator than yourself. And, honestly, I supect that you will lose your case. Still, they won't be able to take your 15 minutes away, so you'll be ok. Any idea what you will campaign on next ? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 18 Apr 2002 19:54 Re: Labels - Idris Francis

re This is just one case of 'labelling' that mars your own campaign. 'Do-gooder', 'nanny', etc. are meaningless labels that just indicate what you see as people without a right to hold a view. 'Safety brigade' is a great one. Is a concern with safety somehow unacceptable to you? In the last couple of days I've seen 'sandal wearing yoghurt eaters' thrown in by somebody else who can't stand his ground in an intellectual argument. So, Idris, whilst I'm tempted to throw a couple of labels at you myself, I'll resist that in the hope that we can resume a reasoned discussion in this forum. reply I do not recall using any of those phrases. And I repeat that I vehemently confirm the right of anyone and everyone to express their opinions, however daft or brilliant they may be. Idris Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 08:43 Re: Labels - Flat in Fifth

Thanks Bogush, think you've proved my point. Sliced forehand return down the line ;-) Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 12:18 Re: Labels - The

Sorry, but I'm neither a sportsman, nor a spectator. All these sporting references you keep serving up go right over my head. Perhaps you would like to EXPLAIN your point(s) and/or argue the toss, then I could more easily demolish the opposition!;-) Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 12:57 Re: Labels - Flat in Fifth

Lets dissect your previous answer 13 comments, 2 relevant and need no further input, 11 totally irrelevant and not deserving an answer. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 13:12 Re: Labels - The

Which? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 13:13 Re: Labels - The

Why? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 13:16 Re: Labels - The

Or are you saying that my "responses" were in no way relevant to the quoted lines of the preceeding post which they interleaved with in my post? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 13:22 Re: Labels - The

PS If you REALLY want I can clarify by expanding why, not only does each response totally demolish the preceeding section of the previous post, but demonstrates that each point erroneously targeted at me/Idris actually applies to the previous poster. If you know what I mean. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 13:26 Re: Labels - The

For a start, an accusation of meaningless labelling is applied to meaningful labelling, so meaninglessly labelling a meaningful labeller as a meaningless one. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 13:28 Re: Labels - The

But you didn't really want me to reply did you? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 13:29 Re: Labels - The

Or did you? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 13:30 Re: Labels - The Bandwidth Bully

Have we hit a century yet? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 14:36 Back to basics - Flat in Fifth

Quote from the original question; "quite a number of times you have complained, and rightly so, about people corrupting your name into other forms which you find disagreeable. Fine." Further clarification of that question; Why do you feel it is appropriate for *you* to ignore the rule which you, quite reasonably, require to be applied to others using your name when *you* are using another persons name? Plus contrary to the answer of "I'd noticed that too late (if only we had an edit button;-)" it's not the first or only time is it? Yes I did note the smiley. Simple question. Still not been answered. Or is it classed an artificially imposed(lowered) and inappropriate rule? (joke) Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 15:34 Re: Back to basics - The

I did answer it, somewhere, back there, at least once, and also previously. Something along the lines of: I don't agree with murder, does that make me a hypocrite if I kill a murderer in self defence? Well, does it? Or am I wrong yet again? Can you hit that for 6?;-) Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 15:48 Re: Back to basics - Flat in Fifth

Answer the question Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 19 Apr 2002 18:38 Re: Back to basics - The Bandwidth Preserver

> I don't agree with murder, etc...................... I don't agree with serious and totally unjustified name corruption based insults, etc.... Am I..... Ans..... Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 20 Apr 2002 12:20 The Umpire has ruled! - Flat in Fifth

Bad light stopped play: Umpires decision I'm afraid ;-) Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 21 Apr 2002 22:51 Re: The Umpire has ruled! - Motorhead

You car hating people make me sick. The car has done more for civilisation, and decent living that anything else. The motorist is being crucified by the authorities, for things that are the fault OF the authorities. If the roads were maintained, and pedestrians/traffic correctly segregated by engineering methods, we would not have this "speed" issue. The road fund has not been spent on the roads, and thus we are being punished by stupidly low limits. And you lot, "reclaim" and others, you are so full of it. You just don't see what good has come from the car, and simply cannot accept that peope have the right to mobility, at a decent velocity! I drive to the speed I feel comfortable. Somedays that may be up to 150... others it may be 20. 20 past a school, for example. Or 150 on a deserted motorway. Don't even think of lecturing me, green boys. I'd dearly like to explain in person just what I think of you, but politeness prevents me from doing so on this forum. There's a lot of people like me, and we drive. We vote, and we are fed up with the way we are being dumped on because some of you tree huggers are incapable of driving a car without crashing it. Don't drag the rest of down because of your own incompetance. rgds, A. Driver. Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 21 Apr 2002 23:41 Re: The Umpire has ruled! - J Bonington Jagworth My (partial) solution is to allow only vans and utility vehicles to be supplied as company cars, saloons and anything with pretensions to comfort having to be bought and paid for by the individual. The same for cabinet ministers, too! Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 23 Apr 2002 12:09 Re: The Umpire has ruled! - The

100 yet? Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 23 Apr 2002 12:47 Re: 100 not out - Poxy Jock

"100 yet?" Yes you probably are - judging by all the Ermmmms and Hmmmms you use incapable of doing without. No wonder MBRM has space problems! PJ Hope you receive a nice telemessage from HM The Queen .... Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 23 Apr 2002 23:49 Re: 100 not out - The

Razor sharp as ever Poxy! I'd hate to face you in a battle of wits: I'd be so embarassed to be caught scrapping with an unarmed man. Reply | Report as offensive | Link