Speed camera warners can be prosecuted.

[Cyclone]

But this is a stupid nonsensical statement.....so therefore..............you are saying that the people who install speed camera signs should be prosecuted..?

 

Or indeed shouting at someone to 'stop it or I'm calling the police'...

[Cyclone]

The actions of the criminal speeders are irrelevant. Thompson wasn't fined for their actions, he was fined for his own actions. He obstructed a police officer, a criminal offence.

 

There was a post on page 1 about a conviction for this that had been overturned. Was it Thomson, or another one?

 

It's hard to see how communicating with a 3rd party can be considered to be obstructing another 3rd party who aren't even there.

My school teacher once told me not to break the law, have they ever since been obstructing the police who might otherwise have caught me doing so? The argument becomes clearly ridiculous if extended a little.

[Cyclone]

Cyclone, why do you think the three girl's deaths are irrelevant?

 

Were those girls a minor speeding infraction, or are you desperately trying to twist what I said?

 

rather than the almost irrelevant minor speeding infractions that cameras can only focus on

 

Would you like to apologise for your slander? I quite clearly say that minor speeding infractions are almost irrelevant, I quite clearly don't mention any deaths, specific or otherwise.

 

Who were these three girls anyway, and what were the circumstances of their death. I doubt very strongly that it was at all related to a minor speeding infraction or that a camera could have saved them.

[quisquose]

Or indeed shouting at someone to 'stop it or I'm calling the police'...

Or indeed shouting at someone to 'stop it or I'm calling the police'...

 

Or, in spindrift's world, putting up a sign saying "shoplifters will be prosecuted".

 

Since the drivers that Mr Thomson flashed at weren't even speeding, then I think spindrift repeatedly referring to them as "criminals" is quite revealing. The fact that these drivers were not criminals needing to be apprehended also means that Mr Thomson would have been found not-guilty had he been properly represented, and would win on appeal if he was. The 2005 case taking precedent.

[Cyclone]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-181409/Man-court-girls-deaths.html

 

I think these might be two of the girls he keeps trying to pretend I mentioned.

No mention in the article about the driver speeding, or that a camera would have made any difference.

He mounted the kerb and was convicted of dangerous driving.

 

James Hill, 30, was three times over the drink-drive limit when the crash happened on May 18, killing Amy Louisa Jones and Kayla Abbie Young, Grimsby Crown Court heard. Hill had six previous convictions for either drink-driving or driving while unfit through drink or drugs prior to the killing, which happened on the A46, in Grimsby.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-204410/Drunk-driver-jailed-killing-girls.html#ixzz1AF1iXaaj

 

So, drunk, and had a history of driving whilst unfit.

 

It goes on to mention racing, so I guess he probably was ignoring speed limits, and cameras as well. If he was racing though, I doubt it could be described as a minor infringement.

[Kidorry]

He was not taking drugs. The sight of speed cameras causes heavy braking, heavy braking is a major cause of road accidents. He was thus preventing possible road accidents and should be applauded for this.

 

Heavy breaking means they are going to fast and breaking the law to start with.This law has been in force since the hand held speed cameras in the 60s.

[mj.scuba]

Warning someone they are about to be detected breaking the law is a criminal offence the same as saying "Throw the drugs down the toilet" before a police raid.

 

So if you could see somebody was about to mug an old lady, you would not try to stop them committing the act in the first place? How very decent of you.

[spindrift]

Were those girls a minor speeding infraction, or are you desperately trying to twist what I said?

 

 

 

Would you like to apologise for your slander? I quite clearly say that minor speeding infractions are almost irrelevant, I quite clearly don't mention any deaths, specific or otherwise.

 

Who were these three girls anyway, and what were the circumstances of their death. I doubt very strongly that it was at all related to a minor speeding infraction or that a camera could have saved them.

 

 

Let's go back to basics.

 

Do you accept that what you call "minor" and "irrelevant"- driving at 35mph instead of the limit- 30mph, massively increases the risk to pedestrians?

 

It's basic physics, I can't see how you can argue that it isn't true.

[spindrift]

So if you could see somebody was about to mug an old lady, you would not try to stop them committing the act in the first place? How very decent of you.

 

 

Yes, that's exactly what I said, my argument is that I would help mug old ladies.

[spindrift]

Or, in spindrift's world, putting up a sign saying "shoplifters will be prosecuted".

 

Since the drivers that Mr Thomson flashed at weren't even speeding, then I think spindrift repeatedly referring to them as "criminals" is quite revealing. The fact that these drivers were not criminals needing to be apprehended also means that Mr Thomson would have been found not-guilty had he been properly represented, and would win on appeal if he was. The 2005 case taking precedent.

 

You are missing a part of the Glendinning case- police do not have to prove motorists were speeding, it is enough to show there was a likelihood of them speeding.

 

now given police had set up speed trap- I think this is a very low standard to meet. I mean why would police be there if there was no likelihood of motorists speeding.

 

Also, why was defendant flashing motorists if he didn't think there was a likelihood of them speeding?