Penistone999 Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 Wrong again? What exactly have I been wrong on? Your first 'wrong' identified was merely me stating my position so how could I be wrong? Secondly the OP never went to court, the CPS pulled the plug the day before the hearing. Nothing was proven, it was dropped on a technicality. The OP admitted at the beginning that he broke the law but decided to challenge it because of errors on the ticket. As regards making stuff up you need to read the full thread from the start instead of coming in halfway through as a tap room lawyer. If the police cant get the most simple of details correct, the most fundamental details, then they dont deserve to secure a conviction. I merely highlighted the errors made by the traffic officer and challenged the ticket, which is my legal right to do so. This isnt a moral issue , its about the police losing a conviction ( albeit a minor traffic violation) because of sloppy police work. Yes , i parked on the zig zags at 11.30pm , something i wouldnt have done during the day , but at that time of night their are no pedestrians using the crossing next to the zig zags ,and i made a decision to park there to pop into the late shop for some cigs . Yes , i was guilty of the offence ,and had the ticket been in order i would have paid the fine ,took the 3 pts and held my hands up . But in challenging the errors on the ticket i did the same as any other motorist would have done ,even though a minority would lie and say they would pay it without question . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Wrong again? What exactly have I been wrong on? Your first 'wrong' identified was merely me stating my position so how could I be wrong? Secondly the OP never went to court, the CPS pulled the plug the day before the hearing. Nothing was proven, it was dropped on a technicality. The OP admitted at the beginning that he broke the law but decided to challenge it because of errors on the ticket. As regards making stuff up you need to read the full thread from the start instead of coming in halfway through as a tap room lawyer. But the law says Mr policeman must fill out details correctly. He didn't. The op followed the law and that's why he got off. Otherwise there would be chaos, people would get done for all sorts of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 If the police cant get the most simple of details correct, the most fundamental details, then they dont deserve to secure a conviction. I merely highlighted the errors made by the traffic officer and challenged the ticket, which is my legal right to do so. This isnt a moral issue , its about the police losing a conviction ( albeit a minor traffic violation) because of sloppy police work. Yes , i parked on the zig zags at 11.30pm , something i wouldnt have done during the day , but at that time of night their are no pedestrians using the crossing next to the zig zags ,and i made a decision to park there to pop into the late shop for some cigs . Yes , i was guilty of the offence ,and had the ticket been in order i would have paid the fine ,took the 3 pts and held my hands up . But in challenging the errors on the ticket i did the same as any other motorist would have done ,even though a minority would lie and say they would pay it without question . Alsoall that cop was doing was writing an invoice anyway, so you never broke a law in the first place. Morally, the debate is should you voluntarily pay a fine. 99% of us wouldn't. I don't care what certain people are claiming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Alsoall that cop was doing was writing an invoice anyway, so you never broke a law in the first place. Morally, the debate is should you voluntarily pay a fine. 99% of us wouldn't. I don't care what certain people are claiming! It's giving the defaulters an option! Previous to the issue of tickets the only alternative was for police to issue a summons to court. This took up a lot of valuable court time for minor infringements of the highway code therefore the government, not police, decided to introduce the penalty notice. This took a lot of pressure of the courts and police. However no matter what the offence, a person still has the right to have their day in court, right or wrong. It is the offenders choice, pay the fine or take your chance court. By the way I think you should retract your comment about it being an invoice! This may mislead people in to thinking that it should be treat like a parking fine from a civilian company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 It's giving the defaulters an option! Previous to the issue of tickets the only alternative was for police to issue a summons to court. This took up a lot of valuable court time for minor infringements of the highway code therefore the government, not police, decided to introduce the penalty notice. This took a lot of pressure of the courts and police. However no matter what the offence, a person still has the right to have their day in court, right or wrong. It is the offenders choice, pay the fine or take your chance court. By the way I think you should retract your comment about it being an invoice! This may mislead people in to thinking that it should be treat like a parking fine from a civilian company. No I won't retract anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I have always thought that the law of the land required the prosecution to prove its case - they make the allegation and it is only right that they have the burden of proving it. That is the law and however unpalatable it seems (and I for one do not take that view) please tell me what would be better to protect the citizen from the actions of the state or its agents. It might be a very small issue here but isn't it actually rather fundamental ? tell you what let the police charge anyone they like with whatever they like and we the public turn up and do what exactly ? The law and all its requirements have to be complied with - you make the accusation then you get on and provide the material (evidence) to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 No I won't retract anything. Fancy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 But the law says Mr policeman must fill out details correctly. He didn't. The op followed the law and that's why he got off. Otherwise there would be chaos, people would get done for all sorts of things. "yes i was guilty ,and yes i commited the offence" Is English your first language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 If the police cant get the most simple of details correct, the most fundamental details, then they dont deserve to secure a conviction. The PC in question or the entire police? Would you say this if Sutcliffe got off due to his address being written down incorrectly? Would you say this if some thug battered you and got off because 'the police' got some of his details wrong? If you think the law is a game to be won by dodgy shysters like OJ Simpson's lawyers then fine, most people don't. Good to see your reasons for lawbreaking were for something seedy like 'buying cigs'. You have hidden shallows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 The PC in question or the entire police? Would you say this if Sutcliffe got off due to his address being written down incorrectly? . It didn't take too long for someone committing a minor traffic offence to be compared to a serial killer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.