|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 21, 2016 11:35:39 GMT
Crown prosecution service Dorset have disclosed staff details. See link. www.cps.gov.uk/wessex/introducing_cps_wessex/I will either be writing to them, obtaining a audio or video statement or requesting internal referal and investivation between Cheshire and Dorset CPS, of why Dorset police published error allowance of 1Second approach stopping time error for Red signal cameras before prosecution. When Cheshire Liverpool Crown prosecution service and Cheshire police do not appear to accept these pulished information details. And Simon Byrne will not withdraw a prosecution where evidence obtained from the device can not even be used in a legal prosecution case because the device has not been correctly installed for the speed reading to be validated. Which must be for the time to be calculated to correspond to the speed reading for purposes of establishing the 0 second time position. (also the device doesn't even give the critical zero time evidence, that seriously important fact of prosecution rely on regarding the amber state of the signal and vehicle clearance time and position over the white line) which is a Home office approval process insult to legislation and drivers and defense lawyers. The insurance on such devices is questionable as to the number of illegal fines that have been procured by the devices. Taking into account that the law states if you are close to the line at AMBER you are not to brake suddenly, but treat it as a green signal. And if you calculate ANY red light time backwards ... under 1 second, so lets say 0.7 seconds into red... it is impossible at 27mph to be anywhere else within that time, other than close to the stop line. This would indicate some kind of significance to the new bike lane areas as a kind of non official orange light distance. Yet the Macclesfield camera does not include this marked out area, while other cameras do, not far away in Manchester areas. Also the fact that 1/4 second x3 error between timing of light sequencing between different cameras can add up tp 0.7 seconds as well.. And longer vehicles like the one i drive ~ long wheel base van take longer for the rear of the vehicle to clear the radar motion detection area, after the drivers view is past visibility of the red light signal post itself and the white stop line. also as a side note, what do you make of this random suggestion that just appeared on my facebook notifications when i was doing this post earlier?  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 21, 2016 12:15:36 GMT
I was told yesterday that in Scotland you are not even allowed to go over the speed limit by 1 second !
I didnt know that, its a good idea if the speed limits are set correctly and consistently. Probably why central government will not make any rules for national standards and their traffic light signing safety requirements are flimsy to say the least. Cameron will never accept responsibility for anyones safety. Because he has no faith in the true standards of his governments ideas and laws. If he put a camera on traffic lights for true red light running... would the last 5 years have been further test excuses ?
Or is the current system the best they can do?
Why does the home office science and testing centre now turn up, after i was sent very sketchy information regarding previous government independent test houses?
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 21, 2016 12:21:33 GMT
If CPS Dorset divisions do not assist my complaint regarding the prosesuction time by their colleagues at CPS Cheshire Liverpool, when it is within their power to act, then i should be protected under human rights act that they must do something or act at my request in contact with CPS Cheshire Liverpool to clarify the reasoning and differance in their respective decision making processes over the same legislation and law being applied to the same evidence data and measurement figures in cases of identical example. Imho. www.dorset.police.uk/default.aspx?page=7864Published Feb 2012 Red Light Offences Seconds Into Red Process 1 to 1.9 seconds DAS 2 to 2.9 seconds Fixed Penalty Notice Above 3 seconds Court Hearing |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 21, 2016 14:40:35 GMT
I have just put another complaint through. This time to CPS Dorset/Wessex. The complaint is that they are not treating all uk citizens equal and fair under the same legislation. you may also complain as well about the prosecution against me, or even support it.  Or complain about another issue.. if you are going to support my complaint please use the name bentcop.biz and you can take this as verbal authorization and signature online to complaints that support bentcop.biz matters. signed: bentcop.biz REF: 07/SZ/26561/16 Crown prosecution Service complaints form: www.cps.gov.uk/contact/feedback_and_complaints/feedback_and_complaints_form/default.aspx?code=1 |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 21, 2016 16:04:28 GMT
So the time from photo one to photo two is 0.6 seconds. So if you estimate the distance between those two photos and place the vehicle that distance backwards at 27mph. That is the position in question. Not the first photograph distance. And as, to get back over the white line from photograph one, you need to use all of the 0.6 seconds of time up... It is impossible by the laws of physics and mathematics, NOT to be too close to the line on an amber light, at 27mph as to require anything other than sudden or unsafe braking, to stop. In fact stopping would not be an option. Also how can you even validate that speed anyway without the traffipax road markings installed on the road? Thus the entire device is not even submissible as prosecution evidence from its first installment date! So all the evidence does is prove that you MUST have been just in front of the stop line on an amber light, and that it Would have to have been regarded as green by law. But, on the incorrect distanced traffic light sign. The evidence is not even submisible anyway and cannot even be used.  Also I have been in a small court room in Bolton for the wanderers stadium traffic light offence so I know exactly what gets said and done in there, by two female professional barristers (a defense and a prosecution) a legal adviser and three magistrates..... And I can say that I have never in my life been subjected to the trauma, stress and abuse over such a loada rubbish in my entire life and a group of persons who don't have a clue what they are talking about or what happened and for the small sum of 4 thousand pounds only..... Special reasons not to prosecute these people for torture?! |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 21, 2016 17:41:40 GMT
Also, if it could be proved by experiment, that simply by placing the traffic light warning sign, together with the speed camera sign, 85meters before a set of traffic lis, thamber of offences was lower, then it would be strong evidence that the existing signage that has been used so far.. has not been good enough, and more measures could have been taken to increase safety at the red signal locations. also I not have the original book "HIGHWAY LAW" includie highway act 1959. by C. A. Cross of grays inn, Barrister in law town clerk of the borough of Prestwich and J. F. Garner solicitor of the supreme court town clerk of the borough of Andover Published by Sweet & Maxwell Ltd 1960. (not Mr. Sweet from Freeman & co) the date stamp in the gosforth council ex library book is 1950!? but has pen mark changing it to 1960!?  I cannot yet find the part on speeding offences, if there are any.. But the book reads quite well, in comparison to the "insane and stupid poetic mumbo jumbo that we currently continue with from the Road traffic act! THUS, I DO BELIEVE that "I am not stupid" and neither were Cross or Garner. In fact the Road Traffic act 1991 which is updates from the previous acts which came in after Cross & Garners.. are to hold no-one person to account for their creation, except if one researches the Government to find out exactly which Lords, Ministers and other persons were involved in the current acts origins! because as far as I can tell.. Cross & Garner seem to convey sense and reason.. while the undisclosed government of later years make every attempt to cover up responsibility as well as elegibility of the legislation ! But regardless to this.. the 1967 Road traffic regulation act itself makes every possible suggestion that it is the Crown and her majesty the Queen and her ministers who are responsible for the text. And.. in fact .. i will say that in my opinion the text is a loada crap and referance to referances which referance to nothing! and is the work of none other than the poet lauriette and the scarlett pimpernell, how ever you wish to spell them!   Also the Original Law states that it is the Legal duty & obligation of the authorities to provide expedient, safe and convenient parking and passage for vehicles... and if ANY of Patrick McLaughing or David Camerons Government, or the Blair team EVER lived upto THAT duty.. then IMHO.. piss in the street & call youself Late. Because I am Mr. Ben & The prime Minister is a genius.  What you have to realise is this... they are not "just doing all the roadworks at once to try get it done quickly" this is a "permanent strategy" for the long term future. That no-one has a say in or has voted for except Mclaughing, Ad-on-is and CameraON (intend to stay on) The Sheffield M1 bridge work only finished & now more planned!? The plan is this... AVERAGE SPEED CAMERAS "SOMEWHERE" all the time.. to slow you down so you will need to speed up somewhere else & get caught. That IS the PLAN. (( forever )) if you havent "got it" yet. you are retarded. the ONLY possible way out of this is.. 1. REMOVE POWERS FROM "MAN APES" who use powers to rob us of daily work, time, money and travel. (when THEIR OWN MONEY) is not effected. because THEY are not having to work extra days and hours and pay extra money because of all the extra long roadworks. ( that are unnaceptable in length ) That is my opinion. and IMHO there was nothing wrong with the motorways. we do not need more people.. there is nothing wrong with keeping the population as it is status Quo. |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 21, 2016 23:04:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 21, 2016 23:12:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 22, 2016 12:15:49 GMT
m.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/11462656.Incorrect_road_sign_has_drivers_in_a_spin/?ref=mrA Roy Skipp, September 2014 Dorset echo, story of road signs facing the wrong way. A bit like the Ossett bypass ones which on Google maps were facing the wrong way at the month of my SP50 N.I.P. issue... And the signs were corrected but not the rest until my campaign and complaints.. Still no correction of the penalty or fine, even though the speed measuring device evidence could not be used to prosecute
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 22, 2016 15:26:43 GMT
If a vehicle is to treat in law an amber light as green, if it is close to the lights and at stable speed when they change and not to brake suddenly...
Then any vehicle, from the final end time of amber 0 seconds into red...
Must be from the stop line, at that moment in law allowed without prosecution ....the time thereafter required for the rest of the vehicle to fully clear the stop line.
Corresponding to the speed and vehicle length required to do so.
It is impossible for any vehicle which requires a specified time to fully cross the stop line, at a specific speed... To be anywhere else, and driving at any other speed... Than close to the white line... If the time on the photography evidence and speed on the photography evidence are such that a mathematical reverse calculation shows it is impossible by the laws of physics to be anywhere else but still within the area of the photography and measurements obtained by the device.
Thus, for any vehicle to even be in contact with the stop line within one second of the first photograph, is evidence of nothing other it is and was close to the stop line one second before the photograph.
Thus the evidence is nothing less in mathematics and human intelligence to be anything other than evidence of fact that the vehicle wad right to continue and not to brake suddenly, and that by law, they should not be prosecuted. Thus is evidence in complete defence. In fact evidence that no decision to prosecute in the first place should be made.
But... The contrary has been attempted with the devices use, by morons.
This is obvious. And with design intent, removed from the device capability the evidence gathering of 0 time photo, for purpose of deprivation of defense material. That is theft. Fraud, legal abuse, perverted course of justice. Though in truth is opposite of what it had been wrongly used for. Completely.
This takes "anything will be used in evidence against you" to rationally conflict with the CPS supposedly being obligated to give fair unbiased assessment. Though, as it is the police who install and operate the devices... It is the police who take advantage of this evidence gathering and processing that is created with obvious purpose to prosecute an executed case without challenge. It leaves the CPS little option but to proceed as directed by the police, unless a strong challenge is produced to the CPS...
Such as... The intent to design and manufacture devices with intent and purpose to pervert the course of justice, by collecting evidence purely with premeditated methods, which obstruct, omitted, blocked, hid or concealed fact and details of truth from events and measurements and recordings which would render prosecutable evidence as not viable, because the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of the incident would be shown to mitigate the offender from the offense by fact of law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 22, 2016 18:04:20 GMT
I've just been delivering to Knaresborough today... It's called "Yorkshire care" and we got talking about the signs along the road... Because they are illegal size 50mph signs all along it...and a silver police car passed me on the road.. and I was thinking about the onboard recording equipment probably being under the same use conditions as the fixed cameras... I have has some stickers on this road.... Anyway.. this time we were talking about the subject he happened to remember a newspaper article about drivers getting refunded their fines! From Bradford Central Process Bureau!? But he said because of a road sign.. but I have found the story and its a traffic regulation order that was wrong! Also the guy told me a roadworks guy he knows got pulled by the police, told the police officer the road markings were wrong and he didn't get done the officer had to let him go! Here's the Rawden article! And bets are now on for the Ossett bypass, as they have had to change the signs! And I know know that its not just section .85 its much more because the measurements and recordings cannot even be used to prosecute because the police did not do the sign checks or comply with the road signage requirements for the road. So... It this still a joke on me, set up? Or are the police truly attempting to get out of being liable? Wharfdale observer around 1995 the speed limit was changed... 2005 the council found the error I think? m.wharfedaleobserver.co.uk/news/1990095.legal_loophole_closed_after_fines_for_speeding_at_rawdon_are_refunded/ |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 22, 2016 22:38:59 GMT
Do you think this guy is a well placed, further side-track option? IAComplaints@cps.gsi.gov.uk Contact Details Stephen Shaw CBE Independent Assessor of Complaints for the CPS c/o Rose Court 2 Southwark Bridge London SE1 9HS Email: IAComplaints@cps.gsi.gov.uk Fax: 020 3357 0567 king into account that.. the CPS like to place the "independent speed video assesment person" at court by surprise to make certain you cannot challenge the video to magistrates? and he has been specially selected & hand picked for the job? or should i say agenda  Am guessing this Stephen Shaw is even more well placed... |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 23, 2016 10:43:13 GMT
If it is the governments duty as a competent authority to provide expedient transport facility and that this responsibility is enshrined in highway law
Then, are they accountable for being responsible for causing driver's to contravene the top speed limit by permitting the design, intent, manufacture, use and legalized taxing, insurance, of vehicles capable of exceeding the top speed limits
Is the government and has the government itself, being facilitating unsafe Tran sport, inconvenient parking and roadworks that are far from expedient?
To such a degree that, if they had not given permit for those dangerous vehicles from the outset, the rest of the safety concernd and need for control and limit would be considerably less.
And, are the current, present and past ministers, who have been quoted in print to state they do not set national standards of enforcement of prescription safety signage because of liability issues, in truth they are the most criminal and liable of all. And in fact multiple offenders of traffic law, laid out by Cross and Sweet, of the original legislation. And since then the ministers have made every attempt to protect their crime through use and writing of nonsensical, confusing and complicate legislation which no right thinking person could ever deem as coming from a competent authority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 5, 2016 18:22:01 GMT
Ive just found this story from 2009 i think.... The duty solicitors i have had on 3 occasions now all could have got me off the charges there and then. The law and truth is concrete! I am not retarded.. i swear to god that they are either stupid or they have no true powers and are savvy only to the payroll of the courts or to the road safety partnerships they are protecting, which the magistrates are members of! Which is technically illegal because they work for the partnership and are not independent and there can be no unbiased decisions! It is a complete fraud and i state in fact and truth that it is Perverting the course of justice to have magistrates members of an organisation which protecting road signage being *maintained in illegal status* with intent. This is not protecting the interests of the driver but the interests of the fraudulent roaf safety partnership* I was talking to a guy at community service who said that he got a solicitor who charged him 2500 pounds for a few hours of work on his case, but after he has questioned the fee, he has not heard back from him since. The guy i was talking to also claims, that like ME he was ALSO given a wrong court attendance time!? If that is true, then it could mean this is a well used trick by courts Clerks and their Duty solicitor colleagues who work as local solicitors as well, and are paid by the court anyway just for turning up. Like me, this guy was given an PM attendance time but the case was head AM?! And his solicitor ran up later in the day to inform him! I had many, many complaints and communications to Calderdale Magistrates over the Ossett bypass SP30 and i never even got the video! The guy i was talking to at community service said the solicitor was Marricks or something.. but i have been unable to find the website. Anyway it was a duty solicitor of Calderdale anyway... Remember that Sam Goozee Clerk of Huddersfield magistrates court gave me the wrong attendance time, and set me up with that Carr and Co solicitor who did NOTHING and just stood by, evrn though i had sent him all the details and evidence that the charges were illegal! And to have them withdrawn! These people are actually on the Courts payroll! So... i was researching. To find this other solicitor from Halifax...and i came across this story! Of a man arrested at Calderdale magistrates court for impersonating a barrister! The story mentions Sandra Kerr who i have had many, many dealings with and letters to and telephone conversations regarding the Ossety bypass illegal signs and my disputes with the court over the matter. Link;~ m.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/calderdale/man-arrested-on-suspicion-of-pretending-to-be-a-barrister-in-court-1-1925998The signs have been even confirmed as wrong and changed since! And remember i had the bailifs around to collect the 700 pounds as well! And i donated the electronic speed sign to the police ad well which cost 1500 and was totaly unappreciated. If you imagine the story was in 2009 and the powers that be already are aware of the great speed camera scandal and illegal road signs, and barristers and solicitors just turning up and doing nothing, on the payroll of the court, not defending people properly and all this "being given the wrong attendance time" trick which now seems not only isolated to my case... but which could be wide spread... This entire " imposter in court " pretending to be a barristet incident, could be seen as a joke or example to point out that in truth..... The real imposter is the Duty solicitors that are on the payroll of the courts and their colleagues... and they are not truly representing the defence at all.... They are "pretending" to represent the defence. When in fact they are working for the court! And as my own experience has demonstrated.. i was victim to fraud and tricks by Sam Goozee and Carr&Co. Just like the other guy i was talking to at community service regarding his Calderdale Court solicitor who is a duty solicitor there...like Carr and Co id at Huddersfield.. and in fact ALL or most local solicitors in criminal law do a day at the local courts as Duty solicitors! On tbe payroll... guaranteed a fixed income. And friends and colleagues of the court! I sent in my evidence to many courts and to the CPS and to Solicitors! It doesnt seem to make a difference, even if you are there! So these storys where people win ...like tbe guy from Mold who measured the incorrect road markings must be few and far between. I have turned up with the evidence as well at Chorley magistrates and thry just set another date! They called in a surprise speed camera video verifyer and set another date! Yet if you send the evidence in they just convict you anyway! And dont set a new date... The entire enterprise is designed, collaborated, created and run against you and to obstruct you. The CPS and Court and police have complete control and manipulation of the entire proceedings. And these would be defence solicitors are in truth imposters. Because tbey have no intent to get not guilty verdicts or even to get the case withdrawn. They are in collaboration with the courts and police to keep the franchise going. I do not know where you can find an actual lawyer who is independent from the court who will help you! I am not even getting replies from solicitors now! Who are these solicitors like the case in Kent where the police had to stop using the radar for a while?! How did the Rawden drivers get their fines back and points removed? Why is the entire country riddled with unmaintained dirty, illegal and incorrect size road signage at enforcement sites?! m.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/calderdale/man-arrested-on-suspicion-of-pretending-to-be-a-barrister-in-court-1-1925998 |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 5, 2016 18:40:51 GMT
I would be interested to find out who else has been given an incorrect court time slip.
If it has happened to other people, then my original claim that it is fraud and no simple mistake is then even more valid....
The female magistrates and legal advisors at Huddersfield magistrates court seem to regard this practise of being given the wrong court time as.... "insignificant"
But there is the crux of the entire attitude of tbe CPS, Courts and Police.
It is FRAUD and perverting the course of justice in the most serious and criminal of offences! They ARE criminals!
In fact there was an Asian guy at community service today and he was done for fraud! And he didnt even get as many hours as i did for putting my bentcop.biz stickers up! Which are lawfull anyway!
|
|
