Post by Administrator on Jul 28, 2019 10:56:33 GMT
I just found this nice piece of propaganda story from the London Evening Standard 09 January 2017
www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/drivers-caught-by-londons-most-prolific-speed-camera-unfairly-fined-a3436121.html
The Met, which enforces the fines, said drivers who paid the ticket or went on a driving course had “voluntarily chosen to discharge their liability”.
It added: “If a driver wished to contest the offence the appropriate action would have been to allow the matter to proceed to court for the impartial adjudication of a magistrate.
“We are satisfied there was adequate signage prior to any enforcement being undertaken and that this fully complied with Traffic Signs Regulations General Directions. Additional signage was in excess of the legal requirement.
"There is therefore no necessity for any refunds to be made.”
It added: “If a driver wished to contest the offence the appropriate action would have been to allow the matter to proceed to court for the impartial adjudication of a magistrate.
“We are satisfied there was adequate signage prior to any enforcement being undertaken and that this fully complied with Traffic Signs Regulations General Directions. Additional signage was in excess of the legal requirement.
"There is therefore no necessity for any refunds to be made.”
“voluntarily chosen to discharge their liability”.
I cant believe the size of the TESTICLES of the MET police.. who run life on PURE DUTCH COURAGE and male "excluding of facts" confidence...
(Blind intellect)
I swear the police would murder their own grandmother if they could get away with it... (Which they most likely easily could with Sergeant James Boothby's Forensics scam machines)
THE LAW SAYS THAT... "YOU CANNOT BE*** CONVICTED" if a road is not enforceable.
THIS MEANS YOU CAN NOT HAVE (B E E N ) convicted.
You can not have admitted liability. Its not Lawfully possible.
Why is that? We have things.. called Rights & rules of Law.. when there are a fact & circumstances connecting cases.
Not purely independent cases.
The Police who Do have a brain cell left to use... Should recognise (when not motivated by pure will and self desire alone) that the RIGHTS and REASONS of law & its PURPOSE..
The ENTIRE POINT of Section 85 Being Written & Existing in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984..
Is that the ROAD is a liability & effects every driver.. including signs & markings..
If there is an issue with it there is an issue with it.
You cannot continue to have any more proceedings or fixed penalties. A fixed penalty issued by a chief police officer is a legal proceeding. with a conviction applied (penalty points & a fine)
Once an issue has been identified.. Disclosure rules make it lawfull requirement for the Big Police Chief officer to notify ALL drivers immediately as it is something that can jeopardise the prosecution..
Exactly why people should NOT be admitting discharge (or whatever pathetic excuse the Chief wants to make up) (excuse)
I think we need to get rid of Judges & Magistrates & the Prime Minister & just have "The Chief"
Le Chief. Like the Bond Villain.
And get rid of taxes & revenue & have "fines" only. And Have a Police force in Parliament instead of Ministers.
That is, the Dream and desire of the Police, really. The Goal, in truth.
Not.. Actual LAWS & RULES THE POLICE.. Believe it or not are UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO OBEY..
I don't think the police think such a word exists for them.. (OBEY) I think they think it is something only for regular citizens.
"Jeopardy of Law" "Dual Proceedings" "Disclosure requirements" "Human Rights" all these things.. the basic fundamental legal premise and POINT OF THE SECTION 85 ROAD SIGNAGE provision existing..
It was not just conjured up for the sake of it as novelty.
WHY??
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY?
BECAUSE THERE IS A FRIKKING LEGAL FRAMEWORK & BASIS BEHIND THE FACT THAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE ARE EFFECTED WHEN SOMETHING WITH THE ROAD IS WRONG OR NOT RIGHT.
THAT IS THE POINT.,