|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 10, 2016 15:12:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 16, 2016 11:20:50 GMT
The Ossett bypass is right on the border of Kirklees & Wakefield council. You cannot complaint to Kirklees council about the bypass. Only the also unlawfully signed Owl Lane roundabout at Chickenley.
The entrance onto the Bypass falls within Wakefield Council, Police HQ ward and constituency. A638 Dual carriageway. While the Roundabout is Kirklees Council. Dewsbury district.
Both West Yorkshire police Casualty reduction partnership areas though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 17, 2016 17:27:08 GMT
Ossett bypass A638 refund of fines by West Yorkshire casualty reduction partnership. If you remember, i took unlawfull illegal road signs in to Huddersfield police station. They didnt want to deal with it. "we dont want to do it, we are not going to do it" was the statement. "Its a civil matter". Well... as it turns out - it is a civil matter because by section .85 chapter 27 of the road traffic regulation act, you can not be convicted of an speeding offence by a court if the road signs are not lawfull as prescriped & the police evidence is not submissible. Thus there is no defence required and it is not a criminal matter.
As stated by the police station itself, road signs are a civil matter. thus the police - one it has been brought to their attention should not persue or continue any prosecution, and should investigate it. and they in fact cannot , even by police led investigation progress it to a court for hearing as a criminal case, unless they refuse to disclose the road signage as being unlawfull, when under legal obligation to do so.
Defence rule .11 CAN be used, and the court should acknowledge that it has been brought to their attention that it has been identified as a civil matter and defence rule 11. can be applied for. Because there is no reason where a situation contest of court jurisdiction should not be applicable. just that it is not ofent used in criminal law, because the police force whos jurisdiction it falls within would be the one usually prosecuting. Not the incorrect police force - like when Manchester police tried to prosecute me for stopping on the motorway in West Yorkshire when it was out of jurisdiction. That charge was wrong & was withdrawn. As sgt. Tyson from West Yorkshire police got his collaboration wrong. There is no difference between physical jurisdiction and legal jurisdiction. It is still dimensions of court powers. & police for that matter. Be it in physical space or legal space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 17, 2016 19:06:14 GMT
Ok.. so this is where I am with this now....
A C.I.V. police officer, who is authorized by the Chief Police Officer to enforce the speed limit on a road, with Home Office approved device, gathers evidence on a road. that a driver was exceeding the speed limit (noted) speed limit of that road on a stated dat at a stated time.
It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the speed of the vehicle was higher than that of the speed limit legally in force on the road at the time.
The evidence is a statement by the officer, and/or a video of motion video and digital speed device to support the officers statement. Along with an additional photograph duplicated from one fram of the motion video.
The device costs £15,000-£18,000 to obtain the motion video, which is usually not disclosed to the driver or court. As only the officer statement and measurement from a connected £6,000 LTI device is used to prosecute.
No evidence is presented to the Court to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the road speed limit was enforceable at the time or not. Although if it was not - the Police Led or Crown led prosecution are under legal obligation to reveal that information by employment fraud policy and by legal obligation to the court itself at the trial.
No evidence of the speed limit Traffic regulation order or photographs of the actual speed limit are presented to the court other than the sworn statement of the C.I.V. police officer. Who was also under obligation to check such road signage did comply with the TSRGD 2002/2016 or TSM 2008
Some C.I.V. police officers or camera technicians are also employed by the Road safety Support group, who offer road signage checking services to police led & Crown led Prosecutions, at a fee to the Public Tax Payer.
The West Yorkshire police Road safety casualty reduction partnership, have operated safety camera vans on the A638 Ossett bypass over the last 16 years with only one Terminal speed sign in place when two were required for lawful enforcement. Along with several other unlawfull and dangerous road sign errors.
I believe these statements to be the truth to the best of my knowledge and that i am 100% independent from West Yorkshire police.
I am authorized to petition HM government under the right of the subjects - the right to petition - bill of rights 1688, and i can do private police work for my own police investigations.
I have reason to believe, with supporting evidence that West Yorkshire police have been unlawfully enforcing the speed limit on the Ossett bypass for approximately 16 years.
I have supporting evidence to prove this claim. Of google maps wesite. The TSRGD 2002, 2016 and TSM Traffic signs manual chapter 3.
Signed. Bentcop.biz
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 17, 2016 21:47:35 GMT
If you employ a solicitor to defend you concerning an alledged road traffic offence and the solicitor found the road signage to be unlawful, the solicitor would inform the police that the evidence was not submissible.
You would pay the solicitors fee. Also you might be able to claim the fee from the council through litigation for not keeping the lawful road signage. As long as the signage is not kept lawful, you can claim litigation for being caused to exceed the speed limit by the prescribed road signage not being kept to safety regulations.
The Court should not be involved in those circumstances in relation to any defence from a prosecution. It would be a solicitor who was going to take the council to court for litigation.
That is the correct proceedings for unlawful road signage.
The longer the period of time that road signage is not maintained correctly the higher the chance of an accident and danger.
This explicit safety and hazard reason is explained in the road signs manuals. Thus any new statement made by the department of transport as to remove the importance of their explicitly outlined safety reasons would be in complete contradiction to all their archive of expert guidance.
Who could trust such a contradictive and incompetent authority to continue to do anything further in relation to management of the UK highways?
Only a fool would follow any guidance issued from such department.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 22, 2016 12:01:11 GMT
Ok... So Wakefield Council are now (since i last looked) agreeing on their website officialy that unlawful road signs are an obstruction in the road, by classification of law. But they are claiming that they do not deal with any type of the jurisdiction of enforcement of road traffic offences, such as cars stopped beside a carriageway. And that it is a police matter (not traffic warden civil enforcement). www.bentcop.biz/wakefield_gov.uk.pdf So, the 300mm 50mph signs on the Ossett bypass were changed after my complaints (& others if you complained as well) But not until after i had been convicted unlawfully on the road. A requred terminal sign has been put in place that was not there as well. Still no fine refunds. And 40mph signs have only 15 meters visibility distance of a required 40 meters, Plus there are no white no stopping edge lines along the carriageway to go with the no-stopping signs. One of which has been replaced. There are multiple other safety issues with the road. The Department of transport DFT circular for the 2016 TSRGD states that the terminal sign was a legal requirement between 2008-2000 to be in place for lawful road signage of the road, and that the 300mm 50mph signs should have been 450mm. Also there is question to a dual carriageway of that profile even being allowed by law to be 50mph after 2008 when the new Traffic signs manual was published giving no specific prescription for a 50mph Dedicated dual carriageway (not simple 2 lane road set at 50mph without central reserve and no stopping regulations) Point 2.14. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523916/DfT-circular-01-2016.pdfTraffic signs manual 2008 www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223943/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdfAlso, the Police mobile camera vans should not have been stopping on the road A638 dual carriageway (except in lay-bys although that takes up room for HGV) because the no-stopping white lines along the road are not complete, or were not. And no dropped curb was provided for access to a police observation platform on the road. Thus police vehicles parked illegaly. Now, the police currently refuse to refund drivers fines or remove penalty points from driving licences. They even refused Leeds Council after a similar complaint about police jurisdiction at enforcement sites on the A65 Rawdon. It took the police arguments, denial and ignorance to get action over the matter.. see newspaper story Wharfedale observer.. www.bentcop.biz/wharfedaleobserver_co.uk.pdfWakefield Council, like Rawdon Council/Leeds Council regarding the A65 have the obligation to request, to West Yorkshire police that the fines on the A638 Ossett bypass be refunded. On behalf of the Drivers who complain to the council and also there is a legal obligation to reveal the road signage status to the Police as membership of the road safety partnership regulations should direct. The problem is that, since at least 2000, and between 2008-2016 the police are known to have accumulated a high volume of prosecutions on the road, especially between 50-65mph which is below the Roads construction profile of National speed limit. But above the Traffic regulation order placed in 2000 signed by the Chief police officer at the time Colin Crompton? The number of convictions from the road is unknown. But it is assumed it is a high number because a lot of the rewards that the police and council reaped from the road got funding for the new police car-gate college and new police stations at Castleford/Pontefract and Leeds stadium.. As well as potentially funding the over development and road re-directions of Wakefield city centre & Bull ring. So, the signage being corrected, by the council recently.... Why have drivers not had automatic refunds and penalty point removal from driving licences? Like with the Rawdon A65 speed camera road example? As those points are about to run out on my driving licence within the next month or two, yet they have caused me to be disqualified from driving by South Cheshire magistrates Court, concerning another alledged offence, but where the road signage also was not correct. And part of that disqualification was not even driving related, it was about filling in a form and providing a statement. Which i did do. I provided it. Also i had not done a speed wareness course for over 3 years but Cheshire police did not even offer me one! So, Wakefield council agree that unlawful road signage is an obstruction in the road, yet they do not yet seem to have made West Yorkshire police refund the speeding fines from the controversial road, which was nick named - The Mad Mile, by the police to throw off question about the road sign situation. When i placed notices around West Yorkshire to warn drivers about the road sign issue and get public support on a petition - a Officer Alan White and Sgt Tyson arrested me for challenging them over the theft of the notices i has placed. See thread here > bentcop.boards.net/thread/140/west-yorkshire-police-interview-tapesAnd here> Though this is the original thread as the events were happening & it is a little bit difficult to follow if you do not know much about the surrounding circumstances. bentcop.boards.net/thread/58/good-honest-win-lawyer-wanted |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 23, 2016 1:00:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 24, 2016 0:19:07 GMT
Our Virtual legal representative for Ossett bypass refunds to West Yorkshire police
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 13, 2016 12:20:44 GMT
13th October 2016. I put a complaint in to West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards, yesterday evening. And Something strange is happening, because I have never has an "Email confirmation" before. With the complete details sent to me automatically. (Remember that my previous letters concerning the Ossett bypass, I got no reply to for 6 months, until I put a notice on the door of the building myself) Plus no joy with all the other complaints about my illegal arrest & Sgt. Tyson. Plus all the others. ALSO, this morning, the West Yorkshire Plice Professional standards department actually RANG ME UP! I just spoke to them! I wish I had chance to record the conversation! I have spoke to a guy from Huddersfield Police station on the phone one time, when i complaint about a speeding officer went through to the Huddersfield station.. But this is the "First" time today that I have ever "SPOKEN" to WEst Yorkshire Police Professional Standards! he did sound "ok-ish" and he is going to look into my complaints about the Ossett bypass & other fixed speed camea markings. I wanted it clear that i am submitting it as a crime report. by Officers of "Causing drivers to contravene traffic regulation orders" and "false accounting of speeding offences" as well as "Failure to reveal information when the is a legal obligation to do so". I have a strange feeling that I should have got Automatic email confirmations through from my other complaints. And also probably should have got telephone calls as well. (unless I was not in) But the Lack of email confirmation... to me.. Suggests that there is a strong possibility that my complaints have been hacked, obstructed or blocked previously. :/ As with the earlier letter complaints in the post not getting replies for 6 months.  I will post this in the Ossett bypass thread & the Fixed speed camera thread. I hope they sort out my illegal arrest and prosecution as well now.  Although, it could have something to do with an petition advert that i put out in the Crewe and Nantwitch guardian that was published today... As i did a more detailed advert, than previous attempts in the Crewe Chronicle. So i dont know if Cheshire police have mentioned it to West Yorkshire police.. but the professional standards department do seem clueles on the telephone. I think its more a road traffic department problem and a council highways one, where certain staff are failing to acknowledge information and actually defrauding the public, by unlawfull prosecutions. |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 10, 2016 14:23:10 GMT
Ok so... Ive just had a parcel delivered and the girl who works for Interlink has just been done On the Ossett bypass as well a few weeks ago.! She is totally up for signing the petition and gave me her email address! So the police are still active on the road! She was driving one of the cars for where she works. The thing is that.. The website is playing up. Its not letting me log in sometimes. And thats going to put people off if they cant log in to sign. Also i added my mums signatures with her email with her consent and signed all 3 petitions but the number of signatures stayed at 3 for the haslingden and ossett petitions. So i signed again.. And one went up to 4. But then.. It went back down to 3 again!! Also the "donate" button to help fund the petition is only showing for the Mac lesfield petition and not the ossett or hadlingden.. To help promote the petition. Is thind being done so i will have to report it here and put people off?? Hmmm.. Someone is trying to sabotage my petitions. Please try to sign anyway and make certain you check to see if the number of signatures goes up. And stays up afterwards! If you dont donate to help out at least please tell other people to sign! The interlink delivery girl was really interested and enthusiastic about the petition and the road signs not being rightm She hasnt got around to paying the fine yet. She is going to try get the police video and photos from the road. She was driving a car. Not a van and was faster than i was going on tbe road when speed detected. She said she slowed down. The road used to be 70mph. And the accident statistics have hardly changed at all since being set to 50mph. Although she said she was caught going about 80mph on the dual carriageway.. I belive that its possible the police laser could have added 10mph onto that quite easily and she could have being going at 70mph which is the original speed of the road. Im not sticking up for her. But the police dont really have authority to park there because its a no stopping road and the platforms are not regulation either. Also there are no "no stoppibg lines" which are required with the no stopping signs. Thus by the lines being not present when required.. If somebody stopped there and there was an accident.. The insurance would not be valid. Thus it is in law a dangerous obstruction to driving for the signs to be missing and incomplete. Anyway.. We will see if her signature add works because ive got her email now. I think we should have a lot more signatures than there are so far with all the visitors to the site. ++++++++++++++ note: you cant sponsor a petition it turns out until it gets 5 signatures. ok.. so... i still think you should check that the number of signatures goes up after you sign & stays up, because it did go wierd. but seems ok now. So i just dont know if the automatic emails are getting sent out.. the technical team said they are.. so hopefully they are.  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 17, 2016 13:19:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 25, 2017 13:51:42 GMT
Wow.
25 March 2017 and i have just got the West Yorkshire police Ossett bypass video through the letterbox.. Over 3 years of trying to obtain it...
That was really difficult!
I had to use the leverage that i require them to provide me evidence for the ombudsman... They sent a letter seperately as well which i havent read yet. I dont like having to read letters that use the old "no comply" trick. 🙉🙉🙉 as it does your head in.
So now i can inspect it... To see if Robert Halsted uses same under and up technique as Steve Callaghan used at Haslingden.
Im both excited and nervous to watch it.
I dont even have the photo anymore because i didnt make a copy of it. Im overtaking a a Royal Mail transit who is going at about 40mph on the dual carriageway.
I had made an appointment with Finn Gledhill solicitors for next Thursday to see if he could get it. But ive done it myself so i can cancel now.
😳🙉🙊🙈
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 25, 2017 19:43:39 GMT
A video about the Ossett bypass signage. deffinately NOT in place between September to October 2012
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 26, 2017 17:37:07 GMT
This is the device that was used at Ossett bypass by Halstead.  I thought he was positioned at the Police parking pad, but i have been to the site and now from the Video evidence i can establish that he was parked in the Lay-by. But its impossible to determine his exact parking position, front or back and exact co-ordinates. So, im dissapointed that its not where i thought it was from, but i still strongly believe that the road was not and is not enforceable. Also, im only given the video from a certain point and im interested to see if im going faster even, further back up the road!  www.truvelouk.com/products/laserwitness-lite-mobile-laser-camera/ I have now been on site again and found the correct positions and road section. It appears that the Police device is giving a completely wrong distance.    I made a few video discussions, but i thought it was the location just a bit further along, but i believe essentialy everything i discussed im correct on, and now ive got the right location, it does still look like the device distance is incorrect reading... so i will have to measure it. |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 26, 2017 17:52:05 GMT
|
|
It is Protected under Law from YouTube Policy. By Disclaimer
Feb 25, 2023 17:05:42 GMT