MACCLESFIELD Silk Road/Mill Lane fixed RED LIGHT CAMERA.

So this is in addition to the section 85. Legislation. That you can not be convicted if the road signage is not as prescribed.

This here is what the police use of red light and speed detection technology is based on..

That if the conditions are not met (like TSRGD signage requirements) for the use of the device. Then the evidence obtained from it is not submissible.

Also it says that a record obtained from a device must be given over as well. But the photograph taken from a video is not the video. It doesnt prove what the video captured. Its only part of it. To get out of having to give you a video or the full resolution photograph/s they instead lay the statement certificate document from the enforcement officer. (The one who is really crap and useless at answering and questions about the device when you question them in person usually and not fit to give evidence. Or otherwise chooses not to want to talk about tbe device to you. Yeah that guy. So why is making certain that the TSRGD requirements were met while the device was being used? )

Road signage and markings are all prescribed to give both conscious and subconscious signals and directions to drivers. At pre determined and planned times and places. In order to provoke the appropriate reaction at the right time.

Psychology is at the forefront of road traffic control and regulation.

The Authorities are charged with providing both consistent and expedient, but safe and well maintained road and transport systems.

Both the Police and Road Traffic Authorities are well aware of the psychological effects that Road signs and consistent speed limits have on drivers. And what a driver will expect on a road. How they will react and at what times to make guesses and assumptions when approaching signs and signals on various road types and profiles.

The police engage psychology in "police presence" on horses. At accident sites, at football matches, using lights and sirens on emergency vehicles. And through the use of the police uniform. Or the absence of one.

The Chief police officer is a psychology expert. Many officers study criminal psychology at degree level. They know how drivers will react to road profiles, designs and signs in any given situation. They know how drivers will respond to notices and complaints. Even legal challenges against the enforcement cameras.
Which gives them the edge when you contest a road sign or road not being the prescription requirement.

The same goes for the Highways man chief's and transport department executives. Who are all experts in traffic control and directing the flow of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Including the flow of complaints and disputes between their executive buisness branches.

It is extremely important thus. For not only legal purposes. But for important safety and guidance as well. With consistency of deployed speed limits, that are fully correct and maintained clean with prescription road signings and markings provided.
Especially at sites where time and public money has been used for enforcement devices to be placed.

So any single, or in fact every single error found with any sign or marking at an enforced road site is a very serious concern.

Once it has been accepted and acknowledged by the Police and Highways Department.

Because the direction and regulation does not have to, by law be observed by the drivers using the road. And the police evidence as we have been informed, is not submissible. Thus any cases directed to courts by the police under these circumstances are a waste of public funding and resources that should be spent on optimum maintenance of the road signage and markings.

To ensure that optimum observance, and compliance with all signs, speed limits and prohibitions is upheld by all users of the road.

Or the Highwayman and Police Chiefs will be failing to protect and serve the public while in direct accountability for any mistakes made by drivers using roads that fail to meet national standards and legal requirements.

Random vs controlled experiments/tests.

The Random controlled trial experiment.

In science they call a controlled experiment one that where the conditions of the test are known. And people will be expecting the experiments or tests.

And a random experiment is where the test or experiment conditions are not known and the test conditions will be surprise or secret.

Here is an example... But the common experiment is a pill that's effects are unknown to the test subjects (possibly even the scientists). It could be a paracetamol or a dummy tablet.

The subject in the experiment in a random test is not told if the tablet is a dummy pill or an active paracetamol.

In the control test, the subject/s are told which type of pills they have been given.

And this will have an effect on how they react to the pills.

A similar Principe is in effect with a Mystery shopper. Where the store that a customer visits does not know that the mystery shopper has been sent to test the store.

Sometimes the mystery shopper might not even know that they have even been selected to be a mystery shopper.

Thus, this further highlights the variables that are governing the Random vs Control experiments.

www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiWsse29L7PAhXDRhQKHeP2Cz8QFggPMAA&sig2=xt2nHwdKkVwMdr7iRGQoiw&usg=AFQjCNGQDRgdjZQgrV9gZlnU5IoBkWti0Q




With the Osset bypass, Haslingden bypass and Macclesfield enforcement camera events..

They can be looked at as Randomized experiments.

Only that the conditions of both the Ossett bypass and Haslingden bypass were the same

1. The roads were both roads that are constructed for and were both set to National speed limit.

2. Both roads are connected to 70mph roads.

3. The roads are consistent with similar National speed limit dual carriageways

4. Both roads have been changed to 50mph

5. Both roads have incorrect, unlawful road signs or missing road signs that are an obstruction.

6. Both roads are enforced by the police randomly

7. The driver does not know that an enforcement camera will be there at one of the roads (random) Haslingden

8. Thr driver had recently seen a police enforcement vehicle at the other road before the day of the alledged offence. (Ossett)

So it can be considered a Random/Control experiment. Where the known factor is that

A. The driver has not been speeding and has been driving within the speed limits on the roads for over 12 months.

As for the Macclesfield camera... All I can say is that..

Regardless of if the driver did not have intent to drive through a red traffic light. Or did have intent.

If the test of the camera was random. Then the settings on the camera would be random. If the police or council authorities were informed about the experiment beforehand, then they might change or adjust the settings on the camera. Thus the experiment conditions would be controlled and not random.

The driver can control the ve hicle at the time the lights begin to change. If, he is not too close to the stop line when lights change. To be able to control the vehicle to stop. And if he can clearly see the signals and signs or predict accurately if and when they are going to change.

He could expect that they might change. Or expect that they might mot change.

But also, he might later on reflection... Remember that he was in a different lane. Or the lights did not change to red until he was already past the stop line. Or not see the camera flash go off. Thus it could also be a memory experiment.

Also court appearances could be experiments where defendants are treated a certain way. And this can determine if they will return to a court or not again. Depending on the level of trauma the driver is subjected to at each successive appearance.

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. & the road traffic regulation act 1967.

85 Traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions.



Right, I just want to put this in a way that you might understand it a bit better, in relation to the traffic light camera. (Which is a speed camera as well)
Because you might think that this does not cover the enforcement of a Traffic light camera. When it does. Because what other cameras are there? errr... average speed? It IS for "Enforcement of whatever signal is to be observed" and if it is to be observed whatever signage is required, must meet the prescriptive requirements, when those requirements state that there is only specific size and placement. And no option to have a different size, shape or sign. Or if it is not kept clean and in optimum condition.

Anyway.. I am not CHANGING this, in the following example, alter the truth. I am just going to put it.. so you might better understand it in a Science" and physics" sense...

(1)For the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to whether any, and if so what, limit of speed is to be observed on any road, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, [F1in the case of a road for which he is the traffic authority, to] erect and maintain F2. . . traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite for that purpose.
(2)[F3In the case of any other road, it is the duty of the local traffic authority—]
(a)to erect and maintain F2. . . traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions given by the Secretary of State for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above, and
(b)to alter or remove traffic signs as may be requisite in order to give effect to such directions, either in consequence of the making of an order by the Secretary of State or otherwise.
(3)If a [F4local traffic authority] makes default in executing any works required for the performance of the duty imposed on them by subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State may himself execute the works; and the expense incurred by him in doing so shall be recoverable by him from the [F4local traffic authority] and, in England or Wales, shall be so recoverable summarily as a civil debt.
(4)[F5Where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in section 82(1) is provided on a road,] but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above.

Traffic light signal or speed restriction sign/signal?

The word speed. Dictionary. = traveling, going, proceeding, or performing. Relative, moving rate of progress. Full or optimum rate of motion. To cause to move to GO. Or proceed. To set off or go. Or Reduce speed to stop. The maximum speed at a red signal is zero. The illumination of the Amber signal indicated to reduce speed to zero, at the Prescribed Stop line. Or, if the driver does not deem it can be done safely or carefully - to continue as if the light were green.





The fact is. Does Simon Byrne and Steve Finnegans Cambridge Psyche "Accept" this intellectually accurate interpretation of this road traffic enforcement legislation? taking into account that - D.Stickley & Sgt.Phil Tyson & the West Yorshire Police Legal services are not even accepting the official version at all, when the TSRGD Dtf states that TWO terminal signs were required to give legal effect to the Ossett bypass 50mph limit, and 2 terminal signs were without doubt NOT in place, Wakefield bound on the A638 Ossett bypass between 2000 & 2016 ! Without dount, unlawfull signed and not enforceable. and that IS a speed limit not a traffic light.

Thus I conclude that it is NOT a issue with the WORDING of the Legislation at all. It is without doubt the refusal of the POLICE to acknowledge, accept and act on the unlawfull road signage. Just like with the Incomplete traffic Regulation order on the A65 Rawdon, that they still refused to refund drivers for 3 years, even when the Council agreed that it was incorrect and the road was not enforceable. Thus evidence that it IS a police "issue" of conduct & Behavior.

It has nothing to do with the legislation interpretation, the law or the road signs not being evaluated correctly...
It is this.... that the staff refuse to co-operate correctly and act on complaints as required. To protect the road signs and legal system, from getting to how they have ended up as being. unlawfull.

two letters recently from Cheshire Police... or i think they are, but each with slightly different letter stamp information.
I have not openen them because I know that they do not say they have returned my driving licence by authorizing the DVLA to remove the penalty points... or else i would have a letter from the DVLA, with my driving licence in it. I dont know what Cheshire police need to discuss. The traffic lights have been unlawfully enforced. The appropriate action is obvious.

I actually do not know if some other government department is sending out letters that "look like" they are from one place (like the police) and playing devils Advocate between the police and myself.... Ok Ok I should just open them I find out..... But I have a Huge Pile Of letters that I know what they say.... They do not say... No need to do anything, here is a cheque for yiour fine refunds sorry for the distress and trouble caused your driving licence is on its way back to you. Very sorry.



I still think someone is playing games with my, between me and the police... look... my mum ordered something, and the Delivery parcel company posted 2 cards through.... One of them is not even for us, it was supposed to be for someone in Gloucester in January or something... they do re-use the codes but its over 6 months ago & still listed to Gloucester.. so how did it end up through our letter box? The parcel delivery manager was also scratching his head.... on the system it sayS "error code"



Is this the Mystery type of magic of how all the Police prosecution figures and information dissapears and it only looks like the police have prosecuted 750 people in one month? when the cameras are in use for 2 years? Something very strange indeed. They are saying that the Courts are not that expensive to run... but the barrister who gets £1,000 a go is not saying that, splitting the £1,700 with the solicitor.. or if you are Freeman and Co..AKA Mr.Loophole. its £4,000. and some cases were not even allowed to be heard in a Crown Court!

I am not the retarded one around here!

I have now recieved a letter from the LORD CHANCELLORS ADVISORY COMMITTEE on "Justices of the Peace for Cheshire"

And the "reply" is more of less EXACTLY the SAME response that I (I many other people on the internet) are getting...

When they are writing complaints to not just the Courts, but all Complaints, Police, Ombudsmen and other agencies & Departments.


And that is that they repeatedly claim that the "complaint" does not meet or fall within the requirements of their policy.

And that it does not class as "a conduct and behavior" complaint.. or it is not a complaint about behaviour but a complaint about decision.

even though, in Law a "Decision could NOT be made". or evidence has "NOT" been presented when there was a LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO DO SO.

also giving "false accounts" (false accounting fraud).

Now... it is very clear in the staff conduct and behaviour policy, that staff must "act with honesty (truth) at all times"

and protect the public resources that they are responsible for (not protect themselves and the illegitiate, running of those resources) like unlawfull road signs and prosecutions.




So we have a very tricky situation here, where they are just "Saying" or "claiming" that the staff were allowed to or could have done what they did. Thus the complaint cannot be accepted & investigated.

Which is why no genuine complaints are getting anywhere.

They are only accepting complaints of shouting or swearing or screaming type of behavior. They are "ignoring" or "not allowing" or (possibly?) not understanding that LIES and untruth, and personal intent to act and behave agaist THE TRUTH OR FACT.. IS FRAUD. IS A BEHAVIOUR AND CONDUCT ISSUE and IS WITHIN THE COMPLAINTS PROCESS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.


In FACT it is "THE" reason why the unlawfull road signs & Police corruption & I even say poor smutty, comedy and comic book crazy "Newspaper press tabloids" have been allowed to get as they have. Because the Corruption IS the CULTURE now.

And these Ombudsmen and IPCC and other complaints are just Not accepting genuine "BEHAVIOUR" complaints, where dishonesty, untruth & lies have been used.

it needs INVESTIGATING to find out what has happened.. But it seems they do not even look into the complaint properly at all. Or else are "on the Side" of the Courts & Police. Or else just retarded. And not fit for proper investigations.


Just like when I complained that the Sun Newspaper Lied & Said they had legal reason not to publish my advert. THEN when Challenged, because other newspapers had published it (There was no legal reason not to publish) they then made up a "different excuse" instead.


the Ombudsman are Not seeing this as conduct & behaviour of staff.

But at the very point where the Staff CLAIM there is leag reason not to publish... "THAT IS NOT A TRUE EXCUSE" they just "made an excuse up, because they dont want to publish it".

so the "excuse" is in fact a LIE. And THAT is how the Courts & Police are getting away with so much & how the entire system has got into this mess.

The Various complaints departments are not either accepting these lies and dishonesty culture within these supposed "professionals" as misconduct. and it is in fact WORSE that a judge or magistrate swearing, shouting or whatever in court..

because a simple lie and untruth in a decision that COULD NOT MAKE, based on the evidence.. or fact (or in the case of the CPS, when there was LEGAL OBLIGATION TO REVEAL INFORMATION, when they DID NOT)


this is causing WORSE damage, MORE damage, than ANY ammount of dancing, shouting or swearing that any judge could ever do.


the case after case after case.. that these Poice, CPS and Court staff are continuing to collaborate in IS HOW the entire whole matter has got this bad.

And i believe that the Lord Chancellors Advisory Committee is just as corrupted. Either that or retarded & not fit for position.
Or a bit of both...


So.. What can be done about it? Are we to accept society is bent from bottom to top? and let these magistrates lead society with their crooked examples of how to win & rule in life? thus leaving the rest of society doomed to toil in their own petty lies and deceptions as well? with no hope for salvation?

Or is there a Right, True & Honest culture out there that tries to do the right thing, regardless of the chaos, to rise above it & be decent people? or as decent as possible?






The Ultimate Irony is that they are reverting me back to the Ministry of Justice at Petty France! to further the complaint to! And thats where I started the Complaints at in the First place!

The Magistrates Could Not decide that it was legal to convict me or that a prosecution was not illegal, when in law it is a criminal offence to be prosecuted for petitioning work. So the Lord Chancellors Advisory Committee are wrong. It is impossible for a magistrate to hear a case when it is illegal, or sit the case to decide upon it. & the magistrates never have had powers to make and decision where the road signage IS unlawfull, they had no powers to convict. It is one of the few instances where they are not allowed to decide a guilty decision or order. In the instance of unlawfull road signage, the power to make a decision is removed or reduced to only one option. & the other option being made is an act of a "false account" a fraud and if not by the magistrates, then by the CPS or police, by failing to provide evidence when there is a legal duty and obligation to do so.



no return postal addresse either, only a phone number. And a diversion contact to Petty france, Ministry of justice.

So they are basically avoiding having to deal with it & trying to pass the blame & matter to the Ministers. Same with every department.. the Police, the CPS.. The Council.. Highways.. never their fault. always passing it to the side.. like pass the parcel... none is taking responsibility & acting appropriately and correctly.. thus the game continues.

None are fit for position or purpose, none are right or honourable.

Are you getting letters like this? are you sick & tired of it all? I see letter after letter after letter, that other people post on other websites.. wit exectly the same type of reply.. No matter if its the Home office, or wherever...

The only postive replys i have got is from the Depertment of Transport & Highways Agency confirming that my "Road sign evaluation & ive read manuals correct".. but they refuse its their responsibility to act or do anything... and we get the pass the parcel game again..

like tossing a hot coal around.... either they dont want to deal with it, or they dont even know its hot. I tend to believe its a bit of both.