I knew my luck would run out soon, well sort of...

Originally Posted by Peter Henry

Daimo...with respect I think you need to get real. Simon has admitted he was at fault and feels he has got away lightly. Why then go to court and frankly do nothing but lie? Is that what the UK is all about these days?

Eh? Sorry Mr Honesty????

If he can get out of a speeding fine and possible points, what harm is there me mentioning my own experiences????

If he's happy, then fine, but whats wrong with giving him other options, especially as were all here to help each other?????????

Don't try to make this into something bigger than it is than bascially branding Brits as Liers!!!!!!!

[Biker Biggles]

Daimo's not the Massiah,he's a very naughty boy.
FWIW I agree with you ---contest it if it comes to it.The law is just a game to those who run it so why not play to win.They do.

Originally Posted by Daimo

Disagree, its down the the police to prove this person was speeding with adiquate evidence...

You can disagree all you like, you're wrong. If you can prove your innocence then thats another matter, but if all things are equal, all a police officer has to do to get you convicted of such a traffic offence is to say so.

Things like 'evidence' and 'due process' are expensive, so everyone is just assumed guilty in such matters.

My train ticket incident, well, i used to live int he middle of no-where, no ticket machine..... No inspector on the train. I walked straight up to the station ticket inspectors and told them i didn't have one. All cool... Then a plained clothed "transport" police came over, arrested me (i was just paying for the ticket), threatend me, took my previous days tickets from me etc..

I went to court, defended myself, gave the "officer" a complete grilling with questions, made him look stupid. Court went in my favour.

British Rail 0 - Damien 1

The the speeding incident. Just the speeding, 6 points, £400 fine. Didn't loose my license and thats all I cared about...

Insurance thing (didn't have it for 1 bloody day!! GRRRRR), walked out scott free, even though i was guilty....

Nope, doesn't pay to go to court and defend yourself at all does it....... I'd be in debt, probably in prison, and would have lost my license as well if i didn't go myself....

Funny thing was, at the time of the train incident, i asked a partner in a law firm i was working at for his advice as if i was guilty i'd get a criminal record and wouldn't be able to work for law firms again.. He told me to plead guilty....

Yeah, shows how much HE knew. Never go to Teacher Stern and Selby!!!.......

If the details are wrong on the ticket/letter, the case WILL be thrown out. (i've also confirmed this with my old next door neighbour who was an officer herself (Traffic as well!!!!!).

Originally Posted by Daimo

I was also watching that program about that solicitor who gets everyone off.

His name is Nick Freeman.

He lives in a mansion adjoining a golf course and drives a Bentley. Unsurprisingly, he's very expensive to hire

He told the story where, in Court, he was losing a traffic case very badly and his client was about to be sent to prision. He then noticed that the copper was chewing gum.

He said to the copper "Are you chewing gum?" The copper instinctively said "No" for rear of being held in contempt of Court even though it was plainly obvious to everyone that he was chewing gum.

The jury decided that the copper was not a reliable witness.

I call it genius.............

Exactly.... Not for WHAT he was doing, but the fact he LIED about it...... (wasn't he a cheif constable as well?). The point being, if he lies about chewing gum, how can you hold his word about Mr X's offence???

Have you guys commenting actually been to court for yourselfs to comment? (or as Peter says, are us Brits liers?)

Im not sure why theres this big thing about being scared of going to court. Actually going to court yeah (i was scared poopless!!!), but once your in, you see al the chavs in trackies etc f-ing and b-ding in the rooms, when your dressed in a suit and speak properly, it goes a LONG way....

Originally Posted by Daimo

Have you guys commenting actually been to court for yourselfs to comment? (or as Peter says, are us Brits liers?)

Yes - frequently.

But not as a defendant

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by Daimo

Im not sure why theres this big thing about being scared of going to court. Actually going to court yeah (i was scared poopless!!!), but once your in, you see al the chavs in trackies etc f-ing and b-ding in the rooms, when your dressed in a suit and speak properly, it goes a LONG way....

Because I cant be ar*ed. If I wasnt speeding then I wouldnt have got pulled. Therefore I wouldnt have got a ticket. Therefore I wouldnt have got points and a fine.

Going to court IMHO is expensive and means taking time off work and other sorts of hassle that I simply cant be bothered with. Its just less time consuming and easier for me

1. Not to speed. ( I can't its boring )
2. To take £60 and 3 points like a man instead of trying to worm my way out of it like a big girls blouse. ( not saying you are daimo )

Fizz ( grumpy and hot because the air conditioning in our office is rubbish and not working properly )

Originally Posted by Daimo

Exactly.... Not for WHAT he was doing, but the fact he LIED about it...... (wasn't he a cheif constable as well?). The point being, if he lies about chewing gum, how can you hold his word about Mr X's offence???

Have you guys commenting actually been to court for yourselfs to comment? (or as Peter says, are us Brits liers?)

Im not sure why theres this big thing about being scared of going to court. Actually going to court yeah (i was scared poopless!!!), but once your in, you see al the chavs in trackies etc f-ing and b-ding in the rooms, when your dressed in a suit and speak properly, it goes a LONG way....

Sigh.

You made the point that the copper has to prove you were speeding, in your example. THEY DONT. That doesnt mean to say you can't discredit them, but that's why I specificaly said if all things are equal, all that's needed is their word.

If you go to court knowing they have no verifiable proof, but thinking all you have to do is say 'prove it' to avoid a conviction, then you're sorely mistaken.

Daimo...Mr. Honesty? Not a tag I am too embarassed to wear actually. You have your own reasoning for presenting your argument as you do. But basically you are wrong and your opinion not too reliable.

Driving without insurance be it one day or 1 minute is illegal. And I simply refer you back to Simon's original post which indicated a certain degree of relief and a hint of "it's a fair cop" to use all manner of technicalities to avoid a conviction does nothing but lower the value of the law in my mind.

*My comments are to be taken in the context of this thread only and not as a personal assault on Daimo nor taking that all cases dismissed on technicalities are ludicrous.*