Jon Ison
|
| posted on 11/3/08 at 10:59 PM |
|
|
Interesting letter.......
Stolen from pistonheads but what an author.........
Here's a novel defence for a speeding fine taken from the letters page of the Cambridge Evening News yesterday. The letter was in response to a
previous article which suggested that this guy was trying to avoid taking the points and fine having been nabbed for 41 mph in a 30 mph limit in
Peterborough. It's a journey he does regularly with his wife, and they share the driving from one day to the next. His response (below) is truly
marvelous:
"I am not trying to avoid a speeding ticket as you suggest - we were doing 41mph in a 30mph limit, for which we are sorry (we thought it was a
40mph area); I have admitted this. The point you seem unable to grasp is that I have also offered to pay the fine and take the points. Anita (my Wife)
is willing to do the same - it is the Cambridgeshire Constabulary - yes that's right, the one that claims to be short of money and resources,
that is wasting both time and money by refusing to accept our offer of payment and points.
I did not plead "not guilty" to speeding as you suggest - I was unable to plead because the Cambridgeshire police could not, or would not,
tell me who was driving the car. And please note that it was over a month and 3,000 driven miles (sharing the driving) before the police contacted us
about the 41mph. So the police broke their own time limit - a fact of little interest to the magistrates.
I pleaded "not guilty" to withholding the name of the driver - I did not withhold the name of the driver, I gave them both our names as
possibilities - which is apparently a crime. So now I have to go for "trial" apparently, can you believe it?
You will be aware, of course, that all this is called "the rule of law". Doesn't it make you proud to be British?
PS: Please ask your readers to ensure they keep a record of who was driving whenever they go to Peterborough."
|
|
|
|
|
NigeEss
|
| posted on 11/3/08 at 11:22 PM |
|
|
Ain't the British Legal System great 
|
|
|
onzarob
|
| posted on 11/3/08 at 11:28 PM |
|
|
Nice response, IIRC there is another loop hole that a motorist is asked to incriminate there selves, But for other crimes the police need to prove who
did the crime.
The laws an arse springs to mind
|
|
|
viatron
|
| posted on 12/3/08 at 08:29 AM |
|
|
Used exactly this defence against a speeding ticket last year, offered to pay but wouldn’t declare who the driver was as it could have been either me
or the missus, same situation long drive, sharing the driving. My point was that the paperwork seems to insist on a named driver even if you aren’t
really sure. Wrote numerous letters stating that if the police were happy to force me into committing perjury I would be happy to put my name down and
take the points. In the end they dropped the whole thing with a "speed kills" lecture in the form of a letter. BTW my heinous crime was
doing 37 in a 30 which, like the driver in the link, I thought was a 40
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 12/3/08 at 09:20 AM |
|
|
^^^ il have to remember that
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
DarrenW
|
| posted on 12/3/08 at 10:24 AM |
|
|
i thought declaring yourself as the driver when you might not have been is actually a bigger offence than the original speeding - or at least as big
of an offence. Surely if you said you were the driver and then they come up with evidence to the contrary you will be guilty of 2 offences instead of
one.
How mad. As said before - what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
|
|
|
TimC
|
| posted on 12/3/08 at 11:07 AM |
|
|
I know of another forum user who's been through the same thing. Tremendous.
TC
|
|
|
rusty nuts
|
| posted on 12/3/08 at 08:02 PM |
|
|
Chap involved happens to be or was a presenter for One man and his dog who got off a charge against him last year IIRC for supposed racism. He will
probably get off this as well
|
|
|
.jpg)
