Do any drivers affected have a claim against the police for any
financial loss (speed awareness course charge, increased insurance
premiums due to points on licence, etc)?
Some speeding fines in Dorset have been cancelled due to cameras being
"out of calibration": <https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24071754.hundreds-fines-cancelled-fault-speed-cameras/?ref=rss>
"A spokesperson for Dorset Police said: “We believe the dealignment of
the cameras, meaning that the area of the road captured by the cameras’ image moved slightly, was due to vandalism.
This is not to say that the reported drivers were not identified
correctly or that offences were not committed during that period.
However, in an effort to be fair and transparent, it was decided to
cancel 884 offences detected on those specific cameras for that specific period."
Do any drivers affected have a claim against the police for any
financial loss (speed awareness course charge, increased insurance
premiums due to points on licence, etc)?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought I'd read somewhere that the veracity of speed cameras could not be challenged in court by questioning the
accuracy of their calibration. I wonder how this "decalibration" was discovered - perhaps an increased number of complaints?
It's not the first time these particular cameras have been challenged - although unsuccessfully: <https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/20288634.motorists-wrongfully-issued-speeding-tickets-a338/>
"Any maintenance and calibration checks are carried out by the supplier
to the required, high standards, to ensure correct functionality and compliance."
Ah, the "Horizon" justification...
Some speeding fines in Dorset have been cancelled due to cameras being
"out of calibration": <https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24071754.hundreds-fines-cancell ed-fault-speed-cameras/?ref=rss>
"A spokesperson for Dorset Police said: “We believe the dealignment
of the cameras, meaning that the area of the road captured by the
cameras’ image moved slightly, was due to vandalism.
This is not to say that the reported drivers were not identified
correctly or that offences were not committed during that period.
However, in an effort to be fair and transparent, it was decided to
cancel 884 offences detected on those specific cameras for that
specific period."
Do any drivers affected have a claim against the police for any
financial loss (speed awareness course charge, increased insurance
premiums due to points on licence, etc)?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought I'd read somewhere that the veracity
of speed cameras could not be challenged in court by questioning the
accuracy of their calibration. I wonder how this "decalibration" was discovered - perhaps an increased number of complaints?
It's not the first time these particular cameras have been challenged
- although unsuccessfully: <https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/20288634.motorists-wrongfully-i ssued-speeding-tickets-a338/>
"Any maintenance and calibration checks are carried out by the
supplier to the required, high standards, to ensure correct
functionality and compliance."
Ah, the "Horizon" justification...
On 26/01/2024 09:43 am, Jeff Layman wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Loss of earnings and prospects after unlawfully-imposed loss of driving licence?
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or
more?
The mind boggles at the scope there is for the wrecking of lives.
Some speeding fines in Dorset have been cancelled due to cameras being
"out of calibration": ><https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24071754.hundreds-fines-cancelled-fault-speed-cameras/?ref=rss>
"A spokesperson for Dorset Police said: “We believe the dealignment of
the cameras, meaning that the area of the road captured by the cameras’
image moved slightly, was due to vandalism.
This is not to say that the reported drivers were not identified
correctly or that offences were not committed during that period.
However, in an effort to be fair and transparent, it was decided to
cancel 884 offences detected on those specific cameras for that specific >period."
Do any drivers affected have a claim against the police for any
financial loss (speed awareness course charge, increased insurance
premiums due to points on licence, etc)?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought I'd read somewhere that the veracity of >speed cameras could not be challenged in court by questioning the
accuracy of their calibration. I wonder how this "decalibration" was >discovered - perhaps an increased number of complaints?
It's not the first time these particular cameras have been challenged - >although unsuccessfully: ><https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/20288634.motorists-wrongfully-issued-speeding-tickets-a338/>
"Any maintenance and calibration checks are carried out by the supplier
to the required, high standards, to ensure correct functionality and >compliance."
Ah, the "Horizon" justification...
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more?
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more?
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more?
Over a speeding fine?
Must already be a pretty rocky relationship.
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more?
Over a speeding ticket?
Must be an already rocky relationship.
"soup" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more?
Over a speeding ticket?
Must be an already rocky relationship.
Chris Huhne ?
At least after isabel Oakeshott had interviewed Mrs Huhne (Vicky Pryce)
On 26 Jan 2024 at 19:52:04 GMT, "soup" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more? >>Over a speeding fine?
Must already be a pretty rocky relationship.
More likely licence being lost, job being lost, home being repossessed.
On 26 Jan 2024 at 19:52:04 GMT, "soup" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more?
Over a speeding fine?
Must already be a pretty rocky relationship.
More likely licence being lost, job being lost, home being repossessed.
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or
more?
Over a speeding ticket?
Must be an already rocky relationship.
On 26/01/2024 09:04 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"soup" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more?
Over a speeding ticket?
Must be an already rocky relationship.
Chris Huhne ?
At least after isabel Oakeshott had interviewed Mrs Huhne (Vicky Pryce)
I think that's a good example of "a woman scorned" and more or less the opposite of
what I was referring to.
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:l1j01hFp1ebU3@mid.individual.net...
On 26/01/2024 09:04 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"soup" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more?
Over a speeding ticket?
Must be an already rocky relationship.
Chris Huhne ?
At least after isabel Oakeshott had interviewed Mrs Huhne (Vicky Pryce)
I think that's a good example of "a woman scorned" and more or less the
opposite of
what I was referring to.
Whereas what "I" was referring to were the possible consequences
of a "misfunctioning" Gatso camera.
So that purely hypothetically
If the camera had not misfuncutioned....
Huhne would not have picked up a speeding ticket which would
have lead to his being banned
He would not then have persuaded his wife to accept the
points
Years later Isabel Oaksshott would not have been able to
persuade Vicky Price to admit this in an interview.
As a result of which both Chris Huhn and then Vikky Price
ended up in prison for perverting the course of justice
and paying hefty costs.
As a result of which Huhne's lawyers would not have discovered
that apparently Price's friend and neighbour Constancy Briscow,
a barrister and part time recorder had lied to the police in
her support and then changed her statement; which led to her
too being then sent to prison as well, and totally ruining her
career*
I'm just wondering what the reaction of all three would have
been if some time later it was established that the Gatso camera
in question was indeed faulty and the Huhne had not been
speeding at all
Fair enough this included subsequent offences, but three
people ending up in prison as a result if somewhat indirectly
as a result of one misfunctoning Gatso camera ?
bb
* Which is the most puzzling aspect; if only because in her
original statement she claimed Pryce had told of the
switch at some point; which being a criminal offence she
would have been duty bound to report at the time but didn't.
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2024 09:04 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"soup" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more?
Over a speeding ticket?
Must be an already rocky relationship.
Chris Huhne ?
At least after isabel Oakeshott had interviewed Mrs Huhne (Vicky Pryce)
I think that's a good example of "a woman scorned" and more or less the opposite of
what I was referring to.
Whereas what "I" was referring to were the possible consequences
of a "misfunctioning" Gatso camera.
So that purely hypothetically
If the camera had not misfuncutioned....
Huhne would not have picked up a speeding ticket which would
have lead to his being banned
He would not then have persuaded his wife to accept the
points
Years later Isabel Oaksshott would not have been able to
persuade Vicky Price to admit this in an interview.
On 26/01/2024 20:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Jan 2024 at 19:52:04 GMT, "soup" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships
or more?
Over a speeding fine?
Must already be a pretty rocky relationship.
More likely licence being lost, job being lost, home being repossessed.
You do not tend to lose your license for a first speeding ticket.
More likely this was the fourth occasion he/she's been caught speeding.
   OK on this occasion the conviction is 'unsafe', were also the first three occasions?
On 27 Jan 2024 at 10:23:58 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l1j01hFp1ebU3@mid.individual.net...
On 26/01/2024 09:04 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"soup" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:I think that's a good example of "a woman scorned" and more or less the
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more?
Over a speeding ticket?
Must be an already rocky relationship.
Chris Huhne ?
At least after isabel Oakeshott had interviewed Mrs Huhne (Vicky Pryce) >>>
opposite of
what I was referring to.
Whereas what "I" was referring to were the possible consequences
of a "misfunctioning" Gatso camera.
So that purely hypothetically
If the camera had not misfuncutioned....
Huhne would not have picked up a speeding ticket which would
have lead to his being banned
He would not then have persuaded his wife to accept the
points
Years later Isabel Oaksshott would not have been able to
persuade Vicky Price to admit this in an interview.
As a result of which both Chris Huhn and then Vikky Price
ended up in prison for perverting the course of justice
and paying hefty costs.
As a result of which Huhne's lawyers would not have discovered
that apparently Price's friend and neighbour Constancy Briscow,
a barrister and part time recorder had lied to the police in
her support and then changed her statement; which led to her
too being then sent to prison as well, and totally ruining her
career*
I'm just wondering what the reaction of all three would have
been if some time later it was established that the Gatso camera
in question was indeed faulty and the Huhne had not been
speeding at all
Fair enough this included subsequent offences, but three
people ending up in prison as a result if somewhat indirectly
as a result of one misfunctoning Gatso camera ?
bb
* Which is the most puzzling aspect; if only because in her
original statement she claimed Pryce had told of the
switch at some point; which being a criminal offence she
would have been duty bound to report at the time but didn't.
--
Roger Hayter
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:l1j01hFp1ebU3@mid.individual.net...
On 26/01/2024 09:04 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"soup" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Perhaps leading to loss of home, breakdown of family relationships or more?
Over a speeding ticket?
Must be an already rocky relationship.
Chris Huhne ?
At least after isabel Oakeshott had interviewed Mrs Huhne (Vicky Pryce)
I think that's a good example of "a woman scorned" and more or less the opposite of
what I was referring to.
Whereas what "I" was referring to were the possible consequences
of a "misfunctioning" Gatso camera.
So that purely hypothetically
If the camera had not misfuncutioned....
Huhne would not have picked up a speeding ticket which would
have lead to his being banned
He would not then have persuaded his wife to accept the
points
Years later Isabel Oaksshott would not have been able to
persuade Vicky Price to admit this in an interview.
As a result of which both Chris Huhn and then Vikky Price
ended up in prison for perverting the course of justice
and paying hefty costs.
As a result of which Huhne's lawyers would not have discovered
that apparently Price's friend and neighbour Constancy Briscow,
a barrister and part time recorder had lied to the police in
her support and then changed her statement; which led to her
too being then sent to prison as well, and totally ruining her
career*
I'm just wondering what the reaction of all three would have
been if some time later it was established that the Gatso camera
in question was indeed faulty and the Huhne had not been
speeding at all
Fair enough this included subsequent offences, but three
people ending up in prison as a result if somewhat indirectly
as a result of one misfunctoning Gatso camera ?
bb
* Which is the most puzzling aspect; if only because in her
original statement she claimed Pryce had told of the
switch at some point; which being a criminal offence she
would have been duty bound to report at the time but didn't.
I didn't know that Oakeshott was involved in the case.
Quote: “Following enquiries specifically related to cameras along the
A338 in Bournemouth, checks were made to ensure the cameras are, and
have been, functioning correctly. No issues were found".
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:43:25 +0000, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Some speeding fines in Dorset have been cancelled due to cameras being
"out of calibration":
<https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24071754.hundreds-fines-cancelled-fault-speed-cameras/?ref=rss>
"A spokesperson for Dorset Police said: “We believe the dealignment of
the cameras, meaning that the area of the road captured by the cameras’
image moved slightly, was due to vandalism.
This is not to say that the reported drivers were not identified
correctly or that offences were not committed during that period.
However, in an effort to be fair and transparent, it was decided to
cancel 884 offences detected on those specific cameras for that specific
period."
Do any drivers affected have a claim against the police for any
financial loss (speed awareness course charge, increased insurance
premiums due to points on licence, etc)?
Probably not, because unless their recorded speed was only just over the limit then they were almost certainly speeding anyway.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought I'd read somewhere that the veracity of
speed cameras could not be challenged in court by questioning the
accuracy of their calibration. I wonder how this "decalibration" was
discovered - perhaps an increased number of complaints?
I would imagine it's more simply that someone spotted that a camera had been vandalised.
It's not the first time these particular cameras have been challenged -
although unsuccessfully:
<https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/20288634.motorists-wrongfully-issued-speeding-tickets-a338/>
The commenters on that article don't generally have much sympathy for those getting ticketed. I'm inclined to agree with them.
"Any maintenance and calibration checks are carried out by the supplier
to the required, high standards, to ensure correct functionality and
compliance."
Ah, the "Horizon" justification...
The difference is that speed cameras have a legal requirement to be properly certified, whereas the Horizon computers did not. If there was a similar requirement for computers used to pursue fraud prosecutions, then the
Horizon scandal wouldn't have happened.
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
I didn't know that Oakeshott was involved in the case.
Isobel Oakeshott: "the reporter you can trust".
Which admittedly is a prime requrement for any successful reporter.
Thus Oakshott persuaded Vicky Price that no harm would be done, if she admitted being coerced into accepting her husband's speeding points.
She persauded an unkown informant to give their account of David Cameron having had er;"relations" with a dead pig; an anecdote subsequently
featuring in the co-authored biography " Call Me Dave"
She persauded Matt Hancock she was just the person to help him with his account of the Covid pandemic. Subsequently passing over 100,000 of
Hancocks confidential WhatsApp messages to the "Daily Telegraph"
The reporter you can trust.
bb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Oakeshott
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:55:42 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,353,495 |