Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no fear
of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other
hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should
be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case
he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if
I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I
hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor.
I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no
fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other
hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should
be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case
he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if
I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
At the hearing, one of our neighbours was elected to speak for the
group. An unlucky Council solicitor tried hard to persuade the
magistrates to send the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no fear
of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other
hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should
be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case
he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if
I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no fear
of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other
hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should
be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case
he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if
I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi allI believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in Court
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding
offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules.Â
I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor.
I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no
fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other
hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I
should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case
he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if
I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
has a fool for client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not
being able to drive himself around to customers of his on-site business constituted exceptional hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him
around in his van for that year. He was fortunate enough to have a
friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not cheap.
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding
offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules.
I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor.
I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no
fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other
hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I
should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case
he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Bear in mind that the average KC probably is perfectly capable of representing himself. So, his viewpoint is a bit biased.
What you probably need is someone to represent you who is extremely persuasive. Can I ask whether you fit into that category?
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as
if I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no fear
of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other
hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should
be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case
he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if
I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:16:45 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi allI believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in Court
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding
offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules.
I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor.
I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no
fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other
hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I
should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case
he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if
I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
has a fool for client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not
being able to drive himself around to customers of his on-site business
constituted exceptional hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him
around in his van for that year. He was fortunate enough to have a
friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not cheap.
Isn't the point of punishment to hurt ?
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no fear
of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other
hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should
be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case
he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if
I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
Colin Bignell wrote:
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
And does pleading extreme hardship play well when you can afford
professional representation?
On 19/04/2024 11:34, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a
speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting
up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a
solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and
I have no fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the
other hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and
I should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this
case he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been
some time since he's done any/much criminal work
Bear in mind that the average KC probably is perfectly capable of
representing himself. So, his viewpoint is a bit biased.
What you probably need is someone to represent you who is extremely
persuasive. Can I ask whether you fit into that category?
That's the issue! I'm used to addressing groups of people and imparting information but I don't think I would be very good as a salesman, which
is the more important skill I wonder?
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as
if I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
Colin Bignell wrote:
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
And does pleading extreme hardship play well when you can afford
professional representation?
On 19/04/2024 02:32 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:16:45 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi allI believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a
speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting
up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a
solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and
I have no fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the
other hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and
I should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this
case he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been
some time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as
if I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
Court has a fool for client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not
being able to drive himself around to customers of his on-site
business constituted exceptional hardship, so he had to pay a driver
to run him around in his van for that year. He was fortunate enough to
have a friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not
cheap.
Isn't the point of punishment to hurt ?
It is reasonable to assume that Parliament did not mean a driving disqualification to lead to bankruptcy.
Besides the obvious, which is that a solicitor may well know the ropes
better than you and will know what you may have to argue or produce in
court to prove your case, he is professionally obliged to tell the
truth on your behalf,
whereas you, as a defendant trying to save himself, might well be expected
by hardened magistrates to lie through your teeth. His presentation of your case is more likely therefore to be believed.
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which
may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by
pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. I understand
what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no fear of getting up and
addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other hand a man in
the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should be perfectly capable of
doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case he's a KC, and
a very successful one at that albeit it has been some time since he's done any/much
criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if I'm not taking
it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
I believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in Court has a fool for
client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you more, getting
professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not being able to
drive himself around to customers of his on-site business constituted exceptional
hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him around in his van for that year. He was
fortunate enough to have a friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not
cheap.
On 19/04/2024 02:32 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:16:45 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi allI believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in Court >>> has a fool for client.
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding >>>> offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules.
I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. >>>> I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no
fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other >>>> hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I
should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case >>>> he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if >>>> I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not
being able to drive himself around to customers of his on-site business
constituted exceptional hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him
around in his van for that year. He was fortunate enough to have a
friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not cheap.
Isn't the point of punishment to hurt ?
It is reasonable to assume that Parliament did not mean a driving disqualification to lead to bankruptcy.
On 19/04/2024 17:36, Andy Burns wrote:
Colin Bignell wrote:The hardship that must be demonstrated is not to the defendant - losing
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
And does pleading extreme hardship play well when you can afford
professional representation?
one's job does not count as exceptional - but rather to others such as family, employees or the like
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message news:xY-dnRML7cUM_b_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which
may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by
pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. I understand
what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no fear of getting up and
addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other hand a man in
the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should be perfectly capable of
doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case he's a KC, and
a very successful one at that albeit it has been some time since he's done any/much
criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if I'm not taking
it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
I believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in Court has a fool for
client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you more, getting
professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not being able to
drive himself around to customers of his on-site business constituted exceptional
hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him around in his van for that year. He was
fortunate enough to have a friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not
cheap.
But how exactly would have obtaining professional representation have
helped in that case ?
Surely the very fact that somebody may well need to employ a driver to
drive them around for a year, and can presumably afford to do so, argues strongly against their being made subject to "exceptional" hardship.
At least in the eyes of the Court prior to sentencing. The fact that they
was subsequently able to lessen the impact is neither here no there.
And as has been noted elsewhere if the defendant could afford to pay for representation, then that would hardly have reflected great hardship on their part to begin with.
"Please go easy on my client your honour as he's already had to take out
a second mortgage just to pay my fee"
Kleenexes all round!
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:l8elviFeq69U1@mid.individual.net...
Besides the obvious, which is that a solicitor may well know the ropes
better than you and will know what you may have to argue or produce in
court to prove your case, he is professionally obliged to tell the
truth on your behalf,
Only if they know what it is
whereas you, as a defendant trying to save himself, might well be expected >> by hardened magistrates to lie through your teeth. His presentation of your >> case is more likely therefore to be believed.
But then why wouldn't the hardened magistrates expect the defendant
to have lied through their teeth to the solicitor, instead ?
If there's a suspicion the defendant may have lied to their solicitor then why would the solicitor be believed either, any more than the defendant
would have been?
On 19/04/2024 17:52, PJK wrote:
On 19/04/2024 17:36, Andy Burns wrote:
Colin Bignell wrote:The hardship that must be demonstrated is not to the defendant -
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
And does pleading extreme hardship play well when you can afford
professional representation?
losing one's job does not count as exceptional - but rather to others
such as family, employees or the like
I don't think that's necessarily so. Losing one's job as a consequence
of a ban may well be seen as exceptional hardship beyond the intended inconvenience of the ban itself.
Another good reason to get proper professional advice and representation.
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding >offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I
hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 21:19:22 +0100, PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Hi allSome years ago, a woman who lived opposite went to court on a speeding >charge, at risk of losing her licence under the totting up procedure.
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding >>offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I >>hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
She kept her licence and was fined £50.
According to the local paper, she, or her solicitor, had argued that
she needed the car to take her son to school and to go to work at some >distant location, in Staffs, I think, from Leicester.
Someone I knew then, who knew the family, told me that it was untrue
that she worked in Staffs. I looked up the business at the time and it
was owned by a family member, so even if she had worked there I would
have expected transport by another family member to have been
feasible.
And being fined only £50 when avoiding a driving ban suggests to me
that the amount of disposable income reported to the court was less
than the actual.
I had intended to provide a link to this story to save the effort of
typing it out but it appears to have been removed, both from Google
and the paper's website.
On 19/04/2024 17:20, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2024 02:32 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:16:45 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding >>>>> offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. >>>>> I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. >>>>> I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no >>>>> fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other >>>>> hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I
should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case >>>>> he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some >>>>> time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks
as if I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own? >>>>> Thanks
Peter
I believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in
Court has a fool for client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not >>>> being able to drive himself around to customers of his on-site business >>>> constituted exceptional hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him >>>> around in his van for that year. He was fortunate enough to have a
friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not cheap.
Isn't the point of punishment to hurt ?
It is reasonable to assume that Parliament did not mean a driving
disqualification to lead to bankruptcy.
With respect, Parliament provided a stick, such that if someone is over
the speed limit on a number of occasions within a short timescale, it
can be used. It's a deterrent, an encouragement to take more care when
it comes to speeding. In much the same way a life sentence is viewed as
a deterrent but pointless to those so affected when actually handed out.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 21:19:22 +0100, PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding
offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I
hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
Some years ago, a woman who lived opposite went to court on a speeding charge, at risk of losing her licence under the totting up procedure.
She kept her licence and was fined £50.
According to the local paper, she, or her solicitor, had argued that
she needed the car to take her son to school and to go to work at some distant location, in Staffs, I think, from Leicester.
Someone I knew then, who knew the family, told me that it was untrue
that she worked in Staffs. I looked up the business at the time and it
was owned by a family member,
so even if she had worked there I would
have expected transport by another family member to have been
feasible.
And being fined only £50 when avoiding a driving ban suggests to me
that the amount of disposable income reported to the court was less
than the actual.
I had intended to provide a link to this story to save the effort of
typing it out but it appears to have been removed, both from Google
and the paper's website.
On 19/04/2024 17:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8elviFeq69U1@mid.individual.net...
Besides the obvious, which is that a solicitor may well know the ropes
better than you and will know what you may have to argue or produce in
court to prove your case, he is professionally obliged to tell the
truth on your behalf,
Only if they know what it is
whereas you, as a defendant trying to save himself, might well be expected >>> by hardened magistrates to lie through your teeth. His presentation of your
case is more likely therefore to be believed.
But then why wouldn't the hardened magistrates expect the defendant
to have lied through their teeth to the solicitor, instead ?
Because it would be highly embarrassing professionally if the solicitor can't support
what he says in court, and is found to be telling porkies, whether wittingly or not.
If there's a suspicion the defendant may have lied to their solicitor then >> why would the solicitor be believed either, any more than the defendant
would have been?
Because the court may well ask the solicitor for substantiation. He will know that, so
will want to be prepared with all the evidence in his file which he can only have if it
actually exists.
If the defendant expects to get good and proper advice, he has to be completely open
with his legal advisors.
If he thinks he can manipulate them as well as the court, it's unlikely he'll succeed,
and he'll frankly deserve all he gets.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:20:13 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2024 02:32 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:16:45 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi allI believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a
speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting >>>>> up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a
solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship
and I have no fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the
other hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money
and I should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this
case he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been >>>>> some time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as >>>>> if I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
Court has a fool for client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that
not being able to drive himself around to customers of his on-site
business constituted exceptional hardship, so he had to pay a driver
to run him around in his van for that year. He was fortunate enough
to have a friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not
cheap.
Isn't the point of punishment to hurt ?
It is reasonable to assume that Parliament did not mean a driving >>disqualification to lead to bankruptcy.
It's not the law that might lead him to bankruptcy, it's his breaking
the law on several occasions. Any of us can have a momentary lapse and
exceed the speed limit but I have no sympathy for anyone who ends up
banned under totting-up.
On 19/04/2024 18:16, billy bookcase wrote:
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
news:xY-dnRML7cUM_b_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which
may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by
pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. I understand
what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no fear of getting up and
addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other hand a man in
the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should be perfectly capable of
doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case he's a KC,
and
a very successful one at that albeit it has been some time since he's done any/much
criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if I'm not
taking
it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
I believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in Court has a fool
for
client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you more, getting
professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not being able to
drive himself around to customers of his on-site business constituted exceptional
hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him around in his van for that year. He
was
fortunate enough to have a friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still
not
cheap.
But how exactly would have obtaining professional representation have
helped in that case ?
I don't know whether he had professional representation or not. However, as his
livelihood depended upon being able get to customers, it does appear to be a case that
should have qualified as exceptional hardship.
Surely the very fact that somebody may well need to employ a driver to
drive them around for a year, and can presumably afford to do so, argues
strongly against their being made subject to "exceptional" hardship.
I doubt he could have afforded to do so, had he had to pay more than beer money.
At least in the eyes of the Court prior to sentencing. The fact that they
was subsequently able to lessen the impact is neither here no there.
And as has been noted elsewhere if the defendant could afford to pay for
representation, then that would hardly have reflected great hardship on their
part to begin with.
"Please go easy on my client your honour as he's already had to take out
a second mortgage just to pay my fee"
Kleenexes all round!
More plausibly, my client stands to lose the well paying job he has now, if he is
unable to drive. This will impact upon his family and make him and them a burden upon
the State.
On 19/04/2024 17:52, PJK wrote:
On 19/04/2024 17:36, Andy Burns wrote:
Colin Bignell wrote:The hardship that must be demonstrated is not to the defendant -
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
And does pleading extreme hardship play well when you can afford
professional representation?
losing one's job does not count as exceptional - but rather to others
such as family, employees or the like
I don't think that's necessarily so. Losing one's job as a consequence
of a ban may well be seen as exceptional hardship beyond the intended inconvenience of the ban itself.
Another good reason to get proper professional advice and representation.
On 19/04/2024 18:16, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't know whether he had professional representation or not. However,
as his livelihood depended upon being able get to customers,
Because it would be highly embarrassing professionally if the solicitor
can't support what he says in court, and is found to be telling porkies, whether wittingly or not.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:20:13 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2024 02:32 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:16:45 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi allI believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a
speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting >>>>> up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a
solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and >>>>> I have no fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the
other hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and >>>>> I should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this
case he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been >>>>> some time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as >>>>> if I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
Court has a fool for client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not >>>> being able to drive himself around to customers of his on-site
business constituted exceptional hardship, so he had to pay a driver
to run him around in his van for that year. He was fortunate enough to >>>> have a friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not
cheap.
Isn't the point of punishment to hurt ?
It is reasonable to assume that Parliament did not mean a driving
disqualification to lead to bankruptcy.
Did they say that ?
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
Colin Bignell wrote:
PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding >>>>> offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. >>>>> I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. >>>>> I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no >>>>> fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other >>>>> hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I
should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case >>>>> he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some >>>>> time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if >>>>> I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
I believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in Court >>>> has a fool for client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not >>>> being able to drive himself around to customers of his on-site business >>>> constituted exceptional hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him >>>> around in his van for that year. He was fortunate enough to have a
friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not cheap.
Isn't the point of punishment to hurt ?
It is reasonable to assume that Parliament did not mean a driving
disqualification to lead to bankruptcy.
It's not the law that might lead him to bankruptcy, it's his breaking
the law on several occasions.
Any of us can have a momentary lapse and
exceed the speed limit but I have no sympathy for anyone who ends up
banned under totting-up.
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message news:xY-dnRML7cUM_b_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which
may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by
pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. I understand
what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no fear of getting up and
addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other hand a man in
the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should be perfectly capable of
doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case he's a KC, and
a very successful one at that albeit it has been some time since he's done any/much
criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if I'm not taking
it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
I believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in Court has a fool for
client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you more, getting
professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not being able to
drive himself around to customers of his on-site business constituted exceptional
hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him around in his van for that year. He was
fortunate enough to have a friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not
cheap.
But how exactly would have obtaining professional representation have
helped in that case ?
Surely the very fact that somebody may well need to employ a driver to
drive them around for a year, and can presumably afford to do so, argues strongly against their being made subject to "exceptional" hardship.
At least in the eyes of the Court prior to sentencing. The fact that they
was subsequently able to lessen the impact is neither here no there.
And as has been noted elsewhere if the defendant could afford to pay for representation, then that would hardly have reflected great hardship on their part to begin with.
"Please go easy on my client your honour as he's already had to take out
a second mortgage just to pay my fee"
Kleenexes all round!
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 21:19:22 +0100, PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Hi allSome years ago, a woman who lived opposite went to court on a speeding charge, at risk of losing her licence under the totting up procedure.
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding
offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I
hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
She kept her licence and was fined £50.
According to the local paper, she, or her solicitor, had argued that
she needed the car to take her son to school and to go to work at some distant location, in Staffs, I think, from Leicester.
Someone I knew then, who knew the family, told me that it was untrue
that she worked in Staffs. I looked up the business at the time and it
was owned by a family member, so even if she had worked there I would
have expected transport by another family member to have been
feasible.
And being fined only £50 when avoiding a driving ban suggests to me
that the amount of disposable income reported to the court was less
than the actual.
I had intended to provide a link to this story to save the effort of
typing it out but it appears to have been removed, both from Google
and the paper's website.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 21:41:41 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 18:16, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't know whether he had professional representation or not. However,
as his livelihood depended upon being able get to customers,
Maybe he should change livelihood ?
There is no god - or -law -given
right for anyone to earn a living doing what they want.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:l8fvugFkpqiU2@mid.individual.net...
On 19/04/2024 17:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8elviFeq69U1@mid.individual.net...
Besides the obvious, which is that a solicitor may well know the ropes >>>> better than you and will know what you may have to argue or produce in >>>> court to prove your case, he is professionally obliged to tell the
truth on your behalf,
Only if they know what it is
whereas you, as a defendant trying to save himself, might well be expected >>>> by hardened magistrates to lie through your teeth. His presentation of your
case is more likely therefore to be believed.
But then why wouldn't the hardened magistrates expect the defendant
to have lied through their teeth to the solicitor, instead ?
Because it would be highly embarrassing professionally if the solicitor can't support
what he says in court, and is found to be telling porkies, whether wittingly or not.
In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, the solicitor is duty bound to believe whatever their client has told them.
They don't need independent evidence in order to support whatever the
client says.
That's entirely different however from actually knowing that the client
is lying.
Whereas if there's only a suspicion that the client may be lying,
then that's for the Court to decide based on any evidence put before
them.
If there's a suspicion the defendant may have lied to their solicitor then >>> why would the solicitor be believed either, any more than the defendant
would have been?
Because the court may well ask the solicitor for substantiation. He will know that, so
will want to be prepared with all the evidence in his file which he can only have if it
actually exists.
And why wouldn't the Court similarly ask any defendant representing themselves
for substantiation ?
If the defendant expects to get good and proper advice, he has to be completely open
with his legal advisors.
So that anyone who's actually committed a crime should confess all
and plead guilty as advised ?
So what exactly is the point of paying for legal advice ?
If he thinks he can manipulate them as well as the court, it's unlikely he'll succeed,
and he'll frankly deserve all he gets.
A more highly polished plea in mitigation ?
Except you might imagine these hardened judges and magistrates of yours
are relatively immune to the sort of well-rehearsed sob-stories to which
they are subjected every day of the week.
But then why wouldn't the hardened magistrates expect the defendant
to have lied through their teeth to the solicitor, instead ?
Because it would be highly embarrassing professionally if the solicitor
can't support what he says in court, and is found to be telling porkies, whether wittingly or not.
On 20/04/2024 10:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8fvugFkpqiU2@mid.individual.net...
On 19/04/2024 17:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8elviFeq69U1@mid.individual.net...
Besides the obvious, which is that a solicitor may well know the ropes >>>>> better than you and will know what you may have to argue or produce in >>>>> court to prove your case, he is professionally obliged to tell the
truth on your behalf,
Only if they know what it is
whereas you, as a defendant trying to save himself, might well be expected
by hardened magistrates to lie through your teeth. His presentation of your
case is more likely therefore to be believed.
But then why wouldn't the hardened magistrates expect the defendant
to have lied through their teeth to the solicitor, instead ?
Because it would be highly embarrassing professionally if the solicitor can't support
what he says in court, and is found to be telling porkies, whether wittingly or not.
In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, the solicitor is
duty bound to believe whatever their client has told them.
No, he isn't. Of course he isn't.
They don't need independent evidence in order to support whatever the
client says.
That's the difference between stating something as fact and something 'my client says
...".
That's entirely different however from actually knowing that the client
is lying.
Whereas if there's only a suspicion that the client may be lying,
then that's for the Court to decide based on any evidence put before
them.
If there's a suspicion the defendant may have lied to their solicitor then >>>> why would the solicitor be believed either, any more than the defendant >>>> would have been?
Because the court may well ask the solicitor for substantiation. He will know that,
so
will want to be prepared with all the evidence in his file which he can only have if
it
actually exists.
And why wouldn't the Court similarly ask any defendant representing themselves
for substantiation ?
It may well. But the solicitor will be prepared for that, whereas the defendant in
person may not.
If the defendant expects to get good and proper advice, he has to be completely open
with his legal advisors.
So that anyone who's actually committed a crime should confess all
and plead guilty as advised ?
His legal advisor cannot possibly advise properly unless he is in full possession of
the facts. His advice may be, even if you tell him all, that you should not plead
guilty even if you are, because it is always for the prosecution to prove its case.
It's not true that every defendant in the magistrates court is
automatically found guilty and hanged or deported to the colonies.
Just some of them.
On 20/04/2024 09:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 21:41:41 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 18:16, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't know whether he had professional representation or not.
However,
as his livelihood depended upon being able get to customers,
Maybe he should change livelihood ?
After years of training to become skilled at what he does?
I said it was a driving disqualification - which is something within the discretion of the court
On 19/04/2024 20:45, Norman Wells wrote:
But then why wouldn't the hardened magistrates expect the defendant
to have lied through their teeth to the solicitor, instead ?
Because it would be highly embarrassing professionally if the
solicitor can't support what he says in court, and is found to be
telling porkies, whether wittingly or not.
That happens every week/every day in Court.
The Defendant says I wasnt there, I didnt do it. The Defence says it was mistaken identity, the Prosecution says fingerprints at scene, CCTV at
scene, DNA left at scene, stolen goods from scene found in Defendants
house.
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:13:44 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 20/04/2024 09:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 21:41:41 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 18:16, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't know whether he had professional representation or not.
However,
as his livelihood depended upon being able get to customers,
Maybe he should change livelihood ?
After years of training to become skilled at what he does?
That's not my problem.
If you tried to get ESA because you can't get a job treating the chakras
of fighter jets, should the state pay you ?
Or should they say "That's a shame now sweep this road or no dosh" ?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
That's the difference between stating something as fact and something 'my client says
...".
Ah right !
So in presenting their case, there's nothing amiss in defence counsel
hinting that they don't necessarily believe their client, either.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:l8iotsF31mmU1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/04/2024 10:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8fvugFkpqiU2@mid.individual.net...
On 19/04/2024 17:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8elviFeq69U1@mid.individual.net...
Besides the obvious, which is that a solicitor may well know the ropes >>>>>> better than you and will know what you may have to argue or produce in >>>>>> court to prove your case, he is professionally obliged to tell the >>>>>> truth on your behalf,
Only if they know what it is
whereas you, as a defendant trying to save himself, might well be expected
by hardened magistrates to lie through your teeth. His presentation of your
case is more likely therefore to be believed.
But then why wouldn't the hardened magistrates expect the defendant
to have lied through their teeth to the solicitor, instead ?
Because it would be highly embarrassing professionally if the solicitor can't support
what he says in court, and is found to be telling porkies, whether wittingly or not.
In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, the solicitor is
duty bound to believe whatever their client has told them.
No, he isn't. Of course he isn't.
Is.
They don't need independent evidence in order to support whatever the
client says.
That's the difference between stating something as fact and something 'my client says
...".
Ah right !
So in presenting their case, there's nothing amiss in defence counsel
hinting that they don't necessarily believe their client, either.
That's entirely different however from actually knowing that the client >>> is lying.
Whereas if there's only a suspicion that the client may be lying,
then that's for the Court to decide based on any evidence put before
them.
If there's a suspicion the defendant may have lied to their solicitor then
why would the solicitor be believed either, any more than the defendant >>>>> would have been?
Because the court may well ask the solicitor for substantiation. He will know that,
so
will want to be prepared with all the evidence in his file which he can only have if
it
actually exists.
And why wouldn't the Court similarly ask any defendant representing themselves
for substantiation ?
It may well. But the solicitor will be prepared for that, whereas the defendant in
person may not.
If the defendant expects to get good and proper advice, he has to be completely open
with his legal advisors.
So that anyone who's actually committed a crime should confess all
and plead guilty as advised ?
His legal advisor cannot possibly advise properly unless he is in full possession of
the facts. His advice may be, even if you tell him all, that you should not plead
guilty even if you are, because it is always for the prosecution to prove its case.
In which case he is conspiring to mislead the Court as soon as his client enters a plea of not guilty. And if discovered, will both lose his livelihood and end up in prison
But apart from that minor detail....
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:24:02 +0100, JNugent wrote:
I said it was a driving disqualification - which is something within the
discretion of the court
It's also within the power of the defendant.
Don't speed.
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:14:21 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2024 06:20 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:20:13 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2024 02:32 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:16:45 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a
speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the
totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional
hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a
solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship >>>>>>> and I have no fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the >>>>>>> other hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money >>>>>>> and I should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this >>>>>>> case he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has
been some time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks >>>>>>> as if I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my >>>>>>> own?
Thanks
Peter
I believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in >>>>>> Court has a fool for client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you >>>>>> more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that >>>>>> not being able to drive himself around to customers of his on-site >>>>>> business constituted exceptional hardship, so he had to pay a driver >>>>>> to run him around in his van for that year. He was fortunate enough >>>>>> to have a friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still
not cheap.
Isn't the point of punishment to hurt ?
It is reasonable to assume that Parliament did not mean a driving
disqualification to lead to bankruptcy.
Did they say that ?
If they had, would there be any need to assume it?
What other words can we put in parliaments mouth, I wonder ?
I was under the impression that courts bend over backwards to avoid
second guessing the intent behind legislation. And where they are forced
to, they are very thorough.
And in the absence of anything to the contrary, it's what the law says.
Hence people who cross red light cameras discovering there is no
mechanism in law to appeal any penalty. The courts have decided this is
what parliament must have intended. So bad luck matey.
All of which detracts from the original concept that punishments are
supposed to cause some degree of suffering, otherwise what's the point ?
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:20:13 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 19/04/2024 02:32 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:16:45 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi allI believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in Court >>>> has a fool for client.
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding >>>>> offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. >>>>> I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. >>>>> I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no >>>>> fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other >>>>> hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I
should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case >>>>> he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some >>>>> time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if >>>>> I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you
more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not >>>> being able to drive himself around to customers of his on-site business >>>> constituted exceptional hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him >>>> around in his van for that year. He was fortunate enough to have a
friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not cheap.
Isn't the point of punishment to hurt ?
It is reasonable to assume that Parliament did not mean a driving
disqualification to lead to bankruptcy.
It's not the law that might lead him to bankruptcy, it's his breaking
the law on several occasions. Any of us can have a momentary lapse and
exceed the speed limit but I have no sympathy for anyone who ends up
banned under totting-up.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 21:19:22 +0100, PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Hi allSome years ago, a woman who lived opposite went to court on a speeding charge, at risk of losing her licence under the totting up procedure.
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding >>offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I >>hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
She kept her licence and was fined £50.
According to the local paper, she, or her solicitor, had argued that she needed the car to take her son to school and to go to work at some
distant location, in Staffs, I think, from Leicester.
Someone I knew then, who knew the family, told me that it was untrue
that she worked in Staffs. I looked up the business at the time and it
was owned by a family member, so even if she had worked there I would
have expected transport by another family member to have been feasible.
And being fined only £50 when avoiding a driving ban suggests to me that
the amount of disposable income reported to the court was less than the actual.
I had intended to provide a link to this story to save the effort of
typing it out but it appears to have been removed, both from Google and
the paper's website.
On 21/04/2024 08:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8iotsF31mmU1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/04/2024 10:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8fvugFkpqiU2@mid.individual.net...
On 19/04/2024 17:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8elviFeq69U1@mid.individual.net...
Besides the obvious, which is that a solicitor may well know the ropes >>>>>>> better than you and will know what you may have to argue or produce in >>>>>>> court to prove your case, he is professionally obliged to tell the >>>>>>> truth on your behalf,
Only if they know what it is
whereas you, as a defendant trying to save himself, might well be expected
by hardened magistrates to lie through your teeth. His presentation of your
case is more likely therefore to be believed.
But then why wouldn't the hardened magistrates expect the defendant >>>>>> to have lied through their teeth to the solicitor, instead ?
Because it would be highly embarrassing professionally if the solicitor can't
support
what he says in court, and is found to be telling porkies, whether wittingly or
not.
In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, the solicitor is
duty bound to believe whatever their client has told them.
No, he isn't. Of course he isn't.
Is.
I think you'll find that no-one has to believe anything anyone else says.
Some clients
even admit to things they certainly haven't done, as per Mr Bates vs The Post Office.
They don't need independent evidence in order to support whatever the
client says.
That's the difference between stating something as fact and something 'my client says
...".
Ah right !
So in presenting their case, there's nothing amiss in defence counsel
hinting that they don't necessarily believe their client, either.
It's just a matter of the words chosen.
Into which you can read whatever you want, whether rightly or wrongly.
That's entirely different however from actually knowing that the client >>>> is lying.
Whereas if there's only a suspicion that the client may be lying,
then that's for the Court to decide based on any evidence put before
them.
If there's a suspicion the defendant may have lied to their solicitor then
why would the solicitor be believed either, any more than the defendant >>>>>> would have been?
Because the court may well ask the solicitor for substantiation. He will know
that,
so
will want to be prepared with all the evidence in his file which he can only have
if
it
actually exists.
And why wouldn't the Court similarly ask any defendant representing themselves
for substantiation ?
It may well. But the solicitor will be prepared for that, whereas the defendant in
person may not.
If the defendant expects to get good and proper advice, he has to be completely
open
with his legal advisors.
So that anyone who's actually committed a crime should confess all
and plead guilty as advised ?
His legal advisor cannot possibly advise properly unless he is in full possession of
the facts. His advice may be, even if you tell him all, that you should not plead
guilty even if you are, because it is always for the prosecution to prove its case.
In which case he is conspiring to mislead the Court as soon as his client
enters a plea of not guilty. And if discovered, will both lose his livelihood
and end up in prison
No he's not. The plea is the defendant's alone, which is why he has to make it
personally.
And he is fully entitled to plead not guilty if he thinks, or is advised, that the
prosecution has insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
And if that is so, the defendant is in fact not guilty under the law, whatever he did.
The defendant's lawyers are not acting unprofessionally by simply pointing out and
arguing that the prosecution has not made a sustainable case.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:l8k7pkF9qhtU1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/04/2024 08:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8iotsF31mmU1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/04/2024 10:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8fvugFkpqiU2@mid.individual.net...
On 19/04/2024 17:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8elviFeq69U1@mid.individual.net...
Besides the obvious, which is that a solicitor may well know the ropes >>>>>>>> better than you and will know what you may have to argue or produce in >>>>>>>> court to prove your case, he is professionally obliged to tell the >>>>>>>> truth on your behalf,
Only if they know what it is
whereas you, as a defendant trying to save himself, might well be expected
by hardened magistrates to lie through your teeth. His presentation of your
case is more likely therefore to be believed.
But then why wouldn't the hardened magistrates expect the defendant >>>>>>> to have lied through their teeth to the solicitor, instead ?
Because it would be highly embarrassing professionally if the solicitor can't
support
what he says in court, and is found to be telling porkies, whether wittingly or
not.
In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, the solicitor is
duty bound to believe whatever their client has told them.
No, he isn't. Of course he isn't.
Is.
I think you'll find that no-one has to believe anything anyone else says.
Some clients
even admit to things they certainly haven't done, as per Mr Bates vs The Post
Office.
They don't need independent evidence in order to support whatever the >>>>> client says.
That's the difference between stating something as fact and something 'my >>>> client says
...".
Ah right !
So in presenting their case, there's nothing amiss in defence counsel
hinting that they don't necessarily believe their client, either.
It's just a matter of the words chosen.
Into which you can read whatever you want, whether rightly or wrongly.
That's entirely different however from actually knowing that the client >>>>> is lying.
Whereas if there's only a suspicion that the client may be lying,
then that's for the Court to decide based on any evidence put before >>>>> them.
If there's a suspicion the defendant may have lied to their solicitor then
why would the solicitor be believed either, any more than the defendant >>>>>>> would have been?
Because the court may well ask the solicitor for substantiation. He will know
that,
so
will want to be prepared with all the evidence in his file which he can >>>>>> only have
if
it
actually exists.
And why wouldn't the Court similarly ask any defendant representing themselves
for substantiation ?
It may well. But the solicitor will be prepared for that, whereas the
defendant in
person may not.
If the defendant expects to get good and proper advice, he has to be completely
open
with his legal advisors.
So that anyone who's actually committed a crime should confess all
and plead guilty as advised ?
His legal advisor cannot possibly advise properly unless he is in full >>>> possession of
the facts. His advice may be, even if you tell him all, that you should not
plead
guilty even if you are, because it is always for the prosecution to prove >>>> its case.
In which case he is conspiring to mislead the Court as soon as his client >>> enters a plea of not guilty. And if discovered, will both lose his livelihood
and end up in prison
No he's not. The plea is the defendant's alone, which is why he has to make it
personally.
And as soon as he's made his plea, his counsel will know whether he's lying to the Court or not.
And he is fully entitled to plead not guilty if he thinks, or is advised,
that the
prosecution has insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable >> doubt.
But if it appears the prosecution has insufficient evidence to prove his guilt
then why is it necessary, as you stated above, for him to tell his counsel the
whole truth in the first place ?
When doing so puts the counsel in an invidious position where he might
be required to lie too, which he obviously wouldn't be prepared to do ;
when this is obviously quite unnecessary.
Which of course is the position all along. It isn't necessary for the counsel to know whether the client is guilty of not; all he needs to know is the
case being brought by the prosecution and whether the defendant can produce any witnesses or evidence which can undermine that case.
And if that is so, the defendant is in fact not guilty under the law,
whatever he did.
But the fact that he hasn't been found guilty by the Court doesn't
mean he isn't in fact guilty.
The defendant's lawyers are not acting unprofessionally by simply pointing >> out and
arguing that the prosecution has not made a sustainable case.
Just so long as the client hasn't already admitted their guilt to their counsel
bb
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:l8k7pkF9qhtU1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/04/2024 08:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8iotsF31mmU1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/04/2024 10:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
If the defendant expects to get good and proper advice, he has to be completely
open with his legal advisors.
So that anyone who's actually committed a crime should confess all
and plead guilty as advised ?
His legal advisor cannot possibly advise properly unless he is in full possession of
the facts. His advice may be, even if you tell him all, that you should not plead
guilty even if you are, because it is always for the prosecution to prove its case.
In which case he is conspiring to mislead the Court as soon as his client >>> enters a plea of not guilty. And if discovered, will both lose his livelihood
and end up in prison
No he's not. The plea is the defendant's alone, which is why he has to make it
personally.
And as soon as he's made his plea, his counsel will know whether he's lying to the Court or not.
And he is fully entitled to plead not guilty if he thinks, or is advised, that the
prosecution has insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
But if it appears the prosecution has insufficient evidence to prove his guilt
then why is it necessary, as you stated above, for him to tell his counsel the
whole truth in the first place ?
When doing so puts the counsel in an invidious position where he might
be required to lie too, which he obviously wouldn't be prepared to do ;
when this is obviously quite unnecessary.
Which of course is the position all along. It isn't necessary for the counsel to know whether the client is guilty of not; all he needs to know is the
case being brought by the prosecution and whether the defendant can produce any witnesses or evidence which can undermine that case.
And if that is so, the defendant is in fact not guilty under the law, whatever he did.
But the fact that he hasn't been found guilty by the Court doesn't
mean he isn't in fact guilty.
The defendant's lawyers are not acting unprofessionally by simply pointing out and
arguing that the prosecution has not made a sustainable case.
Just so long as the client hasn't already admitted their guilt to their counsel
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no fear
of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other
hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should
be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case
he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if
I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message news:hACdnRB-bu8yS7_7nZ2dnZeNn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 19/04/2024 18:16, billy bookcase wrote:
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
news:xY-dnRML7cUM_b_7nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding offence which
may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. I hope to avoid this by
pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. I understand
what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no fear of getting up and
addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other hand a man in
the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I should be perfectly capable of
doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case he's a KC,
and
a very successful one at that albeit it has been some time since he's done any/much
criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if I'm not
taking
it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
I believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in Court has a fool
for
client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you more, getting
professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not being able to
drive himself around to customers of his on-site business constituted exceptional
hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him around in his van for that year. He
was
fortunate enough to have a friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still
not
cheap.
But how exactly would have obtaining professional representation have
helped in that case ?
I don't know whether he had professional representation or not. However, as his
livelihood depended upon being able get to customers, it does appear to be a case that
should have qualified as exceptional hardship.
But surely the client himself would be the best judge of that ?
And unless he's really shifty-looking (but honest nevertheless) there's no real
reason why he can't explain that to the Court himself.
>
Surely the very fact that somebody may well need to employ a driver to
drive them around for a year, and can presumably afford to do so, argues >>> strongly against their being made subject to "exceptional" hardship.
I doubt he could have afforded to do so, had he had to pay more than beer money.
At least in the eyes of the Court prior to sentencing. The fact that they >>> was subsequently able to lessen the impact is neither here no there.
And as has been noted elsewhere if the defendant could afford to pay for >>> representation, then that would hardly have reflected great hardship on their
part to begin with.
"Please go easy on my client your honour as he's already had to take out >>> a second mortgage just to pay my fee"
Kleenexes all round!
More plausibly, my client stands to lose the well paying job he has now, if he is
unable to drive. This will impact upon his family and make him and them a burden upon
the State.
Indeed. But in that instance why couldn't the client have explained all the to the Court himself ? Providing he was honest-looking to start with.
Then the less polished the presentation the better, perhaps.
It would have been different if he was hoping to avoid a ban based on a technicality. Then indeed professional advice and representation may have proved invaluable.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
Colin Bignell wrote:
PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding >>>>>>> offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules. >>>>>>> I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor. >>>>>>> I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no >>>>>>> fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other >>>>>>> hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I >>>>>>> should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case >>>>>>> he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some >>>>>>> time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as if >>>>>>> I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Thanks
Peter
I believe the saying is that somebody who represents themselves in Court >>>>>> has a fool for client.
The question you need to ask yourself is which is going to cost you >>>>>> more, getting professional representation or losing your licence?
A chap I know got banned for a year. The Court did not accept that not >>>>>> being able to drive himself around to customers of his on-site business >>>>>> constituted exceptional hardship, so he had to pay a driver to run him >>>>>> around in his van for that year. He was fortunate enough to have a >>>>>> friend who would do it for beer money, but it was still not cheap.
Isn't the point of punishment to hurt ?
It is reasonable to assume that Parliament did not mean a driving
disqualification to lead to bankruptcy.
It's not the law that might lead him to bankruptcy, it's his breaking
the law on several occasions.
I didn't say that it was the law that might lead to bankruptcy.
I said it was a driving disqualification - which is something within the
discretion of the court, even on a totting-up case - which might, or in
some cases would, lead to bankruptcy.
The disqualification is entirely the driver's own fault.
If
disqualification could lead someone into bankruptcy, then they should
be a lot more careful not to exceed speed limits. Someone who gets disqualified under totting-up has not made a simple error, it is
repetitive behaviour by them.
Any of us can have a momentary lapse and
exceed the speed limit but I have no sympathy for anyone who ends up
banned under totting-up.
It's as well to remember that it could happen to you.
I've had a clean driving licence for nearly fifty years, but I never
ever let that blind me to the fact that a moment's unintended
inattention can change all of that.
There but for the grace...
Oh, don't get me wrong, I have been caught for speeding several times
over a 50-year period but never 4 times within 3 years.
I was prosecuted for doing 50mph down the high st. I pleaded guilty by
letter as was fined 40s.
Well, except for the fact that the totting up system *clearly* bears
more heavily - and many would say very unfairly - upon a person who
drives as, or as part of, his living than it does upon a little old lady
from Surbiton who only uses the car to drive to church on Sunday.
On 22-Apr-24 17:17, JNugent wrote:
Well, except for the fact that the totting up system *clearly* bears
more heavily - and many would say very unfairly - upon a person who
drives as, or as part of, his living than it does upon a little old
lady from Surbiton who only uses the car to drive to church on Sunday.
That little old lady is much less of a threat to other road users, if
only because she spends very little time driving.
That other person - the high mileage driver - offers a far greater
potential threat towards others.
So perhaps it isn't so unfair after all.
On 19/04/2024 20:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/04/2024 17:52, PJK wrote:
On 19/04/2024 17:36, Andy Burns wrote:
And does pleading extreme hardship play well when you can affordThe hardship that must be demonstrated is not to the defendant -
professional representation?
losing one's job does not count as exceptional - but rather to others
such as family, employees or the like
I don't think that's necessarily so. Losing one's job as a
consequence of a ban may well be seen as exceptional hardship beyond
the intended inconvenience of the ban itself.
The magistrate with whom I spoke on the matter, (but what would they
know, eh?), was clear that losing one's job is seen as an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people, and was able to cite documentation from the Sentencing Council to support this, (but what do
they know, eh?).
In short, loss of employment from disqualification is not sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship meaning you are mistaken to claim that
it "may well be". It almost certainly won't.
Another good reason to get proper professional advice and representation.
Indeed!
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a speeding
offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting up rules.
I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a solicitor.
I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and I have no
fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the other
hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and I
should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this case
he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been some
time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as
if I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Apologies for the delay in responding. I was waiting for the chance to speak to a clerk that also sits as a magistrate and that opportunity
arose yesterday meaning I was able to ask her questions directly. Her responses are as follows:
Technically, it should not make a jot of difference whether you say what needs to be said or whether a solicitor or barrister advances the
arguments on your behalf.
However, the key is not in the presentation of those arguments but in
the preparation of them and that is where paying for the services of professionals makes a difference.
"Exceptional hardship" is, as the name suggests, only considered in "exceptional" cases and, unfortunately, many of the circumstances
presented as "exceptional" are 'inconvenience dressed as exceptional hardship'. (Her words, not mine.)
She cited as an example, losing one's job. Most people would consider
that an instance of an "exceptional hardship".
However, losing one's
job is considered an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for most so proving one would lose one's job if disqualified is not in and of itself
an "exceptional hardship".
If you haven't already done so, she recommends reading the Sentencing Counsel's Explanatory Materials on 'Totting Up' Disqualifications [^1].
She also recommends reading Chapter 11 of the Equal Treatment Bench Book
[^2] as there may be something in there that is useful to you.
Also, be aware that each and every instance of exceptional hardship
claimed must be supported by verifiable evidence. It isn't enough to
turn up and recount a tale of woe to the court. They've likely heard it
all before - several times. You need to prove what you claim.
Finally, she recommends consulting a legal professional specialising in motoring cases [^3] for their opinion of your circumstances so they can advise whether or not a plea of exceptional hardship is likely to
succeed as that may be money well spent.
On 23/04/2024 11:01, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:19, PJK wrote:
Hi all
I have been summonsed to appear in a magistrate's court for a
speeding offence which may well give rise to a ban under the totting
up rules. I hope to avoid this by pleading exceptional hardship.
I'm not sure whether just to represent myself or employee a
solicitor. I understand what I have to make out to claim hardship and
I have no fear of getting up and addressing them myself.
Some sites on the internet say representation is key, but on the
other hand a man in the pub said it was a waste of time and money and
I should be perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Normally I wouldn't take advice from a man in the pub but in this
case he's a KC, and a very successful one at that albeit it has been
some time since he's done any/much criminal work
Does anyone have any actual knowledge of whether it perhaps looks as
if I'm not taking it seriously enough if I just turn up on my own?
Apologies for the delay in responding. I was waiting for the chance
to speak to a clerk that also sits as a magistrate and that
opportunity arose yesterday meaning I was able to ask her questions
directly. Her responses are as follows:
Technically, it should not make a jot of difference whether you say
what needs to be said or whether a solicitor or barrister advances the
arguments on your behalf.
'Technically' it shouldn't. In practice I suspect it does.
However, the key is not in the presentation of those arguments but in
the preparation of them and that is where paying for the services of
professionals makes a difference.
Professional presentation must help too, I'd have thought.
I don't think magistrates are immune from powers of persuasion, nor do I think they can always see the truth regardless of how inept or bumbling
a presentation is. I also think it is rather more difficult for
magistrates to convict when there is present in the room someone more knowledgeable about the law than they are who has argued that they
shouldn't and who might contradict them or immediately appeal.
"Exceptional hardship" is, as the name suggests, only considered in
"exceptional" cases and, unfortunately, many of the circumstances
presented as "exceptional" are 'inconvenience dressed as exceptional
hardship'. (Her words, not mine.)
Closed minds are always a problem.
She cited as an example, losing one's job. Most people would consider
that an instance of an "exceptional hardship".
In which case, it surely is.
On 23/04/2024 11:01, Simon Parker wrote:
She cited as an example, losing one's job. Most people would consider
that an instance of an "exceptional hardship".
In which case, it surely is.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
She cited as an example, losing one's job. Most people would considerIn which case, it surely is.
that an instance of an "exceptional hardship".
They only think that when applying it to themselves. When thinking about other people, they are more likely to think "serves him right".
Consider, if you will, the case of the local boy racer who has been repeatedly clocked by a speed camera doing considerably more than the limit in his pimped-up Nova. He now faces disqualification on the totting-up procedure, and has been told by his boss that if he can't get to his minimum-wage job on the industrial estate ten miles from home (with no bus service) he'll be sacked. So he intends to plead "exceptional hardship".
Do you think he could, or should, be let off without a ban in those circumstances?
On 24/04/2024 12:26 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
She cited as an example, losing one's job. Most people would consider >>>> that an instance of an "exceptional hardship".In which case, it surely is.
They only think that when applying it to themselves. When thinking about
other people, they are more likely to think "serves him right".
Consider, if you will, the case of the local boy racer who has been
repeatedly clocked by a speed camera doing considerably more than the limit >> in his pimped-up Nova. He now faces disqualification on the totting-up
procedure, and has been told by his boss that if he can't get to his
minimum-wage job on the industrial estate ten miles from home (with no bus >> service) he'll be sacked. So he intends to plead "exceptional hardship".
Do you think he could, or should, be let off without a ban in those
circumstances?
The context there is not one within most people can see themselves.
They would see their own offences as being inadvertent and aberrational >moments of forgetfulness or inattention. And surely, most people seeing
it that way would be right.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
She cited as an example, losing one's job. Most people would consider >>>>> that an instance of an "exceptional hardship".
In which case, it surely is.
They only think that when applying it to themselves. When thinking about >>> other people, they are more likely to think "serves him right".
Consider, if you will, the case of the local boy racer who has been
repeatedly clocked by a speed camera doing considerably more than the limit >>> in his pimped-up Nova. He now faces disqualification on the totting-up
procedure, and has been told by his boss that if he can't get to his
minimum-wage job on the industrial estate ten miles from home (with no bus >>> service) he'll be sacked. So he intends to plead "exceptional hardship". >>> Do you think he could, or should, be let off without a ban in those
circumstances?
The context there is not one within most people can see themselves.
They would see their own offences as being inadvertent and aberrational
moments of forgetfulness or inattention. And surely, most people seeing
it that way would be right.
But that's the point.
People are far more inclined to find reasons to excuse
their own behaviour than that of others. Although trying to claim that
enough speeding points to reach the totting-up level is due to forgetfulness or inattention is tantamount to admitting that you're simply too incompetant to be allowed on the roads.
Getting a speeding fine (or attendance at a speed awareness course) is an ocupational hazard of being a regular road user.
It happens to most people
occasionally. But it doesn't happen to most people repeatedly in a
relatively short space of time.
On 24/04/2024 05:26 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
She cited as an example, losing one's job. Most people would consider >>>>>> that an instance of an "exceptional hardship".
In which case, it surely is.
They only think that when applying it to themselves. When thinking about >>>> other people, they are more likely to think "serves him right".
Consider, if you will, the case of the local boy racer who has been
repeatedly clocked by a speed camera doing considerably more than the limit
in his pimped-up Nova. He now faces disqualification on the totting-up >>>> procedure, and has been told by his boss that if he can't get to his
minimum-wage job on the industrial estate ten miles from home (with no bus >>>> service) he'll be sacked. So he intends to plead "exceptional hardship". >>>> Do you think he could, or should, be let off without a ban in those
circumstances?
The context there is not one within most people can see themselves.
They would see their own offences as being inadvertent and aberrational
moments of forgetfulness or inattention. And surely, most people seeing
it that way would be right.
But that's the point.
No. The point was actually they would be right (not wrong). But you are >effectively asserting that they would be wrong.
People are far more inclined to find reasons to excuse
their own behaviour than that of others. Although trying to claim that
enough speeding points to reach the totting-up level is due to forgetfulness >> or inattention is tantamount to admitting that you're simply too incompetant >> to be allowed on the roads.
Getting a speeding fine (or attendance at a speed awareness course) is an
ocupational hazard of being a regular road user.
That's fair enough.
But it does not lead inexorably to any logical conclusion that someone >committing trivial "offences" of inadvertence needs to be disqualified
from driving at all, let alone within his wider circumstances where such
a penalty will be a life and home wrecking sentence of exceptional hardship.
It is this 1960s view that trivial "offences" can somehow add up to
being a major "offence" which I question.
Yes, a fine of reasonably proportions for doing 35 in a 30. But >disqualification should be reserved for major discrete offences which
merit that as a punishment on their own immediate terms.
In the Catholic Church (which has always professed to know a bit on the >subject), the line is firmly drawn between venial and mortal sin(s). A >thousand venial sins will never add up to a mortal sin.
I say that a thousand instances of 31 in a 30 will never amount to a
major offence. Even a million won't.
It happens to most people
occasionally. But it doesn't happen to most people repeatedly in a
relatively short space of time.
Yes, it does. Most, if not all, drivers and motorcyclists travel at
speeds higher - usually only marginally higher - than the limit more or
less every trip.
That's fair enough.
But it does not lead inexorably to any logical conclusion that someone committing
trivial "offences" of inadvertence needs to be disqualified from driving at all, let
alone within his wider circumstances where such a penalty will be a life and home
wrecking sentence of exceptional hardship.
It is this 1960s view that trivial "offences" can somehow add up to being a major
"offence" which I question.
Yes, a fine of reasonably proportions for doing 35 in a 30. But disqualification should
be reserved for major discrete offences which merit that as a punishment on their own
immediate terms.
In the Catholic Church (which has always professed to know a bit on the subject), the
line is firmly drawn between venial and mortal sin(s). A thousand venial sins will
never add up to a mortal sin.
I say that a thousand instances of 31 in a 30 will never amount to a major offence.
Even a million won't.
And of course, the current totally unjust system where licence penalty endorsements are handed down automatically, with the possibility of refusing the
"fixed" [*] penalty and going to court instead not a real alternative since the court,
it is suspected, will impose an even harsher punishment).
[*] So-called "fixed" penalties involving licence endorsement are NOT fixed within the
ordinary meaning of that word. A licence endorsement can - and is actually meant to -
cause even more trouble for the driver at a later date. It is anything but fixed.
The age-old cry of the police officer, "The court decides on guilt and penalty", has
been blown out of the water by legislation, not only for excess speed but also for
totally subjective opinions of the officer on matters such as careless or inconsiderate
driving. The police are now literally, police, jury and judge on such matters. Why is
that tolerated? How CAN it be tolerated? It shouldn't be. I ask that, BTW, as the
holder of a clean licence.
It happens to most people
occasionally. But it doesn't happen to most people repeatedly in a
relatively short space of time.
Yes, it does. Most, if not all, drivers and motorcyclists travel at speeds higher -
usually only marginally higher - than the limit more or less every trip. A system of
guaranteed and relentless punishment for that is a recipe for everyone being banned in
short order - and you know it. Counter-arguments to the effect that even though it
could happen, it doesn't happen because [something or other] are unimpressive. It could
happen to you. Today. And that's irrespective of your determination not to drive at a
speed over 30. It happens regardless of the best of intentions of the best of us. Yeah,
unto police officers and judges. And even if it didn't, a police officer could take the
view that the way you took that last bend was a bit careless or inconsiderate.
"Three points and an £80 fine, sir. Of course, you can always dispute my judgment in a
magistrates' court. If you dare to, that is".
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
She cited as an example, losing one's job. Most people would consider >>>>>>> that an instance of an "exceptional hardship".
In which case, it surely is.
They only think that when applying it to themselves. When thinking about >>>>> other people, they are more likely to think "serves him right".
Consider, if you will, the case of the local boy racer who has been
repeatedly clocked by a speed camera doing considerably more than the limit
in his pimped-up Nova. He now faces disqualification on the totting-up >>>>> procedure, and has been told by his boss that if he can't get to his >>>>> minimum-wage job on the industrial estate ten miles from home (with no bus
service) he'll be sacked. So he intends to plead "exceptional hardship". >>>>> Do you think he could, or should, be let off without a ban in those
circumstances?
The context there is not one within most people can see themselves.
They would see their own offences as being inadvertent and aberrational >>>> moments of forgetfulness or inattention. And surely, most people seeing >>>> it that way would be right.
But that's the point.
No. The point was actually they would be right (not wrong). But you are
effectively asserting that they would be wrong.
They would be right in the context of a single, or very occasional, lapse. But they would be wrong to do so in the context of repeated lapses within a short space of time.
People are far more inclined to find reasons to excuse
their own behaviour than that of others. Although trying to claim that
enough speeding points to reach the totting-up level is due to forgetfulness
or inattention is tantamount to admitting that you're simply too incompetant
to be allowed on the roads.
Getting a speeding fine (or attendance at a speed awareness course) is an >>> ocupational hazard of being a regular road user.
That's fair enough.
But it does not lead inexorably to any logical conclusion that someone
committing trivial "offences" of inadvertence needs to be disqualified >>from driving at all, let alone within his wider circumstances where such
a penalty will be a life and home wrecking sentence of exceptional hardship. >> It is this 1960s view that trivial "offences" can somehow add up to
being a major "offence" which I question.
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of the law) that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a totting-up ban.
That
is, it's not each individual speeding instance which is the issue, it's the fact that the driver has no concept of how to moderate their behaviour in order to stop getting them. If they are that incompetant, then they really don't belong on the roads.
Yes, a fine of reasonably proportions for doing 35 in a 30. But
disqualification should be reserved for major discrete offences which
merit that as a punishment on their own immediate terms.
In the Catholic Church (which has always professed to know a bit on the
subject), the line is firmly drawn between venial and mortal sin(s). A
thousand venial sins will never add up to a mortal sin.
I say that a thousand instances of 31 in a 30 will never amount to a
major offence. Even a million won't.
So a million instances of stealing £1 isn't a major offence?
And how can
someone be so inept that they can't moderate their speed by just 1mph?
It happens to most people
occasionally. But it doesn't happen to most people repeatedly in a
relatively short space of time.
Yes, it does. Most, if not all, drivers and motorcyclists travel at
speeds higher - usually only marginally higher - than the limit more or
less every trip.
But most people are observant enough to spot a speed camera, at least often enough to avoid getting photographed by one other than very occasionally. If they aren't, then they do deserve to be banned. Not for speeding, but for
the lack of a skill which is fundamental to safe driving.
An unobservant driver is an unsafe driver. And if speeding convictions are a useful tool to detect unobservant drivers, then that's a good thing.
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of
the law) that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a
totting-up ban.
On 25/04/2024 05:18 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of the law)
that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a totting-up ban.
And that is ENTIRELY a matter of pure (bad) luck.
An unobservant driver is an unsafe driver. And if speeding convictions are a >> useful tool to detect unobservant drivers, then that's a good thing.
If what you say just there is true, then every driver (except you,
perhaps) is a bad driver and the world would be better off with them all >banned and all motorised road transport abandoned.
While you might seek to imply that your having a clean licence is somewhat >exceptional, and that you're presenting these arguments on behalf of a much >larger group of aggrieved and oppressed motorists, the actual statistics >don't actually bear this out.
Surprising as they are
According to the link at least, this is all data released by the DVLA
So that despite all these speed limits and other regulations, combined with the
efforts of over zealous policemen intent on making motorists lives as miserable
as possible, the fact remains that in Greater London for example,
Just like you, 95.1% of motorists have a clean licence
A superficial examination does however suggest a marked regional bias
quote:
The UK's 10 proportionally most-endorsed postcode areas
1.. Halifax (10,758, 10.6%)
2.. Bradford (34,455, 10.5%)
3.. Huddersfield (16,593, 9.9%)
4.. Bristol (61,761, 9.4%)
5.. Doncaster (44,786, 9.3%)
6.. Wakefield (29,403, 9.1%)
7.. Leeds (41,823, 9.0%)
8.. Luton (20,137, 8.9%)
9.. Slough (24,734, 8.7%)
10.. Harrogate (8,785, 8.7%)
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of the law) >>> that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a totting-up ban.
And that is ENTIRELY a matter of pure (bad) luck.
No, it's not. Being repeatedly caught by speed cameras (which are, after
all, bright yellow and easy to spot) is either incompetance or a
deliberate refusal to obey the law.
An unobservant driver is an unsafe driver. And if speeding convictions are a
useful tool to detect unobservant drivers, then that's a good thing.
If what you say just there is true, then every driver (except you,
perhaps) is a bad driver and the world would be better off with them all
banned and all motorised road transport abandoned.
No; there are plenty of good drivers.
Because the vast majority of drivers
never come anywhere near being banned for repeated speeding offences. It's only the tiny minority who are that inept.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:12:59 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
While you might seek to imply that your having a clean licence is somewhat >> exceptional, and that you're presenting these arguments on behalf of a much >> larger group of aggrieved and oppressed motorists, the actual statistics
don't actually bear this out.
Surprising as they are
According to the link at least, this is all data released by the DVLA
So that despite all these speed limits and other regulations, combined with the
efforts of over zealous policemen intent on making motorists lives as miserable
as possible, the fact remains that in Greater London for example,
Just like you, 95.1% of motorists have a clean licence
And the number who get so many points that they are at risk of being banned is even smaller than that.
A superficial examination does however suggest a marked regional bias
quote:
The UK's 10 proportionally most-endorsed postcode areas
1.. Halifax (10,758, 10.6%)
2.. Bradford (34,455, 10.5%)
3.. Huddersfield (16,593, 9.9%)
4.. Bristol (61,761, 9.4%)
5.. Doncaster (44,786, 9.3%)
6.. Wakefield (29,403, 9.1%)
7.. Leeds (41,823, 9.0%)
8.. Luton (20,137, 8.9%)
9.. Slough (24,734, 8.7%)
10.. Harrogate (8,785, 8.7%)
It's grim up north. And, it seems, in Bristol.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l8v867F2b8U1@mid.individual.net...
That's fair enough.
But it does not lead inexorably to any logical conclusion that someone committing
trivial "offences" of inadvertence needs to be disqualified from driving at all, let
alone within his wider circumstances where such a penalty will be a life and home
wrecking sentence of exceptional hardship.
It is this 1960s view that trivial "offences" can somehow add up to being a major
"offence" which I question.
Yes, a fine of reasonably proportions for doing 35 in a 30. But disqualification should
be reserved for major discrete offences which merit that as a punishment on their own
immediate terms.
In the Catholic Church (which has always professed to know a bit on the subject), the
line is firmly drawn between venial and mortal sin(s). A thousand venial sins will
never add up to a mortal sin.
I say that a thousand instances of 31 in a 30 will never amount to a major offence.
Even a million won't.
And of course, the current totally unjust system where licence penalty
endorsements are handed down automatically, with the possibility of refusing the
"fixed" [*] penalty and going to court instead not a real alternative since the court,
it is suspected, will impose an even harsher punishment).
[*] So-called "fixed" penalties involving licence endorsement are NOT fixed within the
ordinary meaning of that word. A licence endorsement can - and is actually meant to -
cause even more trouble for the driver at a later date. It is anything but fixed.
The age-old cry of the police officer, "The court decides on guilt and penalty", has
been blown out of the water by legislation, not only for excess speed but also for
totally subjective opinions of the officer on matters such as careless or inconsiderate
driving. The police are now literally, police, jury and judge on such matters. Why is
that tolerated? How CAN it be tolerated? It shouldn't be. I ask that, BTW, as the
holder of a clean licence.
It happens to most people
occasionally. But it doesn't happen to most people repeatedly in a
relatively short space of time.
Yes, it does. Most, if not all, drivers and motorcyclists travel at speeds higher -
usually only marginally higher - than the limit more or less every trip. A system of
guaranteed and relentless punishment for that is a recipe for everyone being banned in
short order - and you know it. Counter-arguments to the effect that even though it
could happen, it doesn't happen because [something or other] are unimpressive. It could
happen to you. Today. And that's irrespective of your determination not to drive at a
speed over 30. It happens regardless of the best of intentions of the best of us. Yeah,
unto police officers and judges. And even if it didn't, a police officer could take the
view that the way you took that last bend was a bit careless or inconsiderate.
"Three points and an £80 fine, sir. Of course, you can always dispute my judgment in a
magistrates' court. If you dare to, that is".
While you might seek to imply that your having a clean licence is somewhat exceptional,
and that you're presenting these arguments on behalf of a much
larger group of aggrieved and oppressed motorists, the actual statistics don't actually bear this out.
Surprising as they are
According to the link at least, this is all data released by the DVLA
So that despite all these speed limits and other regulations, combined with the
efforts of over zealous policemen intent on making motorists lives as miserable
as possible, the fact remains that in Greater London for example,
Just like you, 95.1% of motorists have a clean licence
A superficial examination does however suggest a marked regional bias
quote:
The UK's 10 proportionally most-endorsed postcode areas
1.. Halifax (10,758, 10.6%)
2.. Bradford (34,455, 10.5%)
3.. Huddersfield (16,593, 9.9%)
4.. Bristol (61,761, 9.4%)
5.. Doncaster (44,786, 9.3%)
6.. Wakefield (29,403, 9.1%)
7.. Leeds (41,823, 9.0%)
8.. Luton (20,137, 8.9%)
9.. Slough (24,734, 8.7%)
10.. Harrogate (8,785, 8.7%)
() Brackets show number of licences with points and percentage of all local licences
The 10 proportionally least-endorsed postcode areas
1.. Brighton (27,991 5.1%)
2.. Harrow (17,074, 5.0%)
3.. Exeter (19,967 4.9%
4.. Greater London (136,693, 4.9%)
5.. Truro (10,508, 4.8%)
6.. Cambridge (13,042, 4.4%)
7.. Bromley (9,688, 4.4%)
8.. Tonbridge (22,100, 4.3%)
9.. Shetland (673, 4.3%)
10.. Canterbury (12,254, 3.9%)
() Brackets show number of licences with points and percentage of all local licences
Mainland UK regions by proportion of local licences with points
1.. Yorkshire and the Humber (8.58%)
2.. North East (7.21%)
3.. Wales (7.19%)
4.. East Midlands (6.94%)
5.. South West (6.92%)
6.. West Midlands (6.91%)
7.. Scotland (6.77%)
8.. North West (6.74%)
9.. East of England (6.65%)
10.. South East (5.85%)
() Brackets show number of licences with points and percentage of all local licences
:unquote
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-news/2019/07/17/driving-licence-penalty-points-puts-80-000-drivers-at-risk
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:12:59 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
While you might seek to imply that your having a clean licence is somewhat >> exceptional, and that you're presenting these arguments on behalf of a much >> larger group of aggrieved and oppressed motorists, the actual statistics
don't actually bear this out.
Surprising as they are
According to the link at least, this is all data released by the DVLA
So that despite all these speed limits and other regulations, combined with the
efforts of over zealous policemen intent on making motorists lives as miserable
as possible, the fact remains that in Greater London for example,
Just like you, 95.1% of motorists have a clean licence
And the number who get so many points that they are at risk of being banned is even smaller than that.
A superficial examination does however suggest a marked regional bias
quote:
The UK's 10 proportionally most-endorsed postcode areas
1.. Halifax (10,758, 10.6%)
2.. Bradford (34,455, 10.5%)
3.. Huddersfield (16,593, 9.9%)
4.. Bristol (61,761, 9.4%)
5.. Doncaster (44,786, 9.3%)
6.. Wakefield (29,403, 9.1%)
7.. Leeds (41,823, 9.0%)
8.. Luton (20,137, 8.9%)
9.. Slough (24,734, 8.7%)
10.. Harrogate (8,785, 8.7%)
It's grim up north. And, it seems, in Bristol.
On 25/04/2024 09:59 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:12:59 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
The UK's 10 proportionally most-endorsed postcode areas
1.. Halifax (10,758, 10.6%)
2.. Bradford (34,455, 10.5%)
3.. Huddersfield (16,593, 9.9%)
4.. Bristol (61,761, 9.4%)
5.. Doncaster (44,786, 9.3%)
6.. Wakefield (29,403, 9.1%)
7.. Leeds (41,823, 9.0%)
8.. Luton (20,137, 8.9%)
9.. Slough (24,734, 8.7%)
10.. Harrogate (8,785, 8.7%)
It's grim up north. And, it seems, in Bristol.
You say "up north", but it all seems to be Yorkshire.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >news:120l2j5pgpdl6idqs1jjd6g1dq98m3f6bg@4ax.com...
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of
the law) that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a
totting-up ban.
One possible* exception to that, is where a speed limit is
changed with possibly inadequate signage
and regular
commuters tot up offences on successive days before
the first penalty notice arrives on the doorstep.
This actually happened within the last 2 to 3 years on
a stretch of the North Circular Road approaching Chiswick
Roundabout. The speed limit was lowered in the expectation
of roadwork's which hadn't yet started and numerous motorists
were caught out.
*Possible because the results of any appeals presumably
regarding supposedly inadequate signage didn't get the same
amount of press coverage, as did the original repeat
offences.
bb
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:39:52 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/04/2024 05:18 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of the law) >>> that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a totting-up ban.
And that is ENTIRELY a matter of pure (bad) luck.
No, it's not. Being repeatedly caught by speed cameras (which are, after
all, bright yellow and easy to spot)
is either incompetance or a deliberate
refusal to obey the law.
An unobservant driver is an unsafe driver. And if speeding convictions are a
useful tool to detect unobservant drivers, then that's a good thing.
If what you say just there is true, then every driver (except you,
perhaps) is a bad driver and the world would be better off with them all >>banned and all motorised road transport abandoned.
No; there are plenty of good drivers. Because the vast majority of drivers >never come anywhere near being banned for repeated speeding offences. It's >only the tiny minority who are that inept.
Mark
In message <v0e7ln$359pg$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:33:22 on Thu, 25 Apr
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:120l2j5pgpdl6idqs1jjd6g1dq98m3f6bg@4ax.com...
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of
the law) that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a
totting-up ban.
One possible* exception to that, is where a speed limit is
changed with possibly inadequate signage
Worse than that, the limit being reduced by *removing* signage, for
example stretches of what used to be 40 between villages reduced to
30, simply by unscrewing the "40" signs.
and regular
commuters tot up offences on successive days before
the first penalty notice arrives on the doorstep.
This actually happened within the last 2 to 3 years on
a stretch of the North Circular Road approaching Chiswick
Roundabout. The speed limit was lowered in the expectation
of roadwork's which hadn't yet started and numerous motorists
were caught out.
*Possible because the results of any appeals presumably
regarding supposedly inadequate signage didn't get the same
amount of press coverage, as did the original repeat
offences.
In message <rngl2jtka3riqttisg0s5l9jem143bebvs@4ax.com>, at 21:57:17 on
Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:39:52 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/04/2024 05:18 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of the law) >>>> that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a totting-up ban.
And that is ENTIRELY a matter of pure (bad) luck.
No, it's not. Being repeatedly caught by speed cameras (which are, after >>all, bright yellow and easy to spot)
Except they aren't. For example on motorways, where many are cameras
with telescopic lenses off in the grass verge, or obscured by being on
one of the gantries.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:54:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <rngl2jtka3riqttisg0s5l9jem143bebvs@4ax.com>, at 21:57:17 on
Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:39:52 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/04/2024 05:18 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of the law) >>>>> that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a totting-up ban.
And that is ENTIRELY a matter of pure (bad) luck.
No, it's not. Being repeatedly caught by speed cameras (which are, after >>> all, bright yellow and easy to spot)
Except they aren't. For example on motorways, where many are cameras
with telescopic lenses off in the grass verge, or obscured by being on
one of the gantries.
There are two types of speed cameras on motorways. There are the snapshop cameras, aka Gatsos, which take an instantaneous reading of your speed at a particular location. It isn't always easy to spot those cameras themselves, but you can always tell precisely where they are because there will be the calibration lines on the carriageway. And those lines are very easy to spot.
The other type are the average speed cameras, or Specs. Those are usually relatively easy to spot, but spotting them is useless because slowing down
as you approach one won't help. The only way to avoid being caught by
average speed cameras is to keep your average speed between them low enough. But you'll always know when you need to do that, because there will be signs warning you of it.
Mark
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:54:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <rngl2jtka3riqttisg0s5l9jem143bebvs@4ax.com>, at 21:57:17 on
Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:39:52 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/04/2024 05:18 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of the law) >>>>> that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a totting-up ban.
And that is ENTIRELY a matter of pure (bad) luck.
No, it's not. Being repeatedly caught by speed cameras (which are, after >>> all, bright yellow and easy to spot)
Except they aren't. For example on motorways, where many are cameras
with telescopic lenses off in the grass verge, or obscured by being on
one of the gantries.
There are two types of speed cameras on motorways. There are the snapshop cameras, aka Gatsos, which take an instantaneous reading of your speed at a particular location. It isn't always easy to spot those cameras themselves, but you can always tell precisely where they are because there will be the calibration lines on the carriageway. And those lines are very easy to spot.
The other type are the average speed cameras, or Specs. Those are usually relatively easy to spot, but spotting them is useless because slowing down
as you approach one won't help. The only way to avoid being caught by
average speed cameras is to keep your average speed between them low enough. But you'll always know when you need to do that, because there will be signs warning you of it.
On 28/04/2024 20:52, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:54:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <rngl2jtka3riqttisg0s5l9jem143bebvs@4ax.com>, at 21:57:17
on
Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:39:52 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 25/04/2024 05:18 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of the law)And that is ENTIRELY a matter of pure (bad) luck.
that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a totting-up ban. >>>>>
No, it's not. Being repeatedly caught by speed cameras (which are, after >>>> all, bright yellow and easy to spot)
Except they aren't. For example on motorways, where many are cameras
with telescopic lenses off in the grass verge, or obscured by being on
one of the gantries.
There are two types of speed cameras on motorways. There are the
snapshop
cameras, aka Gatsos, which take an instantaneous reading of your speed at a >> particular location. It isn't always easy to spot those cameras themselves, >> but you can always tell precisely where they are because there will be the >> calibration lines on the carriageway. And those lines are very easy to spot.
There is (at least) one other sort of speed camera deployed on the M60
around Manchester. It looks to me like IR image and lidar or radar trap >based. It is 3 or 4 units side by side in a small yellow box with one
lens pointed at each lane of the motorway.
An example looking back at the sensor side near Whitefield here:
<https://www.google.com/maps/@53.543831,-2.2784376,3a,41.3y,71.28h,94.63 >t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEnAbxlNy19vemZqc491OPw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetvie >wpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DEnAbxlNy19vemZqc49 >1OPw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D71.28260750 >636183%26pitch%3D-4.63104665129616%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=20 >5410&entry=ttu>
If that link doesn't work for you land on the M60 fairly near where the
M62 splits off big blue sign says 1/4 mile to lane peel off. The camera
is on the West bound lane hung on a bracket on the inside of the
concrete gantry. They are not obvious unless you know what they are.
There are no fiducial marks at all on the road so they must be absolute >calibration radar or lidar based units. They were originally going to
paint them grey but relented and they are now bright chrome yellow.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/m60 >-speed-cameras-smart-motorway-8578508
with apologies for the awful ads on the MEN site - it used to be good :(
The other type are the average speed cameras, or Specs. Those are usually
relatively easy to spot, but spotting them is useless because slowing down >> as you approach one won't help. The only way to avoid being caught by
average speed cameras is to keep your average speed between them low enough. >> But you'll always know when you need to do that, because there will be signs >> warning you of it.
Specs also have fiducial marks on the road but finer lines and much
less obvious. Plenty of non existent Gatsos have fake lines on the road
too.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:54:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <rngl2jtka3riqttisg0s5l9jem143bebvs@4ax.com>, at 21:57:17 on >>Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:39:52 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/04/2024 05:18 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of the law) >>>>> that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a totting-up ban.
And that is ENTIRELY a matter of pure (bad) luck.
No, it's not. Being repeatedly caught by speed cameras (which are, after >>>all, bright yellow and easy to spot)
Except they aren't. For example on motorways, where many are cameras
with telescopic lenses off in the grass verge, or obscured by being on
one of the gantries.
There are two types of speed cameras on motorways. There are the snapshop >cameras, aka Gatsos,
which take an instantaneous reading of your speed at a
particular location. It isn't always easy to spot those cameras themselves, >but you can always tell precisely where they are because there will be the >calibration lines on the carriageway. And those lines are very easy to spot.
The other type are the average speed cameras, or Specs. Those are usually >relatively easy to spot, but spotting them is useless because slowing down
as you approach one won't help.
The only way to avoid being caught by average speed cameras is to keep
your average speed between them low enough.
But you'll always know when you need to do that, because there will be
signs warning you of it.
In message <6v9t2j1jkh2kj24esbkpcd1sqed836vt64@4ax.com>, at 20:52:09 on
Sun, 28 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
The other type are the average speed cameras, or Specs. Those are usually >>relatively easy to spot, but spotting them is useless because slowing down >>as you approach one won't help.
Anecdotally if you change lanes, the system only tracks people who are
in the same lane (as the previous camera).
The only way to avoid being caught by average speed cameras is to keep
your average speed between them low enough.
I have to admit I don't know anyone who has received a SPECs speeding
ticket, they've all involved a dispute about the signage (and snapshot >cameras).
But you'll always know when you need to do that, because there will be >>signs warning you of it.
Assuming that especially with variable speed signs, the system "does the >maths" properly.
In message <6v9t2j1jkh2kj24esbkpcd1sqed836vt64@4ax.com>, at 20:52:09 on
Sun, 28 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:54:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <rngl2jtka3riqttisg0s5l9jem143bebvs@4ax.com>, at 21:57:17 on >>>Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:39:52 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 25/04/2024 05:18 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
The major offence is being so incompetant (or so disregarding of the law)And that is ENTIRELY a matter of pure (bad) luck.
that you can rack up enough speeding points to get a totting-up ban. >>>>>
No, it's not. Being repeatedly caught by speed cameras (which are, after >>>>all, bright yellow and easy to spot)
Except they aren't. For example on motorways, where many are cameras
with telescopic lenses off in the grass verge, or obscured by being on >>>one of the gantries.
There are two types of speed cameras on motorways. There are the snapshop >>cameras, aka Gatsos,
The telescopic lens ones have a different jargon name.
which take an instantaneous reading of your speed at a
particular location. It isn't always easy to spot those cameras themselves, >>but you can always tell precisely where they are because there will be the >>calibration lines on the carriageway. And those lines are very easy to spot.
As long as it's not dark, or raining, or obscured by the traffic in
front. But that's not the only problem.
A few years ago I was told that someone was snapped by such a camera
doing 72mph (let's park the issue that's a technical offence, rather
than within ACPO guidelines) on what was at the time an almost clear
road. They insist the variable speed limit signs must have been
displaying 70mph, because if they were set to 60mph they'd have notched
down their cruise control to 62mph as a reflex action.
This person later went to a speed awareness course, and says almost all
the other attendees also insisted they thought they were travelling
within what they'd observed the limit to be. No boy-racers or white-van-drivers here, just a collection of largely middle-aged family
men.
A few years ago I was told that someone was snapped by such a camera
doing 72mph (let's park the issue that's a technical offence, rather
than within ACPO guidelines) on what was at the time an almost clear
road. They insist the variable speed limit signs must have been
displaying 70mph, because if they were set to 60mph they'd have
notched down their cruise control to 62mph as a reflex action.
This person later went to a speed awareness course, and says almost
all the other attendees also insisted they thought they were
travelling within what they'd observed the limit to be. No boy-racers
or white-van-drivers here, just a collection of largely middle-aged
family men.
Now that so many people
have active dash-cams one might think that if the
overhead gantries were, in fact, displaying the wrong speed limits,
enough evidence to that effect would have been gathered by now.
I'm unreliably[2] informed that SPECS cameras (or, rather, the systems >issuing tickets based on their data) are actually set to trigger at quite a >lot higher than the normal ACPO guidelines. Their main value is simple >deterrence. And, of course, if traffic is heavy enough, then they only need >to be obeyed by by few people for it to keep everybody's speed down.
Variable limits (eg, on "smart" motorways) are always enforced by standard, >instantaneous cameras (eg, Gatsos).
Average speed cameras are mostly used at
roadworks, to help enforce the reduced speed limit.
But even where they're used on normal roads, it's always a location
which has an unvarying limit.
In message <ad203j9j7j0fa0noe06nm7945414rrl3b8@4ax.com>, at 22:05:35 on
Mon, 29 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Variable limits (eg, on "smart" motorways) are always enforced by standard, >>instantaneous cameras (eg, Gatsos).
The thing is, are the cameras instructed by the very same system as puts
up the signage on the gantries, or are they slightly decoupled and hence
the possibility of errors creeps in. For example if the gantry reverts
to NSL, the anecdotal evidence [yes I know] would be consistent with the >cameras lagging slightly.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:48:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ad203j9j7j0fa0noe06nm7945414rrl3b8@4ax.com>, at 22:05:35 on >>Mon, 29 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Variable limits (eg, on "smart" motorways) are always enforced by standard, >>>instantaneous cameras (eg, Gatsos).
The thing is, are the cameras instructed by the very same system as puts
up the signage on the gantries, or are they slightly decoupled and hence >>the possibility of errors creeps in. For example if the gantry reverts
to NSL, the anecdotal evidence [yes I know] would be consistent with the >>cameras lagging slightly.
The cameras change their trigger speed at the same time as the limit >displayed on the gantry.
Failure to do so would render their evidence unreliable in court.
It's not a legal requirement, but common practice is for there to be a short >grace period when the limit changes, so that motorists who are clocked by
the cameras going at what the limit was just before it was reduced don't get >ticketed.
So if you approach a variable limit sign that says 60mph, and it
changes to 50mph as you get there, you won't be ticketed for doing 60mph
past it.
In message <3td13jhmu32rm831csdj1u1bu9v72mhiki@4ax.com>, at 10:25:49 on
Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:48:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ad203j9j7j0fa0noe06nm7945414rrl3b8@4ax.com>, at 22:05:35 on >>>Mon, 29 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
Variable limits (eg, on "smart" motorways) are always enforced by standard, >>>>instantaneous cameras (eg, Gatsos).
The thing is, are the cameras instructed by the very same system as puts >>>up the signage on the gantries, or are they slightly decoupled and hence >>>the possibility of errors creeps in. For example if the gantry reverts
to NSL, the anecdotal evidence [yes I know] would be consistent with the >>>cameras lagging slightly.
The cameras change their trigger speed at the same time as the limit >>displayed on the gantry.
That doesn't answer the question as to whether that's automatic(fsvo) or
two separate systems which need to be kept in synch as much as possible.
It's not a legal requirement, but common practice is for there to be a short >>grace period when the limit changes, so that motorists who are clocked by >>the cameras going at what the limit was just before it was reduced don't get >>ticketed.
Yes, that's what they want you to think. But is it more than say 99.5% >reliable?
In my original example it wasn't a case of the sign changing that >contemporaneously, the driver would have reduced speed to 60mph at the >previous gantry had it been signed. And why is an almost empty road
being congestion-reduced to 60mph anyway?
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:48:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ad203j9j7j0fa0noe06nm7945414rrl3b8@4ax.com>, at 22:05:35 on
Mon, 29 Apr 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Variable limits (eg, on "smart" motorways) are always enforced by standard, >>> instantaneous cameras (eg, Gatsos).
The thing is, are the cameras instructed by the very same system as puts
up the signage on the gantries, or are they slightly decoupled and hence
the possibility of errors creeps in. For example if the gantry reverts
to NSL, the anecdotal evidence [yes I know] would be consistent with the
cameras lagging slightly.
The cameras change their trigger speed at the same time as the limit displayed on the gantry. Failure to do so would render their evidence unreliable in court.
It's not a legal requirement, but common practice is for there to be a short grace period when the limit changes, so that motorists who are clocked by
the cameras going at what the limit was just before it was reduced don't get ticketed. So if you approach a variable limit sign that says 60mph, and it changes to 50mph as you get there, you won't be ticketed for doing 60mph
past it.
The cameras change their trigger speed at the same time as the limit
displayed on the gantry. Failure to do so would render their evidence
unreliable in court.
That may be true but the system is certainly not infallible.
I have seen the M62 with alternate "smart" motorway gantries at 60 and
40 for some considerable distance with busy weekend traffic and causing
total chaos since only some traffic was obeying the signage.
It's not a legal requirement, but common practice is for there to be a short >> grace period when the limit changes, so that motorists who are clocked by
the cameras going at what the limit was just before it was reduced don't get >> ticketed. So if you approach a variable limit sign that says 60mph, and it >> changes to 50mph as you get there, you won't be ticketed for doing 60mph
past it.
It would be unreasonable to change the speed limit down from 60 to 40
as a car passes the point where the overhead sign ceases to be visible
from inside the vehicle and then prosecute them for being over the new
limit.
What I'm more concerned about is the cameras getting "stuck" at 60mph
when the gantries have reverted to 70mph.
In message <v0ubtl$3cqrt$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:24:01 on Wed, 1 May
2024, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
The cameras change their trigger speed at the same time as the limit
displayed on the gantry. Failure to do so would render their evidence
unreliable in court.
That may be true but the system is certainly not infallible.
I have seen the M62 with alternate "smart" motorway gantries at 60 and
40 for some considerable distance with busy weekend traffic and causing >>total chaos since only some traffic was obeying the signage.
Changing topic slightly, I've noticed that drivers usually ignore "lane >closed" signs; on the other hand there's often no visible reason why
that lane should have been closed in the first place.
Roland Perry wrote:
What I'm more concerned about is the cameras getting "stuck" at 60mph
when the gantries have reverted to 70mph.
Hopefully what I heard years ago still applies, which is that the
gantry speed limit display is burned into the photos, it used to be
done by fibre-optic strands reading light from individual pixels in the >display matrix.
On Fri, 3 May 2024 07:07:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <v0ubtl$3cqrt$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:24:01 on Wed, 1 May
2024, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
The cameras change their trigger speed at the same time as the limit
displayed on the gantry. Failure to do so would render their evidence
unreliable in court.
That may be true but the system is certainly not infallible.
I have seen the M62 with alternate "smart" motorway gantries at 60 and
40 for some considerable distance with busy weekend traffic and causing >>>total chaos since only some traffic was obeying the signage.
Changing topic slightly, I've noticed that drivers usually ignore "lane >>closed" signs; on the other hand there's often no visible reason why
that lane should have been closed in the first place.
They're closed in advance precisely *because* the obstruction isn't yet >visible, and leaving the closure until it's within eyesight doesn't give >enough time for all drivers to safely move out of the obstructed lane.
In message <2qr93jli5268251jjiqbj8ptannme7oh59@4ax.com>, at 15:09:27 on
Fri, 3 May 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Fri, 3 May 2024 07:07:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <v0ubtl$3cqrt$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:24:01 on Wed, 1 May >>>2024, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
The cameras change their trigger speed at the same time as the limit >>>>> displayed on the gantry. Failure to do so would render their evidence >>>>> unreliable in court.
That may be true but the system is certainly not infallible.
I have seen the M62 with alternate "smart" motorway gantries at 60 and >>>>40 for some considerable distance with busy weekend traffic and causing >>>>total chaos since only some traffic was obeying the signage.
Changing topic slightly, I've noticed that drivers usually ignore "lane >>>closed" signs; on the other hand there's often no visible reason why
that lane should have been closed in the first place.
They're closed in advance precisely *because* the obstruction isn't yet >>visible, and leaving the closure until it's within eyesight doesn't give >>enough time for all drivers to safely move out of the obstructed lane.
I've never seen their helicopter plucking the obstruction off the
carriageway while the traffic hurtles towards it from a distance.
Instead you normally have a lane closed sign, followed by several miles
of all-lanes-unobstructed, until you finally get to a sign which says
"all clear"
Andy Burns remarked:
Hopefully what I heard years ago still applies, which is that the
gantry speed limit display is burned into the photos, it used to be
done by fibre-optic strands reading light from individual pixels in
the display matrix.
Perhaps for the old-fashioned gatsos mounted on the gantry, but not for
the newer telescopic cameras mounted some distance away on the verge.
I've never seen their helicopter plucking the obstruction off the
carriageway while the traffic hurtles towards it from a distance.
Roland Perry wrote:
I've never seen their helicopter plucking the obstruction off the >>carriageway while the traffic hurtles towards it from a distance.
Similarly, I have to assume the "Pedestrians in carriageway" must be >collected by a passing MegaBus before I see them ...
Roland Perry wrote:
Andy Burns remarked:
Hopefully what I heard years ago still applies, which is that the
gantry speed limit display is burned into the photos, it used to be
done by fibre-optic strands reading light from individual pixels in
the display matrix.
Perhaps for the old-fashioned gatsos mounted on the gantry, but not
for the newer telescopic cameras mounted some distance away on the
verge.
Yes, I wondered about those, but given the trouble they went to on the
old ones to ensure quality of photographic evidence, why wouldn't they
need similar safeguards?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 52:19:02 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,177 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
