Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Seatbelt fine incorrectly issued and no evidence - should I dispute?
1,862 views
Skip to first unread message
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 17, 2015, 12:06:35 PM5/17/15
to
A year ago I was fined £100 for not wearing a seatbelt, and paid up. 3 weeks ago I was fined again and paid up.
I decided it was getting too expensive and now wear one all the time, even though I find them annoying at junctions as they always lock when you lean forwards.
But today, **while wearing one**, I was stopped again (different police officers AFAIK, I didn't recognise them). He claimed I "had it on behind my back" when he saw me waiting at a roundabout and that his colleague saw me too. I told him that would be pointless as it's an old car without a seatbelt warning bleeper. I am 100% sure I was wearing one, as when I was pulled over, I removed it to get out to speak to the police officers. I pointed this out to him and he said I "must have slipped it behind me". I told him I'd recently had a fine and was therefore wearing one every day, but he just ignored me. I then asked if he had photographic evidence as they have cameras in cars, and he said no, as he isn't a traffic cop. I then asked how I go about disputing the ticket, and he said I'm to simply not pay up and they'll take me to court. That doesn't seem right, that would make it appear as though I was ignoring the fine, shouldn't I write a letter?
So question 1 is how to make a dispute correctly.
Question 2 is what is the fine if the dispute fails?
Question 3 is don't they need evidence to support their claim? At the moment it's my word against two policemen (which I consider as one person as they're colleagues and would back each other up). I assume they have targets to meet too....
I decided it was getting too expensive and now wear one all the time, even though I find them annoying at junctions as they always lock when you lean forwards.
But today, **while wearing one**, I was stopped again (different police officers AFAIK, I didn't recognise them). He claimed I "had it on behind my back" when he saw me waiting at a roundabout and that his colleague saw me too. I told him that would be pointless as it's an old car without a seatbelt warning bleeper. I am 100% sure I was wearing one, as when I was pulled over, I removed it to get out to speak to the police officers. I pointed this out to him and he said I "must have slipped it behind me". I told him I'd recently had a fine and was therefore wearing one every day, but he just ignored me. I then asked if he had photographic evidence as they have cameras in cars, and he said no, as he isn't a traffic cop. I then asked how I go about disputing the ticket, and he said I'm to simply not pay up and they'll take me to court. That doesn't seem right, that would make it appear as though I was ignoring the fine, shouldn't I write a letter?
So question 1 is how to make a dispute correctly.
Question 2 is what is the fine if the dispute fails?
Question 3 is don't they need evidence to support their claim? At the moment it's my word against two policemen (which I consider as one person as they're colleagues and would back each other up). I assume they have targets to meet too....
Fredxxx
May 17, 2015, 12:31:35 PM5/17/15
to
On 17/05/2015 16:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
<snip>
> Question 3 is don't they need evidence to support their claim? At
> the moment it's my word against two policemen (which I consider as
> one person as they're colleagues and would back each other up). I
> assume they have targets to meet too....
All the evidence that is required is testimony from two policemen.
I don't know why you would want to expend more energy fighting a lost
cause that will just cause more stress and have costs awarded against
you, plus a victim surcharge if you're unlucky.
<snip>
> Question 3 is don't they need evidence to support their claim? At
> the moment it's my word against two policemen (which I consider as
> one person as they're colleagues and would back each other up). I
> assume they have targets to meet too....
I don't know why you would want to expend more energy fighting a lost
cause that will just cause more stress and have costs awarded against
you, plus a victim surcharge if you're unlucky.
TTman
May 17, 2015, 3:25:42 PM5/17/15
to
On 17/05/2015 16:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
situation, no matter how 'right' you are :(. The only way you stand a
chance is an independent witness or an in car video camera of your
own... £25 on ebay...
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 17, 2015, 3:25:59 PM5/17/15
to
Steve Walker
May 17, 2015, 3:37:05 PM5/17/15
to
On 17/05/2015 17:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> Maybe because I'm in the right? Don't we have justice in the UK anymore?
You are entitled to your day in court. The simple way is to ignore the
> Maybe because I'm in the right? Don't we have justice in the UK anymore?
ticket and wait. If you feel compelled to act, write to the Chief
Constable saying you deny the accusation and you demand your day in
court. Don't accuse the cops of dishonesty unless you want to provoke.
There's a fair chance it won't go anyway if you stoutly deny it at
court. Bringing two cops in to give evidence is a lot of hassle, and CPS
might just discontinue the case rather than list it for trial on a later
date.
Anything you can do to seem like a respectable chap at the first
appearance will help (not saying you're not). Smart dress, mention your
good driving record, honest working man etc.
Fredxxx
May 17, 2015, 3:44:31 PM5/17/15
to
ought not make such claims of character, or the prosecution could well
introduce this fact.
Fredxxx
May 17, 2015, 3:47:23 PM5/17/15
to
those who drive at excessive speed.
Being "in the right" is no consequence when those around you disagree.
Roger Hayter
May 17, 2015, 3:48:32 PM5/17/15
to
his two previous penalties for the same offence? I think the OP is
unfortunately not in a good position to win if the police concerned are
determined to give evidence that they saw him not wearing a belt.
--
Roger Hayter
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
GB
May 17, 2015, 5:07:03 PM5/17/15
to
On 17/05/2015 20:55, August West wrote:
>
I'm not saying the police are all angels, but I wouldn't expect them to
fit someone up just for not wearing a seatbelt. If they were going to
perjure themselves, I'd expect them to do it for something a bit more
substantial than that. I'm sure that's what the magistrates will think.
>
> The entity calling itself Roger Hayter wrote:
>>
>> If he mentions his good record are the prosecution allowed to mention
>> his two previous penalties for the same offence?
>
> Yes; Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 s.266(4).
> The entity calling itself Roger Hayter wrote:
>>
>> If he mentions his good record are the prosecution allowed to mention
>> his two previous penalties for the same offence?
>
>
I'm not saying the police are all angels, but I wouldn't expect them to
fit someone up just for not wearing a seatbelt. If they were going to
perjure themselves, I'd expect them to do it for something a bit more
substantial than that. I'm sure that's what the magistrates will think.
steve robinson
May 17, 2015, 5:30:13 PM5/17/15
to
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2015 17:25:53 +0100, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > On 17/05/2015 16:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Question 3 is don't they need evidence to support their claim? At
> > > the moment it's my word against two policemen (which I consider as
> > > one person as they're colleagues and would back each other up). I
> > > assume they have targets to meet too....
> >
> > All the evidence that is required is testimony from two policemen.
> >
> > I don't know why you would want to expend more energy fighting a
> > lost cause that will just cause more stress and have costs awarded
> > against you, plus a victim surcharge if you're unlucky.
>
> Maybe because I'm in the right? Don't we have justice in the UK
> anymore?
Its not wether your guilty or not, its how deep are your pockets and
> On Sun, 17 May 2015 17:25:53 +0100, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > On 17/05/2015 16:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Question 3 is don't they need evidence to support their claim? At
> > > the moment it's my word against two policemen (which I consider as
> > > one person as they're colleagues and would back each other up). I
> > > assume they have targets to meet too....
> >
> > All the evidence that is required is testimony from two policemen.
> >
> > I don't know why you would want to expend more energy fighting a
> > lost cause that will just cause more stress and have costs awarded
> > against you, plus a victim surcharge if you're unlucky.
>
> Maybe because I'm in the right? Don't we have justice in the UK
> anymore?
what yuo an prove, get a top of the line legal team and you might get
the case re heard but realisically you won't recover what you spent
Some guy did it recently wth a speeding the procescution hired an
airport runway and performed testds on a similar vehicle, end result
he copped £11K worth of costs
Tim+
May 17, 2015, 5:30:52 PM5/17/15
to
"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> A year ago I was fined £100 for not wearing a seatbelt, and paid up. 3
routinely sit on a buckled up belt to avoid "wearing" it but appear to be
wearing one on casual inspection.
> I am 100% sure I was wearing one,
Again, an odd turn of phrase. Why do you feel the need to assert on this
occasion unless you are in the habit on of not wearing one on other
occasions?
Just pointing out how your own phraseology isn't really terribly convincing
if you're thinking of taking this to court.
Tim
> A year ago I was fined £100 for not wearing a seatbelt, and paid up. 3
> weeks ago I was fined again and paid up.
>
> I decided it was getting too expensive and now wear one all the time,
> even though I find them annoying at junctions as they always lock when you lean forwards.
>
> But today, **while wearing one**, I was stopped again (different police
> officers AFAIK, I didn't recognise them). He claimed I "had it on behind
> my back" when he saw me waiting at a roundabout and that his colleague
> saw me too. I told him that would be pointless as it's an old car
> without a seatbelt warning bleeper.
Um, can't really see how that makes any difference at all. You could
>
> I decided it was getting too expensive and now wear one all the time,
> even though I find them annoying at junctions as they always lock when you lean forwards.
>
> But today, **while wearing one**, I was stopped again (different police
> officers AFAIK, I didn't recognise them). He claimed I "had it on behind
> my back" when he saw me waiting at a roundabout and that his colleague
> saw me too. I told him that would be pointless as it's an old car
> without a seatbelt warning bleeper.
routinely sit on a buckled up belt to avoid "wearing" it but appear to be
wearing one on casual inspection.
> I am 100% sure I was wearing one,
occasion unless you are in the habit on of not wearing one on other
occasions?
Just pointing out how your own phraseology isn't really terribly convincing
if you're thinking of taking this to court.
Tim
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 17, 2015, 5:31:44 PM5/17/15
to
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 17, 2015, 5:32:01 PM5/17/15
to
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 17, 2015, 5:32:11 PM5/17/15
to
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 17, 2015, 5:32:27 PM5/17/15
to
On Sun, 17 May 2015 20:55:58 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>
> The entity calling itself Roger Hayter wrote:
>>
>
> The entity calling itself Roger Hayter wrote:
>>
>> If he mentions his good record are the prosecution allowed to mention
>> his two previous penalties for the same offence?
>
>> his two previous penalties for the same offence?
>
> Yes; Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 s.266(4).
No they can't. It clearly states that the record of the offence is removed when you pay the £100.
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 17, 2015, 5:33:56 PM5/17/15
to
GB
May 17, 2015, 5:55:30 PM5/17/15
to
On 17/05/2015 20:53, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> It wouldn't be so bad if they only punished drivers for endangering
> others, but for endangering yourself?
If no emergency services would be required, I could begin to sympathise
> It wouldn't be so bad if they only punished drivers for endangering
> others, but for endangering yourself?
with that pov.
Pelican
May 17, 2015, 7:40:24 PM5/17/15
to
"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.xyspq...@red.lan...
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 18, 2015, 2:31:08 AM5/18/15
to
On Sun, 17 May 2015 22:08:47 +0100, Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> A year ago I was fined £100 for not wearing a seatbelt, and paid up. 3
> "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> weeks ago I was fined again and paid up.
>>
>> I decided it was getting too expensive and now wear one all the time,
>> even though I find them annoying at junctions as they always lock when you lean forwards.
>>
>> But today, **while wearing one**, I was stopped again (different police
>> officers AFAIK, I didn't recognise them). He claimed I "had it on behind
>> my back" when he saw me waiting at a roundabout and that his colleague
>> saw me too. I told him that would be pointless as it's an old car
>> without a seatbelt warning bleeper.
>
> Um, can't really see how that makes any difference at all. You could
> routinely sit on a buckled up belt to avoid "wearing" it but appear to be
> wearing one on casual inspection.
From the front it doesn't look like you're wearing it, so pointless.
>>
>> I decided it was getting too expensive and now wear one all the time,
>> even though I find them annoying at junctions as they always lock when you lean forwards.
>>
>> But today, **while wearing one**, I was stopped again (different police
>> officers AFAIK, I didn't recognise them). He claimed I "had it on behind
>> my back" when he saw me waiting at a roundabout and that his colleague
>> saw me too. I told him that would be pointless as it's an old car
>> without a seatbelt warning bleeper.
>
> Um, can't really see how that makes any difference at all. You could
> routinely sit on a buckled up belt to avoid "wearing" it but appear to be
> wearing one on casual inspection.
>> I am 100% sure I was wearing one,
>
> Again, an odd turn of phrase. Why do you feel the need to assert on this
> occasion unless you are in the habit on of not wearing one on other
> occasions?
> Just pointing out how your own phraseology isn't really terribly convincing
> if you're thinking of taking this to court.
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 18, 2015, 2:31:19 AM5/18/15
to
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 18, 2015, 2:31:47 AM5/18/15
to
Pelican
May 18, 2015, 3:08:04 AM5/18/15
to
news:op.xys0j...@red.lan...
I don't see any basis upon which the two previous penalties can be taken
into account. The prosecution isn't free to introduce them as stand-alone
evidence. S.266(4) has a special purpose, concerned to limit questions
asked of the OP as a witness about prior criminal matters. It's
significance is related to the exceptions in the paragraphs. I don't see
that the OP would fall within any paragraph.
into account. The prosecution isn't free to introduce them as stand-alone
evidence. S.266(4) has a special purpose, concerned to limit questions
asked of the OP as a witness about prior criminal matters. It's
significance is related to the exceptions in the paragraphs. I don't see
that the OP would fall within any paragraph.
Message has been deleted
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 19, 2015, 12:09:30 PM5/19/15
to
On Tue, 19 May 2015 16:05:20 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
> Maybe, but because your first conviction gave you the reason to avoid a
> second offence you can not rely on a claim that you always act reasonably.
You're assuming it's reasonable to make myself safe, which isn't really anyone's business. No seatbelt doesn't harm others.
> second offence you can not rely on a claim that you always act reasonably.
You're assuming it's reasonable to make myself safe, which isn't really anyone's business. No seatbelt doesn't harm others.
steve robinson
May 19, 2015, 12:46:18 PM5/19/15
to
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 19, 2015, 3:54:17 PM5/19/15
to
steve robinson
May 19, 2015, 4:56:59 PM5/19/15
to
during the second world war encased in 5 meters of concrete all round.
Tough Guy no. 1265
May 19, 2015, 5:49:57 PM5/19/15
to
Roland Perry
May 20, 2015, 6:56:47 AM5/20/15
to
In message <op.xywh5...@red.lan>, at 22:04:12 on Tue, 19 May 2015,
Tough Guy no. 1265 <n...@spam.com> remarked:
for several months. The usual term for them is "nuclear bunker".
>You are most unusual.
Not a fallout shelter, but almost certainly a bomb shelter, the 1920's
garage of the house I last owned had a one-foot-thick concrete ceiling
over the rearmost quarter (which was divided off from the rest of the
garage by a brick wall with a small door in it.
Looking at it from an engineering perspective, I don't know if it's
safer to be bombed when in a shelter whose roof, if it collapsed, would
be bound to crush you. But only a couple of hundred yards away was a
classic local authority air-raid shelter, so they were definitely
expecting visits from the Luftwaffe.
--
Roland Perry
Tough Guy no. 1265 <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>> The chances of that are less than a nuclear holocaust. Do you have a
>>> fallout shelter?
>>
>> Actually yes, under the floor of the now garage in my back garden built
>> during the second world war encased in 5 meters of concrete all round.
A fallout shelter needs air filtration and a supply of food and water
>>> fallout shelter?
>>
>> Actually yes, under the floor of the now garage in my back garden built
>> during the second world war encased in 5 meters of concrete all round.
for several months. The usual term for them is "nuclear bunker".
>You are most unusual.
Not a fallout shelter, but almost certainly a bomb shelter, the 1920's
garage of the house I last owned had a one-foot-thick concrete ceiling
over the rearmost quarter (which was divided off from the rest of the
garage by a brick wall with a small door in it.
Looking at it from an engineering perspective, I don't know if it's
safer to be bombed when in a shelter whose roof, if it collapsed, would
be bound to crush you. But only a couple of hundred yards away was a
classic local authority air-raid shelter, so they were definitely
expecting visits from the Luftwaffe.
--
Roland Perry
JohnDavidson
May 21, 2015, 11:46:00 AM5/21/15
to
As I said I didn't used to wear one, but got fed up of the fines.
------------------
You are entirely within your rights to dispute a fixed penalty. The
instructions for doing so should be on the reverse of the penalty notice.
It is a relatively straightforward procedure. However, you have admitted
that that you consciously chose to break the law on numerous occasions.
If you take this to a hearing, you are likely to lose. You defence seems to
be "I frequently broke the law and wasn't caught. I WAS caught twice, thus
proving that I'm en route to becoming a serial offender. But on this
occasion I wasn't breaking the law and I'd prefer it if nobody mentions the
previous fines or my public admission that I do this a lot." Even a junior
CPS barrister would have a field day with this.
Or try this one:
Magistrate: Have you been given a ticket for this offence before?
You: Yes, twice.
Magistrate: Why didn't you wear a seatbelt?
You: I never wore one because I didn't like them, but I got bored of the
fines. (you are, after all, under oath)
Magistrate: I find for the prosecution. Next case.
This is not intended to be critical of you. Rather, it's a summation of how
the case is likely to proceed.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
Fredxxx
May 21, 2015, 2:20:05 PM5/21/15
to
On 21/05/2015 12:56, JohnDavidson wrote:
> As I said I didn't used to wear one, but got fed up of the fines.
>
> ------------------
>
> You are entirely within your rights to dispute a fixed penalty. The
> instructions for doing so should be on the reverse of the penalty
> notice. It is a relatively straightforward procedure. However, you have
> admitted that that you consciously chose to break the law on numerous
> occasions.
>
> If you take this to a hearing, you are likely to lose. You defence
> seems to be "I frequently broke the law and wasn't caught. I WAS caught
> twice, thus proving that I'm en route to becoming a serial offender.
> But on this occasion I wasn't breaking the law and I'd prefer it if
> nobody mentions the previous fines or my public admission that I do this
> a lot." Even a junior CPS barrister would have a field day with this.
>
> Or try this one:
> Magistrate: Have you been given a ticket for this offence before?
> You: Yes, twice.
What does the Statute of limitations say about this? Can he say "no" and
> As I said I didn't used to wear one, but got fed up of the fines.
>
> ------------------
>
> You are entirely within your rights to dispute a fixed penalty. The
> instructions for doing so should be on the reverse of the penalty
> notice. It is a relatively straightforward procedure. However, you have
> admitted that that you consciously chose to break the law on numerous
> occasions.
>
> If you take this to a hearing, you are likely to lose. You defence
> seems to be "I frequently broke the law and wasn't caught. I WAS caught
> twice, thus proving that I'm en route to becoming a serial offender.
> But on this occasion I wasn't breaking the law and I'd prefer it if
> nobody mentions the previous fines or my public admission that I do this
> a lot." Even a junior CPS barrister would have a field day with this.
>
> Or try this one:
> Magistrate: Have you been given a ticket for this offence before?
> You: Yes, twice.
not be committing perjury?
JohnDavidson
May 21, 2015, 4:30:13 PM5/21/15
to
Without knowing the exact terms under which spent convictions and penalties
can be disregarded in a court, I suspect that penalties issued a year ago
and three weeks ago would not qualify.
Pelican
May 21, 2015, 6:48:36 PM5/21/15
to
"JohnDavidson" <JohnDa...@google.blah> wrote in message
news:VvadnX8g68NNWsDI...@brightview.co.uk...
> As I said I didn't used to wear one, but got fed up of the fines.
>
> ------------------
>
> You are entirely within your rights to dispute a fixed penalty. The
> instructions for doing so should be on the reverse of the penalty notice.
> It is a relatively straightforward procedure. However, you have admitted
> that that you consciously chose to break the law on numerous occasions.
>
> If you take this to a hearing, you are likely to lose. You defence seems
> to be "I frequently broke the law and wasn't caught. I WAS caught twice,
> thus proving that I'm en route to becoming a serial offender. But on this
> occasion I wasn't breaking the law and I'd prefer it if nobody mentions
> the previous fines or my public admission that I do this a lot." Even a
> junior CPS barrister would have a field day with this.
None of that would happen.
>
> ------------------
>
> You are entirely within your rights to dispute a fixed penalty. The
> instructions for doing so should be on the reverse of the penalty notice.
> It is a relatively straightforward procedure. However, you have admitted
> that that you consciously chose to break the law on numerous occasions.
>
> If you take this to a hearing, you are likely to lose. You defence seems
> to be "I frequently broke the law and wasn't caught. I WAS caught twice,
> thus proving that I'm en route to becoming a serial offender. But on this
> occasion I wasn't breaking the law and I'd prefer it if nobody mentions
> the previous fines or my public admission that I do this a lot." Even a
> junior CPS barrister would have a field day with this.
> Or try this one:
> Magistrate: Have you been given a ticket for this offence before?
> You: Yes, twice.
> Magistrate: Why didn't you wear a seatbelt?
> You: I never wore one because I didn't like them, but I got bored of the
> fines. (you are, after all, under oath)
> Magistrate: I find for the prosecution. Next case.
> This is not intended to be critical of you. Rather, it's a summation of
> how the case is likely to proceed.
Pelican
May 21, 2015, 6:51:31 PM5/21/15
to
"JohnDavidson" <JohnDa...@google.blah> wrote in message
notice, the issue does not arise.
Pelican
May 21, 2015, 6:51:39 PM5/21/15
to
"Fredxxx" <fre...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mjl7ic$30i$1...@dont-email.me...
> Can he say "no" and not be committing perjury?
Stuart A. Bronstein
May 22, 2015, 3:44:14 AM5/22/15
to
Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Or try this one:
>> Magistrate: Have you been given a ticket for this offence
>> before? You: Yes, twice.
>
> What does the Statute of limitations say about this? Can he say
> "no" and not be committing perjury?
The statute of limitations has to do with when someone can be
>> Or try this one:
>> Magistrate: Have you been given a ticket for this offence
>> before? You: Yes, twice.
>
> What does the Statute of limitations say about this? Can he say
> "no" and not be committing perjury?
prosecuted. That still doesn't allow you to lie in court while under
oath, even if they could no longer prosecute you.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Roger Hayter
May 22, 2015, 4:52:45 AM5/22/15
to
allows you to tell a technical untruth about your previous convictions
in some circumstances. Giving evidence as a defendant in court isn't
one of them. Although there are protections against the question being
asked inappropriately.
--
Roger Hayter
Fredxxx
May 22, 2015, 9:02:56 AM5/22/15
to
If a defendant believes his previous convictions are spent, and believes
he can tell an untruth in court of this nature in the spirit of this
act, I don't see any come back if he makes such a claim?
Message has been deleted
Roger Dewhurst
Jun 4, 2015, 2:22:28 AM6/4/15
to
On Monday, 18 May 2015 07:25:59 UTC+12, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2015 17:25:53 +0100, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > On 17/05/2015 16:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Question 3 is don't they need evidence to support their claim? At
> >> the moment it's my word against two policemen (which I consider as
> >> one person as they're colleagues and would back each other up). I
> >> assume they have targets to meet too....
> >
> > All the evidence that is required is testimony from two policemen.
> >
> > I don't know why you would want to expend more energy fighting a lost
> > cause that will just cause more stress and have costs awarded against
> > you, plus a victim surcharge if you're unlucky.
>
> Maybe because I'm in the right? Don't we have justice in the UK anymore?
Only in your dreams!
> On Sun, 17 May 2015 17:25:53 +0100, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > On 17/05/2015 16:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Question 3 is don't they need evidence to support their claim? At
> >> the moment it's my word against two policemen (which I consider as
> >> one person as they're colleagues and would back each other up). I
> >> assume they have targets to meet too....
> >
> > All the evidence that is required is testimony from two policemen.
> >
> > I don't know why you would want to expend more energy fighting a lost
> > cause that will just cause more stress and have costs awarded against
> > you, plus a victim surcharge if you're unlucky.
>
> Maybe because I'm in the right? Don't we have justice in the UK anymore?
Only in your dreams!
Pelican
Jun 4, 2015, 7:35:34 PM6/4/15
to
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:020a953f-c982-4dc7...@googlegroups.com...
Stuart A. Bronstein
Jun 4, 2015, 8:13:58 PM6/4/15
to
"Pelican" <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurs...@gmail.com> wrote
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurs...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>> Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> > I don't know why you would want to expend more energy
>>> > fighting a lost cause that will just cause more stress and
>>> > have costs awarded against you, plus a victim surcharge if
>>> > you're unlucky.
>>>
>>> Maybe because I'm in the right? Don't we have justice in the
>>> UK anymore?
>>
>> Only in your dreams!
>
> Martin Luther King had a dream.
But he didn't wear a seatbelt.
>>> > I don't know why you would want to expend more energy
>>> > fighting a lost cause that will just cause more stress and
>>> > have costs awarded against you, plus a victim surcharge if
>>> > you're unlucky.
>>>
>>> Maybe because I'm in the right? Don't we have justice in the
>>> UK anymore?
>>
>> Only in your dreams!
>
> Martin Luther King had a dream.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Pelican
Jun 4, 2015, 8:32:53 PM6/4/15
to
"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA4AFAF3ADF7FCs...@130.133.4.11...
0 new messages