 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / July 2005Safety Cameras in Surrey
Probably too late for most of you, but keep alert if you intend to pass Godalming on the A3. Between Thursley and Hurtmore there is an installation of cameras on the overbridge. This seems to be both speed cameras And ANPR because there are many police bikes and a "portable police station" parked up illegally on the verge nearby (they don't seem to realise that double yellow lines apply to the verge as well as to the carriageway, tut, tut.) They have a camera sign on the road, and on the van. However the signs are not on the A3 and sign on the van can only be seen from the overbridge because it's on the back door and the van is parked side on to the dual carriageway. I'm glad to see that my tax money is being wisely spent by persecuting^W prosecuting people who exceed the speed limit by some arbitrary amount and that Surrey can afford to spare about 40 coppers for the job with associated equipment and vehicles. Shame the bastards couldn't track down the bloke who burgled my house, every other house in the street, stole a car, threatened my grandson, left his "dabs" and DNA all over the place and actually showed his face to three coppers on the street before legging it, being caught on camera using my credit card to buy petrol and dumping the stolen car outside his own home. Still since he didn't speed at any time I acknowledge it was an impossible crime to solve. Oh and BTW, no I didn't get done for speeding or anything else.  Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 > Probably too late for most of you, but keep alert if you intend to pass > Godalming on the A3. Between Thursley and Hurtmore there is an > installation of cameras on the overbridge. Submit it to the pocketgps database. > > Probably too late for most of you, but keep alert if you intend to pass > > Godalming on the A3. Between Thursley and Hurtmore there is an > > installation of cameras on the overbridge. > > Submit it to the pocketgps database. Is there much point? This is a temporary installation, never seen them there before. I've seen them further south on the A3 at Hindhead and also on the same stretch a bit further south from today's spot at Thursley. Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 > Probably too late for most of you, but keep alert if you intend to > pass Godalming on the A3. Between Thursley and Hurtmore there is an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (they don't seem to realise that double yellow lines apply to the > verge as well as to the carriageway, tut, tut.) Complaints backed by photographs - tell all your friends. > They have a camera sign on the road, and on the van. However the > signs are not on the A3 and sign on the van can only be seen from the > overbridge because it's on the back door and the van is parked side > on to the dual carriageway. Complaints backed by photographs - tell all your friends. > I'm glad to see that my tax money is being wisely spent by > persecuting^W prosecuting people who exceed the speed limit by some > arbitrary amount and that Surrey can afford to spare about 40 coppers > for the job with associated equipment and vehicles. Complaints backed by photographs - tell all your friends. > Shame the bastards couldn't track down the bloke who burgled my > house, every other house in the street, stole a car, threatened my > grandson, left his "dabs" and DNA all over the place and actually > showed his face to three coppers on the street before legging it, > being caught on camera using my credit card to buy petrol and dumping > the stolen car outside his own home. =8( Really serious complaints from you and all your neighbours, and press coverage, perhaps a council candidate... Shame the c.nts. > Still since he didn't speed at any time I acknowledge it was an > impossible crime to solve. Damn! > Oh and BTW, no I didn't get done for speeding or anything else. Unlike your local plod you don't appear to be useless. :) A > > Oh and BTW, no I didn't get done for speeding or anything else. > > Unlike your local plod you don't appear to be useless. :) Oh no, not my local plod, I used to live up there but moved elsewhere after the burglary. The plod here are no better at catching crooks but we're so far into the countryside that mostly I never see them and the criminals really CBA to troll around miles of country lanes in the hope there may be a house somewhere that doesn't have an underfed Rottweiler in the yard. Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 > Probably too late for most of you, but keep alert if you intend to pass > Godalming on the A3. Between Thursley and Hurtmore there is an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to realise that double yellow lines apply to the verge as well as to the > carriageway, tut, tut.) Between Thursley & Hurtmore - do you mean at Milford? They often sit in a little side turn on the northbound carriageway just north of the Thursley junction with their radar gun, where people often charge along at 80 venting their frustration at having been stuck behind slow vehicles round the single carriageway Devils Punchbowl. Were these permanent cameras? Sounds like with the police presence you were talking about, this was a trawl for unlicensed cars through the ANPR system. Worth bearing in mind, as southbound on the A3 I will often be making sure I get past that slow lorry in the distance before hitting the single carriageway steep uphill ahead, and possibly speeding a tad. > Between Thursley & Hurtmore - do you mean at Milford? Well it's not really at Milford is it? It's more like Eashing at that point. > They often sit in a little side turn on the northbound carriageway just > north of the Thursley junction with their radar gun, where people often > charge along at 80 venting their frustration at having been stuck behind > slow vehicles round the single carriageway Devils Punchbowl. Yup, see them there often. > Were these permanent cameras? No, on tripods. > Sounds like with the police presence you were > talking about, this was a trawl for unlicensed cars through the ANPR system. That could have been why I mentioned ANPR cameras. But there were eight cameras total and two on each carriageway were speed cameras. > Worth bearing in mind, as southbound on the A3 I will often be making sure I > get past that slow lorry in the distance before hitting the single > carriageway steep uphill ahead, and possibly speeding a tad. Lot of people are usually going "quite fast" as they pass the service station at Eashing. Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "Steve Firth" wrote in message > Probably too late for most of you, but keep alert if you intend to pass > Godalming on the A3. Between Thursley and Hurtmore there is an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to realise that double yellow lines apply to the verge as well as to the > carriageway, tut, tut.) Thanks for the warning. The presence of so many police vehicles suggests the use of ANPR as you say. Before the Fleet Review in Portsmouth recently all of the approach roads were covered by ANPR vans accompanied by police bikes. Seems as though the A3 isn't a road to use if there is any thing 'iffy' about your car. I imagine the police can authorise themselves to park their portable police station where they like, just as they can authorise an LGV to park on a grass verge under the Highways Act 1988, Section 19 (2) a. Ian >> Probably too late for most of you, but keep alert if you intend to >> pass Godalming on the A3. Between Thursley and Hurtmore there is an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> (they don't seem to realise that double yellow lines apply to the >> verge as well as to the carriageway, tut, tut.) > Thanks for the warning. The presence of so many police vehicles > suggests the use of ANPR as you say. Before the Fleet Review in > Portsmouth recently all of the approach roads were covered by ANPR > vans accompanied by police bikes. Good. The more ANPR the better. >>> Probably too late for most of you, but keep alert if you intend to >>> pass Godalming on the A3. Between Thursley and Hurtmore there is an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The more ANPR the better. I had to look up what ANPR means - Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) I had a horrible fealing it meant something like "All Near Prosecute Regardless" or something. But what use could this be other than for non taxed / insured / registered / suspect terrorist vehicles, etc? I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Pleased to see that at least some technology is being directed correctly, as long as it's not just a cover for getting everyone doing 71mph on a motorway. . >>> Thanks for the warning. The presence of so many police vehicles >>> suggests the use of ANPR as you say. Before the Fleet Review in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But what use could this be other than for non taxed / insured / registered > / suspect terrorist vehicles, etc? If you believe what you see on the telly, they check for untaxed cars and pull 'em over. Not having tax is often indicative of other things, like uninsured drivers, drivers wanted for other offences etc. It's OK so long as they discard/never store any information on cars that don't match. There is quite enough Big Brother around without more instances of keeping such information "just in case", even if I have been driving quite legitimately and legally. I would be most offended if, sometime in the future, I had to justify why I was driving down a particular road at a particular time. "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoniker@hotmail.co.uk> wrote . I would be most offended if, sometime in the > future, I had to justify why I was driving down a particular road at a > particular time. Do you have a mobile phone? Because if you do, your provider can and will tell the police where you went on any given day for as long as you have had it, regardless of whether you actually used it. Your mobile phone is the Government's spy on your movements. Besides which, why would you be offended? What would you have done? SignatureRegards, Vince. www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk "Knight Of The Road" wrote in message > > Do you have a mobile phone? Because if you do, your provider can and will > tell the police where you went on any given day for as long as you have > had it, regardless of whether you actually used it. Your mobile phone is > the Government's spy on your movements. I never have my mobile phone switched on in the car, so the government don't know where I am. Is that to be a new offence? Will we in future have to leave our phones switched on for tracking purposes, but not answer them unless hands free in case we cause an accident? Ian > "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoniker@hotmail.co.uk> wrote . > I would be most offended if, sometime in the >> future, I had to justify why I was driving down a particular road at a >> particular time. > Do you have a mobile phone? Because if you do, your provider can and will > tell the police where you went on any given day for as long as you have > had it, regardless of whether you actually used it. Your mobile phone is > the Government's spy on your movements. The mobile phone companies don't give up this information on any idle request - only on court order. Similarly, transactions on your credit card/ATM need similar process, so at least there is some part of the judiciary involved. The police just gathering info for their own (mis)use is another matter. When politicians say "we'll only use this information [e.g. where/when you use your ID card, where you've been driving once satellite tracking for road pricing comes in] for serious criminal investigations", (1) they shouldn't be trusted as it very soon is used for rather more, and (2) even if you trust the current set of politicians, future ones can misuse it without even having to have jsutified it themselves. > Besides which, why would you be offended? What would you have done? Nothing, and I don't see why I should have to justify my movements or activities to anyone. > > Do you have a mobile phone? Because if you do, your provider can and will > > tell the police where you went on any given day for as long as you have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The mobile phone companies don't give up this information on any idle > request - only on court order. Absolute tosh, complete and utter rubbish, you are living in a fantasy land. The mobile phone networks provide access to location data for anyone that is willing to pay for it. All you do is buy their API products and write your interface. Perhaps you haven't noticed the huge boom in location based services and tracking facilities? The problem is that the mobile phone networks are supposed to get your permission before passing the data to the LBS provider. What they actually do is shirk that responsibility and say that the LBS provider should get you to agree to the tracking. That is almost certainly not legal. In addition to that the networks don't even bother to check whether such permission has been granted unless there is a complaint. That also is almost certainly not legal. And finally, the networks are required by The United Kingdom Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 to provide each customer with an option to disable tracking of their handset. I know of only two of major networks that do this, O2 and Vodafone. Orange DO NOT allow an opt out and that is most certainly not legal. There was an incident a while ago where the URL of a website that had open access to a tracking interface was published. I successfuly tracked the location of my own and friends phones without any consent being asked or given at any time whatsoever. One person even tracked the phone of his MP and sent him a copy of the timestamped map showing his location. The facility was closed down quite quickly because, as you can imagine, it was hammered with people trying to use it. The point is that the networks provide access to location data with little or no security checking of the people who want it and certainly with no legal compliance for consent or opt out (O2 and Voda excepted). You can be tracked by anyone that puts their mind to it. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] In article <m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST-CD55A2.16282721072005@no-reverse- defined.ja.net>, Mark Foster says... > Absolute tosh, complete and utter rubbish, you are living in a fantasy > land. The mobile phone networks provide access to location data for > anyone that is willing to pay for it. <falls over at supporting Mark> Isn't there even a service you can subscribe to which allows you to track where a mobile phone is? Ah - here's the URL: http://www.followus.co.uk/index.html £29.99 a year for the cheapest. SignatureConor -You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python) >> Besides which, why would you be offended? What would you have done? > > Nothing, and I don't see why I should have to justify my movements or > activities to anyone. If a murder had taken place along that road and you were one of only a few cars to have used that road, I would jolly well hope the police forced you to explain yourself. > >> Besides which, why would you be offended? What would you have done? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cars to have used that road, I would jolly well hope the police forced you > to explain yourself. Bollocks. If I had driven that that road and had done nothing wrong then there is nothing to "explain". SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >>>> Besides which, why would you be offended? What would you have done? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bollocks. If I had driven that that road and had done nothing wrong > then there is nothing to "explain". So if it was your wife/mother/child that had been killed, you'd be perfectly ok with the police not questioning any of the 5 drivers that used that road around the time? Come on, be realistic, the police have to investigate all "likely suspects", otherwise they'd never catch anyone. > >>>> Besides which, why would you be offended? What would you have done? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > around the time? Come on, be realistic, the police have to investigate all > "likely suspects", otherwise they'd never catch anyone. The police questioning a suspect in a murder case is not the same thing as being "forced to explain yourself". SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >>>> If a murder had taken place along that road and you were one of >>>> only a few cars to have used that road, I would jolly well hope [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The police questioning a suspect in a murder case is not the same > thing as being "forced to explain yourself". Why not? I'm sure as part of the questioning they would ask you to explain why you were using that road. If you couldn't prove you were using it for an innocent purpose then they wouldn't be able to wipe you off their suspect list. It doesn't mean you're guilty, even the police aren't that stupid, but it means you would still be on their suspect list until they found more evidence. > >>>> If a murder had taken place along that road and you were one of > >>>> only a few cars to have used that road, I would jolly well hope [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Why not? Because as an ordinary person going about your business having done nothing wrong, you should not be "forced to explain yourself". The very term implies that you have to justify your actions. > I'm sure as part of the questioning they would ask you to explain > why you were using that road. It's none of their business. > If you couldn't prove you were using it for > an innocent purpose then they wouldn't be able to wipe you off their suspect > list. You've got it all bass-ackwards. If they can't prove that you were using it for a nefarious purpose they have no business harassing you. > It doesn't mean you're guilty, Too bloody right it doesn't. > even the police aren't that stupid, No, but it seems that you might be. > but it means you would still be on their suspect list until they found more > evidence. That's fine. I am happy to remain on the suspect list if the alternative is being "forced to explain myself". Now, try and understand, if I willingly volunteer information to assist the police in their investigation that is an _entirely_ different thing. Nobody, at any time, should be "forced to explain themselves" for no other reason that a vehicle bearing an index that a database shows is registered to them was recognised by another piece of computer software as being on a particular road at a particular time. Especially when your world view seem to that the burden is upon you to prove that you are using it for an innocent purpose. How long does it take you to iron your black shirt for meetings? SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >>>>>> If a murder had taken place along that road and you were one of >>>>>> only a few cars to have used that road, I would jolly well hope [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > It's none of their business. It jolly well is, they are the police and investigating a murder, you were there. >> If you couldn't prove you were using it for >> an innocent purpose then they wouldn't be able to wipe you off their >> suspect list. > > You've got it all bass-ackwards. If they can't prove that you were > using it for a nefarious purpose they have no business harassing you. Well they can (and will) come and ask what you were doing. Of course you don't have to say anything if you don't want to, but it's hardly going to assist your case. >> but it means you would still be on their suspect list until they >> found more evidence. > > That's fine. I am happy to remain on the suspect list if the > alternative is being "forced to explain myself". Good for you, I however would rather just explain myself and not have the police follow me/tap my phoneline/contact my friends/housemates/employer etc to try and eliminate me from the investigation. > >>>>>> If a murder had taken place along that road and you were one of > >>>>>> only a few cars to have used that road, I would jolly well hope [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > It jolly well is, they are the police and investigating a murder, you were > there. They can ask and if I feel like answering then I will. There is no requirement for me to "explain myself". > >> If you couldn't prove you were using it for > >> an innocent purpose then they wouldn't be able to wipe you off their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't have to say anything if you don't want to, but it's hardly going to > assist your case. What case? I am not charged with anything, there is no case to answer. > >> but it means you would still be on their suspect list until they > >> found more evidence. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > police follow me/tap my phoneline/contact my friends/housemates/employer etc > to try and eliminate me from the investigation. Well good for you. You bend over and hold on to your ankles like a good boy. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >>>>>>>> If a murder had taken place along that road and you were one of >>>>>>>> only a few cars to have used that road, I would jolly well hope [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > They can ask and if I feel like answering then I will. There is no > requirement for me to "explain myself". Well of course not, they're not going to torture you if you don't reply, but you could end up spending a night in the police station while they question you pretty hard. Not exactly pleasant. What do you think they will do if you are the only driver who has not explained what they were doing on that road? >>>> If you couldn't prove you were using it for >>>> an innocent purpose then they wouldn't be able to wipe you off [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What case? I am not charged with anything, there is no case to answer. No, but you're a suspect, and all suspects are part of the case. Refusing to help the police with their inquiries isn't going to go down too well. >>>> but it means you would still be on their suspect list until they >>>> found more evidence. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well good for you. You bend over and hold on to your ankles like a > good boy. Oh do grow up. You're the one more likely to get beaten up by the police when you refuse to answer what you were doing at a murder scene. > >>>>>>>> If a murder had taken place along that road and you were one of > >>>>>>>> only a few cars to have used that road, I would jolly well hope [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > you could end up spending a night in the police station while they question > you pretty hard. Not exactly pleasant. That would require an arrest. Driving along a road doing nothing wrong is not an arrestable offence. > What do you think they will do if you are the only driver who has not > explained what they were doing on that road? Come up with some evidence or leave me alone. > >>>> If you couldn't prove you were using it for > >>>> an innocent purpose then they wouldn't be able to wipe you off [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No, but you're a suspect, and all suspects are part of the case. Refusing > to help the police with their inquiries isn't going to go down too well. I didn't say I wouldn't help them. You seem to have trouble with the difference between a citizen helping police with their inquiries and a police state forcing someone to explain themselves. > >>>> but it means you would still be on their suspect list until they > >>>> found more evidence. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Oh do grow up. You're the one more likely to get beaten up by the police > when you refuse to answer what you were doing at a murder scene. Nice that you have such faith in the boys in blue. You appear to have a problem with metaphors too. I wasn't actually referring to physical violence of the part of the authorities. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >> Well of course not, they're not going to torture you if you don't >> reply, but you could end up spending a night in the police station >> while they question you pretty hard. Not exactly pleasant. > > That would require an arrest. Driving along a road doing nothing wrong > is not an arrestable offence. Agreed, but they'd probably arrest you for being the only car passing a murder scene and not cooperating with them about this matter. >> What do you think they will do if you are the only driver who has not >> explained what they were doing on that road? > > Come up with some evidence or leave me alone. As the #1 (or any) suspect they're not going to leave you alone. They're going to be searching for further evidence (ie mayeb getting a warrant to search your car, your house etc). > >> Well of course not, they're not going to torture you if you don't > >> reply, but you could end up spending a night in the police station [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Agreed, but they'd probably arrest you for being the only car passing a > murder scene and not cooperating with them about this matter. Again, who said I wouldn't cooperate? There is a world of difference between helping with their enquiries and "being forced to explain yourself". Why is this causing you so much trouble? > >> What do you think they will do if you are the only driver who has not > >> explained what they were doing on that road? > > > > Come up with some evidence or leave me alone. > > As the #1 (or any) suspect they're not going to leave you alone. Oh goody, I'm #1 suspect now. So we've gone from simply driving along minding my own business to most wanted simply because I refuse to accept that I should be "forced to explain myself". I like this game, it's fun. > They're going to be searching for further evidence _Further?_ evidence. They haven't got _any_ yet. > (ie mayeb getting a warrant to search your car, your house etc). Fine. But to get the search warrant they would have to be able to justify it. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >>>> Well of course not, they're not going to torture you if you don't >>>> reply, but you could end up spending a night in the police station [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Fine. But to get the search warrant they would have to be able to > justify it. So, to clarify, the "cause" of the police continuing to take an interest in MFs activites at the material place and time is because someone was killed. However, I'm not understanding whose fault it is. >So, to clarify, the "cause" of the police continuing to take an interest in >MFs activites at the material place and time is because someone was killed. >However, I'm not understanding whose fault it is. Nooooooooooooooooo... SignatureIan >> Agreed, but they'd probably arrest you for being the only car >> passing a murder scene and not cooperating with them about this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > between helping with their enquiries and "being forced to explain > yourself". Why is this causing you so much trouble? Force to explain yourself = probably being arrested if you don't cooperate. Why is that causing you so much trouble? >> They're going to be searching for further evidence > > _Further?_ evidence. They haven't got _any_ yet. Yes they do, you were there at the scene at roughly the right time. That is evidence. Not enough to prosecute you of course, but still some evidence. > >> Agreed, but they'd probably arrest you for being the only car > >> passing a murder scene and not cooperating with them about this [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Yes they do, you were there at the scene at roughly the right time. That is > evidence. Not enough to prosecute you of course, but still some evidence. No. The only thing that proves is that _a_ car with _a_ numberplate in that place at that time. It is circumstancial at best and is no evidence at all that I have anything whatsoever to answer to. I do NOT have to "explain myself". SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] > >> Agreed, but they'd probably arrest you for being the only car > >> passing a murder scene and not cooperating with them about this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Force to explain yourself = probably being arrested if you don't cooperate. > Why is that causing you so much trouble? You really can't see anything wrong with being forced to explain your presence on a road and justifying it with a legitimate reason for being there on pain of being arrested can you? People, like you, with that kind of blind spot, are exactly the sort of people who should NEVER be allowed in power. Unfortunately, that is _exactly_ the sort of people that we do have in power in the form of the last three Home Secretaries. > >> They're going to be searching for further evidence > > > > _Further?_ evidence. They haven't got _any_ yet. > > Yes they do, you were there at the scene at roughly the right time. That is > evidence. Not enough to prosecute you of course, but still some evidence. No. The only thing that proves is that _a_ car with _a_ numberplate in that place at that time. It is circumstancial at best and is no evidence at all that I have anything whatsoever to answer to. I do NOT have to "explain myself" to anyone. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >>>> Agreed, but they'd probably arrest you for being the only car >>>> passing a murder scene and not cooperating with them about this [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > presence on a road and justifying it with a legitimate reason for > being there on pain of being arrested can you? No I can't, please explain. If someone is refusing to cooperate with the police on some serious matter, there should be some punishment. How can they be expected to do their job if anyone can just say "nope, not talking to you" and walk away? > No I can't, please explain. If someone is refusing to cooperate with the > police on some serious matter, there should be some punishment. Well, write to your MP and ask him campaign to make it an offence; preferably with definitions which will get past the Court of Appeal. > How can > they be expected to do their job if anyone can just say "nope, not talking > to you" and walk away? By failing to explain that is what the Government require them to do. > >>>> Agreed, but they'd probably arrest you for being the only car > >>>> passing a murder scene and not cooperating with them about this [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No I can't, please explain. The problem is that you are starting from the position that a perfectly innocent person has to justify their being on a particular road at a particular time and that they can be forced to "explain themselves" on pain of arrest. You forget that this is NOT a totalitarian police state [yet] and that people are free to go about the business WITHOUT interference from the authorities. Those who would seek to change that are the ones that you should be afraid of. > If someone is refusing to cooperate with the > police on some serious matter, there should be some punishment. Yes, nobody said there was any refusal, learn to read. > How can > they be expected to do their job if anyone can just say "nope, not talking > to you" and walk away? Get E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >>>>>> Agreed, but they'd probably arrest you for being the only car >>>>>> passing a murder scene and not cooperating with them about this [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Get E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Getting truthful answers from people in the vicinity of such an evernt is a means of gathering evidence. > > Get E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. > > Getting truthful answers from people in the vicinity of such an evernt is a > means of gathering evidence. It is and I doubt that any normal person would object to answering a few questions. That is an entirely different thing to "being forced to explain yourself" and "having a legitimate reason for being there". SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >> How can >> they be expected to do their job if anyone can just say "nope, not >> talking to you" and walk away? > > Get E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. By questioning you? In reality often you can't get enough hard evidence to convinct someone without questioning them. > >> How can > >> they be expected to do their job if anyone can just say "nope, not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > By questioning you? In reality often you can't get enough hard evidence to > convinct someone without questioning them. Fine. If what you have is insufficient for conviction then you cannot convict. Tough. End of Story. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >>>> Thanks for the warning. The presence of so many police vehicles >>>> suggests the use of ANPR as you say. Before the Fleet Review in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > future, I had to justify why I was driving down a particular road at a > particular time. They can track me as much as they like, I'm doing nothing wrong, I'd prefer them to know every inch I move every second, than to raise futile prosecusions for driving totally safely, but at a speed a small margin above what some idiot has decided should be the speed that when an accident occurs due to some other total stupidity, is the safe speed to have the accident at. >>>> Thanks for the warning. The presence of so many police vehicles >>>> suggests the use of ANPR as you say. Before the Fleet Review in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > offended if, sometime in the future, I had to justify why I was > driving down a particular road at a particular time. But if the police determined that someone had murdered a member of your family down that road, wouldn't you want them to have the kept the registration details of *all* the cars that passed, so they could at least ask drivers if they had seen anything unusual? > >>>> Thanks for the warning. The presence of so many police vehicles > >>>> suggests the use of ANPR as you say. Before the Fleet Review in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > registration details of *all* the cars that passed, so they could at least > ask drivers if they had seen anything unusual? No. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >> But if the police determined that someone had murdered a member of >> your family down that road, wouldn't you want them to have the >> kept the registration details of *all* the cars that passed, so >> they could at least ask drivers if they had seen anything unusual? > > No. I'm sure your family would be comforted by that answer. > >> But if the police determined that someone had murdered a member of > >> your family down that road, wouldn't you want them to have the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'm sure your family would be comforted by that answer. I'm sure they'd be more comforted by the fact that I am willing to think for myself and say what I feel. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] > I had to look up what ANPR means - Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) > I had a horrible fealing it meant something like "All Near Prosecute > Regardless" or something. > But what use could this be other than for non taxed / insured / registered / > suspect terrorist vehicles, etc? Can also be used to check people doing "booze cruises" on a regular basis. Make too many trips, attract the interest of the revenue. But in vague principle I'm not against ANPR. > I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Pleased to see that at > least some technology is being directed correctly, as long as it's not just > a cover for getting everyone doing 71mph on a motorway. <sigh> They had speed cameras as well as ANPR. Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 >> I had to look up what ANPR means - Automatic Number Plate Recognition >> (ANPR) I had a horrible fealing it meant something like "All Near >> Prosecute Regardless" or something. >> But what use could this be other than for non taxed / insured / >> registered / suspect terrorist vehicles, etc? > Can also be used to check people doing "booze cruises" on a regular > basis. Make too many trips, attract the interest of the revenue. It *can* be used for a lot of things... But is it? I doubt it. More concerning is the local industrial estate where the "resident's association" has a big dot matrix display flashing up the plate of every vehicle that passes, 24x7 - on a road that's one of the main routes from the motorway to one whole side of a largish town. Are *those* plates being stored? What are they being used for? > > Can also be used to check people doing "booze cruises" on a regular > > basis. Make too many trips, attract the interest of the revenue. > > It *can* be used for a lot of things... But is it? I doubt it. You can doubt it, but it is being used for those purposes. > More concerning is the local industrial estate where the "resident's > association" has a big dot matrix display flashing up the plate of every > vehicle that passes, 24x7 - on a road that's one of the main routes from > the motorway to one whole side of a largish town. Are *those* plates being > stored? What are they being used for? That does cause some concern. A way to strike back is the DPA, what they are doing is illegal, irrespective of the storage of the number. There are severe restrictions on "processing of data by unauthorised individuals" and even the police are not permitted to capture then display registration marks in this way. Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 >>> I had to look up what ANPR means - Automatic Number Plate >>> Recognition (ANPR) I had a horrible fealing it meant something [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > routes from the motorway to one whole side of a largish town. Are > *those* plates being stored? What are they being used for? Why are you concerned? To be honest, it's not illegal (AFAIK) to record number plates, and by displaying your plates you're leaving yourself open for *anyone* to do this. > To be honest, it's not illegal (AFAIK) to record number plates Wrong. Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 > Good. > > The more ANPR the better. I completely agree. Results from ANPR crackdowns are published in my local paper and the amount of criminals caught is phenomenal. I don't just mean motoring offenders- often the police will have a warrant out against say a burglar, and know his vehicle registration. ANPR is where his luck runs out. In the last test for which I saw figures, 70 cars were stopped and 60 resultes in arrests or prosecutions. I, taxed, insured and law-abiding, was not stopped and could carry on with my business. The more ANPR the better. SignatureRegards, Vince. www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk > using my credit card to buy petrol and dumping the stolen car outside > his own home. > > Still since he didn't speed at any time I acknowledge it was an > impossible crime to solve. Maybe if he'd gone past an ANPR and the stolen car was flagged, the sudden presence of attack cops chasing him would have made him try to get away, with the usual hilarious 'Police Camera Action' consquences. Signaturewww.pickuptruckracing.com - UK's closest race series Spotter for the PWR truck #9 Watch us here: http://tinyurl.com/79xxg |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.