View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
RobBrady Frequent Visitor
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 2718 Location: Chelmsford, UK
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nah, we just do it as a hobby _________________ Robert Brady |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15219 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NickG wrote: | Under the data protection act, you can request the photos without having to go to court. That's your legal right, so whoever told her she'd have to go to court to see the picture evidence was lying. |
just playing devils advocate here... but:
the data protection act relates to information stored about yourself. so, by requesting the photo under the data-protection act you're basically saying they have a picture of you and therefore that you're guilty!
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MaFt wrote: | just playing devils advocate here... but:
the data protection act relates to information stored about yourself. so, by requesting the photo under the data-protection act you're basically saying they have a picture of you and therefore that you're guilty! |
I think not. DP Act says whatever about you has to be accurate and gives you the right to see anything held about you, in order to check that it is correct. It is alleged that they have a pic of you exceeding the speed limit, so you have the right to check that it is accurate and have it put right if it isn't (somebody else). Maybe? (I mean, they have records showing that you DO have a shift key on your computer, so you could ask to see those records and get them to change it to say that you haven't). _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15219 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DennisN wrote: | MaFt wrote: | just playing devils advocate here... but:
the data protection act relates to information stored about yourself. so, by requesting the photo under the data-protection act you're basically saying they have a picture of you and therefore that you're guilty! |
I think not. DP Act says whatever about you has to be accurate and gives you the right to see anything held about you, in order to check that it is correct. It is alleged that they have a pic of you exceeding the speed limit, so you have the right to check that it is accurate and have it put right if it isn't (somebody else). Maybe? (I mean, they have records showing that you DO have a shift key on your computer, so you could ask to see those records and get them to change it to say that you haven't). |
but if it's NOT you then they are giving out information about someone else and therefore breaking the law... this could get silly so i'll stop now...
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Snudge Lifetime Member
Joined: Aug 22, 2007 Posts: 211 Location: Peterborough
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Surely this is just another case of "It weren't me guv - honest"
Look at what has been said about the accused:
1. "When Emily Davies parked her car outside her house and went to bed at 10pm as usual, she had no reason to believe Merseyside Police would be on her case."
Now what young attractive teenager goes to bed at 10pm every night?
2. "I was shocked because I'm such a careful driver and I never speed."
Can anybody honestly say they never speed?
3. "I knew there was no way I'd be out at 10.22pm on a week night. I realised they'd made a mistake."
A young attractive teenager claiming to never be out at 10.22 - really?
I reckon there's a good chance that she's guilty as charged and it's a fair cop. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Darren Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Snudge wrote: | Surely this is just another case of "It weren't me guv - honest" |
Re-read the links for the Daily Mail version. It transpires her car was parked and a speeding car was photographed but the person responsible for extracting VRN's from the images noted hers instead of the passing speeder! Priceless. _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Snudge Lifetime Member
Joined: Aug 22, 2007 Posts: 211 Location: Peterborough
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darren wrote: | Snudge wrote: | Surely this is just another case of "It weren't me guv - honest" |
Re-read the links for the Daily Mail version. It transpires her car was parked and a speeding car was photographed but the person responsible for extracting VRN's from the images noted hers instead of the passing speeder! Priceless. |
I've read it but you previously said this which I agree with:-
Darren wrote: | Guys, this story is from a Newspaper. Journalists aren't known for getting their facts straight so we don't know if this is just artistic licence for the story, a mistake on the part of those concerned or what.
I wouldn't place too much importance on that fact. |
..and the Daily Mail uses the critical words 'believed to have appeared...'
Daily Mail wrote: |
The registration plate on Miss Davies's stationary car is believed to have appeared in the frame with a speeding vehicle which triggered the camera. An over-zealous operator noted the number and a fine was duly sent out to the innocent motorist. |
Nope, sorry but this attractive young female is guilty until proved innocent.
It is a great story though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NickG Frequent Visitor
Joined: Nov 09, 2003 Posts: 357 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Snudge wrote: | Surely this is just another case of "It weren't me guv - honest" |
In the photos the camera took the car was parallel parked between two other cars. She was definitely not speeding and the police have admitted it was a mistake, so there's no point in arguing it
Last edited by NickG on Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kenyamike Occasional Visitor
Joined: Oct 08, 2006 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe if you tell the prosecuting police, you are not sure who was driving at the time in question, they have to give you the photographic evidence. Otherwise how do they know who to prosecute? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tatsfield Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 17, 2006 Posts: 51 Location: Poole
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I received a €20 charge from Hertz Italy for handing over my details to the Sienna Municipal Police for what I believe might have been a speed camera offence while I was driving a hire car. The money was taken from my credit card but the police never contacted me and Hertz seem to make a nice profit for a computer printout and a postage stamp. The police might be sanguine about prosecuting foreign tourists but the car rental companies know a good business when they are presented with one. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Darren Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kenyamike wrote: | I believe if you tell the prosecuting police, you are not sure who was driving at the time in question, they have to give you the photographic evidence. Otherwise how do they know who to prosecute? |
If you as the registered owner don't tell them who's driving you are deemed to have committed the offence. One of the few occasions where you appear to be presumed guilty. _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JockTamsonsBairn Lifetime Member
Joined: Jan 10, 2004 Posts: 2777 Location: Bonnie Scotland (West Central)
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
MikeB wrote: | Darren wrote: | ... Journalists aren't known for getting their facts straight... |
Aren't we journos too??? | Quod erat demonstrandum?
DennisN wrote: | MaFt wrote: | just playing devils advocate here... |
... Maybe? (I mean, they have records showing that you DO have a shift key on your computer, so you could ask to see those records and get them to change it to say that you haven't). |
MaFt wrote: | but if it's NOT you then they are giving out information about someone else and therefore breaking the law... this could get silly so i'll stop now...
MaFt | Dennis, he can get the records falsified, but to no avail, now we've all seen proof of a shift key! _________________ Jock
TomTom Go 940 LIVE (9.510, Europe v915.5074 on SD & 8.371, WCE v875.3613 on board) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
JockTamsonsBairn wrote: | Dennis, he can get the records falsified, but to no avail, now we've all seen proof of a shift key! |
Don't be fooled! He did it copy and paste of a graphic - notice, it's red? _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Steveee Lifetime Member
Joined: Dec 16, 2003 Posts: 203 Location: Colchester, Essex
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There appears to be a difference of process across the country. Two years ago I was caught by a safety camera on Ipswich Road, Colchester. When the police sent me the summons, they included the picture of the car and number plate in the letter. As there was no mistake, I pleaded guilty.
As suggested earlier in the thread, this allows the driver to check the accuracy and reduce errors.
A friend was caught by a red light camera on Cowdray Avenue, Colchester. There was an error in sending out the summons, the followup letter was sent to a completely wrong address. They ended up in court as they had not responded in the requisite time period, and even then they did not see the evidence - it was waived at them by court cleark - 30 feet away! They were found guilty, with points and a fine. Strangely a month later the fine was cancelled and points removed with no explanation. We can only suspect another operator error. _________________ Steveee
Where am I?
==============
GO 920 (retired)
Garmin Oregon 550T
Garmin Drivesmart |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|