View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Darren Frequent Visitor

Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:21 am Post subject: Publicity Stunt Gift Wraps Speed Cameras |
|
|
It's an old story but one I've only just heard of and it made me smile so much I thought you should all hear of it!
Early one morning with the aid of company employees, 200 speed cameras across the Netherlands were gift wrapped and thus prevented from operating and issuing tickets!
This was part of a publicity stunt to advertise an energy drink. Quite what Dutch Police thought of the stunt is unknown but once the stunt was discovered the wraps were quickly removed os the cameras could resume their fine issuing.
The story started me wondering what the response would be if a company did the same thing in the UK. I can't imagine our authorities taking this lightly at all and no doubt those responsible would be facing some charge or other but it would be a great idea for one of the many anti-speedcam groups to copy.
Rather than destroying the cameras, I can see the anti-speedcam groups receiving a great deal more support if they were to gift wrap them, or perhaps wrap them in a duvet to keep them warm during this cold snap? You could even fit them with very dark sunglasses for the summer!
_________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mostdom Pocket GPS Moderator


Joined: Jul 10, 2006 Posts: 1964 Location: Surrey, UK.
|
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Inciting a rebellion again I see, mr Griffin. _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
G1LIW Lifetime Member

Joined: Jun 19, 2006 Posts: 212 Location: Sahrf Lunnon ;)
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Darren Frequent Visitor

Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is bound to be some offence of 'interfering with' or 'obstruction' that would fit the bill nicely  _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15331 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
if cameras are there for safety then you could be done under some random health & safety act for putting the public in danger
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
s3dbw Regular Visitor

Joined: May 07, 2004 Posts: 203
|
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quite mild by Dutch standards, the usually use chain saws, expanding foam or just set fire to them |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
DennisN Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14902 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice. _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
G1LIW Lifetime Member

Joined: Jun 19, 2006 Posts: 212 Location: Sahrf Lunnon ;)
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm... yeah, that'd do it, alright.  _________________ Roger, G1LIW
Google Pixel 3a XL Android Smartphone | SatNav Sygic for Android | Waze for Android | CamerAlert for Android | Blog http://rogersblant.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
JimmyTheHand Frequent Visitor

Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 386
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
G1LIW wrote: | I don't even know what offence they could charge someone with |
they'll probably find something under the anti-terrorist laws this government has brought in
but most likely "Obstructing a Police Officer" - which I believe is what they have prosecuted people under for warning of speed traps _________________ J. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Darren Frequent Visitor

Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
JimmyTheHand wrote: | but most likely "Obstructing a Police Officer" - which I believe is what they have prosecuted people under for warning of speed traps |
That would require the presence of a Police Officer though. A Gatso doesn't need one  _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
JimmyTheHand Frequent Visitor

Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 386
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darren wrote: | That would require the presence of a Police Officer though. A Gatso doesn't need one  |
A gatso may be able to run unattended - but there is likely to be some police involvement in the process, so interfering with a Gatso is liable to regarded as obstructing a Police Officer. _________________ J. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Darren Frequent Visitor

Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can assure you that it could not be used in this case but it's not that important  _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
JimmyTheHand Frequent Visitor

Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 386
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darren wrote: | but it's not that important  |
You are right it is not important - they will find something to prosecute if they catch someone .
Darren wrote: | I can assure you that it could not be used in this case |
Sorry not trying to be rude - but why is your assurance worth anything? It was used against Charles Glendinning (though rejected on appeal and Lords through lack of proof it did anything). Since the law predates such technology I suspect it would need a case to interpret whether the duty aspects can cover such equipment. _________________ J. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Darren Frequent Visitor

Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JimmyTheHand wrote: | Sorry not trying to be rude - but why is your assurance worth anything? |
Well as even the case you refer to describes, for the offence to be complete, the presence of a police constable is required.
No Police officer, no offence of obstruction possible, simple as that. _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
JimmyTheHand Frequent Visitor

Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 386
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darren wrote: | No Police officer, no offence of obstruction possible, simple as that. |
I am not so sure - If a Police Officer (or a department run by them) has a duty of dealing speeding motorist recorded by a Gatso - then disabling the Gatso might come under -
being one of those regarded as the police as an prime target to use anti-terrorist laws on - i.e. an amateur photographer, I have no doubt they will twist legalisation beyond what was intended as they require _________________ J. |
|
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 |
|
 |
|