It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money, 
plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court 
costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because 
it's 
cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one 
in four who challenge a ticket win their case. 

Petition at

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/

-- 
Dave
da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
So many gadgets, so little time.

"Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> writes:

> It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some
> money, plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their
> own court costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the
> fine because it's cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure
> (unverified) that one in four who challenge a ticket win their case.

Thank you for mentioning this petition. It's a bad sign that our
Government even think of trying to get away with this sort of thing.

At least we now get to submit our petition so that we can see how they
insultingly blow us off in their "no, thanks" response - it could be
anything from vacuous nonsense to completely missing the point.

Mark

Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} wrote:
> It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money, 
> plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court 
> costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because 
> it's 
> cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one 
> in four who challenge a ticket win their case. 
> 
> Petition at
> 
> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
> 
there was a link to a narticle in the shed. I'll try an find it.

[dum de dum de dum]

Ah here it is.
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842

As someone who had to plead guilty to a motoring offence I didn't commit 
  because I couldn't afford to pay[1] for a defence I can and do feel 
very strongly about this.

Of course, I'm sure it will get railroaded through.

Shouldn't be too long before it's an (expensive) optional extra on your 
car insurance to cover it.

[1] I have RAC cover for magistrate's costs but once the case was sent 
to the crown court I had to pay my own way and couldn't.

-- 
Nev

In uk.singles,  (Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}) wrote in
::

>It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money, 
>plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court 
>costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because 
>it's 
>cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one 
>in four who challenge a ticket win their case. 
>
>Petition at
>
>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/

You're relying on the petrolheads to inform you.  Nothing in the
statutory instruments mentions traffic offences: this will apply to
*all* criminal cases.
-- 
Marc

Remember- two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do

In article <hbr8v6$t39$1@news.eternal-september.org>, 
newsforpasiphae1953@yahoo.co.uk says...
> Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} wrote:
> > It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money, 
> > plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court 
> > costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because 
> > it's 
> > cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one 
> > in four who challenge a ticket win their case. 
> > 
> > Petition at
> > 
> > http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
> > 
> there was a link to a narticle in the shed. I'll try an find it.
> 
> [dum de dum de dum]
> 
> Ah here it is.
> http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842
> 
> As someone who had to plead guilty to a motoring offence I didn't commit 
>   because I couldn't afford to pay[1] for a defence I can and do feel 
> very strongly about this.

The don't sort the problem at source, let other people pay for the 
mistakes.

> Of course, I'm sure it will get railroaded through.

In the usual way of making it, the courts are only really available to
those who have deep pockets. This will be the method to add this onto
other types offences over time in the 'feature creep' methods governments
use.

> Shouldn't be too long before it's an (expensive) optional extra on your 
> car insurance to cover it.

Always check what any legal cover in insurance means, often it means
you must use our choice of lawyers, which in a lot of areas means only
one large firm.
 
> [1] I have RAC cover for magistrate's costs but once the case was sent 
> to the crown court I had to pay my own way and couldn't.

Why am I not surprised.

-- 
Paul Carpenter          | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/>    PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/>  GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate

Marc Wilson wrote:
> In uk.singles,  (Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}) wrote in
> ::

>> Petition at
>>
>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
> 
> You're relying on the petrolheads to inform you.  Nothing in the
> statutory instruments mentions traffic offences: this will apply to
> *all* criminal cases.

That just makes it worse.

but not unexpected.

-- 
Nev

In article , E-0C001302-3588-
E@cleopatra.co.uk says...
> In uk.singles,  (Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}) wrote in
> ::
> 
> >It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money, 
> >plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court 
> >costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because 
> >it's 
> >cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one 
> >in four who challenge a ticket win their case. 
> >
> >Petition at
> >
> >http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
> 
> You're relying on the petrolheads to inform you.  Nothing in the
> statutory instruments mentions traffic offences: this will apply to
> *all* criminal cases.

Basically we are getting back to "police are never wrong" and justice is
only available to the rich. Assumption of guilt because a case has been
brought.

-- 
Paul Carpenter          | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/>    PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/>  GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate

In uk.singles,  (nev young) wrote in
<hbs4hh$fp1$1@news.eternal-september.org>::

>Marc Wilson wrote:
>> In uk.singles,  (Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}) wrote in
>> ::
>
>>> Petition at
>>>
>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>> 
>> You're relying on the petrolheads to inform you.  Nothing in the
>> statutory instruments mentions traffic offences: this will apply to
>> *all* criminal cases.
>
>That just makes it worse.

Oh, indeed.
>
>but not unexpected.

Quite.  Looks like a poison-pill for the next government- it will surely
fall in the European court.
-- 
Marc

Some people are like Slinkies- they don't really have a purpose, but they still
bring a smile to your face as you push them downstairs.   - Anon

Paul Carpenter wrote:
> 
> In the usual way of making it, the courts are only really available to
> those who have deep pockets. This will be the method to add this onto
> other types offences over time in the 'feature creep' methods governments
> use.
> 
Perhaps the way to approach it is to insist that your lawyer will only 
charge you at legal aid rates. If pretty much everyone did that, and was 
prepared to stand up in court without one and explain to the judge that they 
couldn't find one who was prepared to work for what the government was 
prepared to pay, it could get entertaining.

It helps to avoid the need to appear in court in the first place, but as we 
know, guilt isn't always a determining factor in appearing there.
-- 
Dave
da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
So many gadgets, so little time.

Marc Wilson wrote:

> 
> 
> In uk.singles,  (Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}) wrote in
> ::
> 
>>It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money,
>>plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court
>>costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because
>>it's
>>cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one
>>in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
>>
>>Petition at
>>
>>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
> 
> You're relying on the petrolheads to inform you.  Nothing in the
> statutory instruments mentions traffic offences: this will apply to
> *all* criminal cases.

I realised that after doing more reading around.

I wonder what will happen when, on being ordered to pay costs having lost 
against the state, someone challenges the award if it's more than legal aid 
would have paid? Only fair if it works both ways...
-- 
Dave
da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
So many gadgets, so little time.

Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} wrote:
> Marc Wilson wrote:
> 
>>
>> In uk.singles,  (Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}) wrote in
>> ::
>>
>>> It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money,
>>> plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court
>>> costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because
>>> it's
>>> cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one
>>> in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
>>>
>>> Petition at
>>>
>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>> You're relying on the petrolheads to inform you.  Nothing in the
>> statutory instruments mentions traffic offences: this will apply to
>> *all* criminal cases.
> 
> I realised that after doing more reading around.
> 
> I wonder what will happen when, on being ordered to pay costs having lost 
> against the state, someone challenges the award if it's more than legal aid 
> would have paid?

The will take you to court for not paying, and even if you win you will 
have to pay your costs...

> Only fair if it works both ways...

Since when was the government fare?
-- 
Flash Gordon

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:20:54 퍝, "Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}"
<noone$$@llondel.org> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money, 
>plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court 
>costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because 
>it's 
>cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one 
>in four who challenge a ticket win their case. 

And a lot more would if they did challenge it.
>
>Petition at
>
>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/

Signed, thanks.

-- 
Bob.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:19:47 퍝, Paul Carpenter
 enriched this group when s/he
wrote:

>In article , E-0C001302-3588-
>E@cleopatra.co.uk says...
>> In uk.singles,  (Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}) wrote in
>> ::
>> 
>> >It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money, 
>> >plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court 
>> >costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because 
>> >it's 
>> >cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one 
>> >in four who challenge a ticket win their case. 
>> >
>> >Petition at
>> >
>> >http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>> 
>> You're relying on the petrolheads to inform you.  Nothing in the
>> statutory instruments mentions traffic offences: this will apply to
>> *all* criminal cases.
>
>Basically we are getting back to "police are never wrong" and justice is
>only available to the rich. Assumption of guilt because a case has been
>brought.

I was caught earlier in the year. As far as I know I had not been
speeding, in fact I'm positive I wasn't even in the area at the time.
I received no NIP. First I hear about it is nearly six months later
when I get a summons. Until a few years ago the police had to send the
second NIP out by recorded delivery, now they don't. Despite the fact
that millions of letters a week go missing in the post the courts
accept that the police sent the original NIP and a second one. A
defense of "I was not driving in the area on that day" is hard to
prove when it is months after the event.

-- 
Bob.

Self-employed.  Because there is only one person mad enough to hire
him.

Ye Old One  writes:

> I was caught earlier in the year. As far as I know I had not been
> speeding, in fact I'm positive I wasn't even in the area at the time.
> I received no NIP. First I hear about it is nearly six months later
> when I get a summons. Until a few years ago the police had to send the
> second NIP out by recorded delivery, now they don't. Despite the fact
> that millions of letters a week go missing in the post the courts
> accept that the police sent the original NIP and a second one. A
> defense of "I was not driving in the area on that day" is hard to
> prove when it is months after the event.

Regular post being accepted as an acceptable way to serve a summons is
ridiculous. ):

I've sometimes consoled myself with the idea that if I cause higher
fines/fees to myself by pleading not guilty and demanding a trial
despite not having any compelling evidence in my favour, the statistics
of enough people doing likewise might at least strongly indicate where
things are messed up. Though so far I haven't really bothered,
admittedly - it's tended to be cases either where a physical appearance
would be inconvenient (not being in the city I lived or worked in or
whatever), or that I figured it was karma for the offenses I wasn't
picked up for!

Mark

In article , usenet@mcsuk.net 
says...
...
> I was caught earlier in the year. As far as I know I had not been
> speeding, in fact I'm positive I wasn't even in the area at the time.
> I received no NIP. First I hear about it is nearly six months later
> when I get a summons. Until a few years ago the police had to send the
> second NIP out by recorded delivery, now they don't. 

Recorded delivery/registered post do NOT prove delivery. Since the
Royal Mail has gone to one delivery a day, and the postmen can go home
after the round, they generally do not bother with signatures as they
would have to return to depot with the cards. I have been in many 
battles with Royal Mail over things like this.

Basically as the items are NOT tracked they do not know how many
went out on a delivery round, so they cannot check they have the 
correct number of signatures.

All you get from Recorded Delivery or Registered Post is a higher
level of insurance.

> Despite the fact
> that millions of letters a week go missing in the post the courts
> accept that the police sent the original NIP and a second one. A

The courts are going to have to come up with another method of 
acceptable delivery as even the Government is taking business 
away from Royal Mail with Digital Britain. So nearly everything in 
a few years will only be acceptable via the 'interweb'. We all know
email is not a guarnteed delivery system, and there is no guarantee
of having electricity and internet link enshrined in law, like water
supply. You always have a letter box (unless made homeless).

Digital Britain is the way of "cutting costs" and making the public
do more of the work for government departments and for a lot of
businesses like banks and utility companies.

You will be expected to know more of the detail and do all the processing
for them.

> defense of "I was not driving in the area on that day" is hard to
> prove when it is months after the event.

Been caught by that one as well for a supposed parking offence a few
years ago.

-- 
Paul Carpenter          | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/>    PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/>  GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate

Ye Old One wrote:

> I was caught earlier in the year. As far as I know I had not been
> speeding, in fact I'm positive I wasn't even in the area at the time.
> I received no NIP. First I hear about it is nearly six months later
> when I get a summons.

That's the great advantage of having a GPS. I was once stopped in 
Leicester - a place I happen to know very well - and accused of having 
done 55mph when I passed a school. I knew I hadn't and fortunately had 
reset the trip computer on the Garmin eMap I was using some time before.

By this means I was able to prove the policeman was lying through his 
teeth - it told him I had been no faster than 35 mph at any time during 
the last two hours! Collapse of stout party. This was of course before 
Sat-Navs became standard items in cars.

You can't do this with a camera though.

-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:18:19 -0400, "Mark T. B. Carroll"
 enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>Ye Old One  writes:
>
>> I was caught earlier in the year. As far as I know I had not been
>> speeding, in fact I'm positive I wasn't even in the area at the time.
>> I received no NIP. First I hear about it is nearly six months later
>> when I get a summons. Until a few years ago the police had to send the
>> second NIP out by recorded delivery, now they don't. Despite the fact
>> that millions of letters a week go missing in the post the courts
>> accept that the police sent the original NIP and a second one. A
>> defense of "I was not driving in the area on that day" is hard to
>> prove when it is months after the event.
>
>Regular post being accepted as an acceptable way to serve a summons is
>ridiculous. ):

I know it, you know it, I even bet Royal Mail knows it - but it
appears the law does not.
>
>I've sometimes consoled myself with the idea that if I cause higher
>fines/fees to myself by pleading not guilty and demanding a trial
>despite not having any compelling evidence in my favour, the statistics
>of enough people doing likewise might at least strongly indicate where
>things are messed up. Though so far I haven't really bothered,
>admittedly - it's tended to be cases either where a physical appearance
>would be inconvenient (not being in the city I lived or worked in or
>whatever), or that I figured it was karma for the offenses I wasn't
>picked up for!

My problem is the court is in North Wales while I'm in Gloucester. 
>
>Mark

-- 
Bob.

In message , Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} 
<noone$$@llondel.org> writes
>It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money,
>plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court
>costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because
>it's
>cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one
>in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
>
>Petition at
>
>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>
I'm innocent I tell you!

Signed, thanks for drawing it to our attention.
-- 
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:56:59 퍝, Gordon H
<Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
wrote:

>In message , Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} 
><noone$$@llondel.org> writes
>>It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money,
>>plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court
>>costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because
>>it's
>>cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one
>>in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
>>
>>Petition at
>>
>>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>>
>I'm innocent I tell you!

Of what?


-- 
Bob.

The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the
day they start making vacuum cleaners.

In message , Ye Old One 
 writes
>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:56:59 +0100, Gordon H
><Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
>wrote:
>
>>In message , Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}
>><noone$$@llondel.org> writes
>>>It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money,
>>>plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court
>>>costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because
>>>it's
>>>cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one
>>>in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
>>>
>>>Petition at
>>>
>>>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>>>
>>I'm innocent I tell you!
>
>Of what?
>
Everything!    Errmmm, I mean nothing!
-- 
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:03:10 퍝, Gordon H
<Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
wrote:

>In message , Ye Old One 
> writes
>>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:56:59 퍝, Gordon H
>><Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message , Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}
>>><noone$$@llondel.org> writes
>>>>It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money,
>>>>plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court
>>>>costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because
>>>>it's
>>>>cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one
>>>>in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
>>>>
>>>>Petition at
>>>>
>>>>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>>>>
>>>I'm innocent I tell you!
>>
>>Of what?
>>
>Everything!    Errmmm, I mean nothing!

Come now Mr G, everyone is guilty of something. Make a clean breast of
it, it will be good for you.

-- 
Bob.

In message , Ye Old One 
 writes
>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:03:10 +0100, Gordon H
><Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
>wrote:
>
>>In message , Ye Old One
>> writes
>>>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:56:59 +0100, Gordon H
>>><Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message , Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}
>>>><noone$$@llondel.org> writes
>>>>>It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money,
>>>>>plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court
>>>>>costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because
>>>>>it's
>>>>>cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one
>>>>>in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
>>>>>
>>>>>Petition at
>>>>>
>>>>>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>>>>>
>>>>I'm innocent I tell you!
>>>
>>>Of what?
>>>
>>Everything!    Errmmm, I mean nothing!
>
>Come now Mr G, everyone is guilty of something. Make a clean breast of
>it, it will be good for you.
>
OK.   I've just popped in here after a shower, and my breasts are clean.
Been out walking in the countrymud.
-- 
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:01:54 퍍, Gordon H
<Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
wrote:

>In message , Ye Old One 
> writes
>>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:03:10 퍝, Gordon H
>><Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message , Ye Old One
>>> writes
>>>>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:56:59 퍝, Gordon H
>>>><Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message , Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}
>>>>><noone$$@llondel.org> writes
>>>>>>It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money,
>>>>>>plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court
>>>>>>costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because
>>>>>>it's
>>>>>>cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one
>>>>>>in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Petition at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>>>>>>
>>>>>I'm innocent I tell you!
>>>>
>>>>Of what?
>>>>
>>>Everything!    Errmmm, I mean nothing!
>>
>>Come now Mr G, everyone is guilty of something. Make a clean breast of
>>it, it will be good for you.
>>
>OK.   I've just popped in here after a shower, and my breasts are clean.
>Been out walking in the countrymud.

Good for you, but stop avoiding the question :)

-- 
Bob.

Ye Old One wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:03:10 +0100, Gordon H
> <Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
> wrote:
> 
>> In message , Ye Old One 
>>  writes
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:56:59 +0100, Gordon H
>>> <Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message , Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}
>>>> <noone$$@llondel.org> writes
>>>>> It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money,
>>>>> plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court
>>>>> costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because
>>>>> it's
>>>>> cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one
>>>>> in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Petition at
>>>>>
>>>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>>>>>
>>>> I'm innocent I tell you!
>>> Of what?
>>>
>> Everything!    Errmmm, I mean nothing!
> 
> Come now Mr G, everyone is guilty of something. Make a clean breast of
> it, it will be good for you.

Indeed, but some people can hide behind the Resettlement of Offenders 
Act :-)

-- 

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

John Wright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote:

> 
> 
> Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:03:10 +0100, Gordon H
>> <Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> In message , Ye Old One
>>>  writes
>>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:56:59 +0100, Gordon H
>>>> <Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message , Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}
>>>>> <noone$$@llondel.org> writes
>>>>>> It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some
>>>>>> money, plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay
>>>>>> their own court costs. This is likely to cause many people to just
>>>>>> pay the fine because it's
>>>>>> cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified)
>>>>>> that one in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Petition at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm innocent I tell you!
>>>> Of what?
>>>>
>>> Everything!    Errmmm, I mean nothing!
>> 
>> Come now Mr G, everyone is guilty of something. Make a clean breast of
>> it, it will be good for you.
> 
> Indeed, but some people can hide behind the Resettlement of Offenders
> Act :-)
> 
Either they're small people or it's a big act.
-- 
Dave
da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
So many gadgets, so little time.

"Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:

> Either they're small people or it's a big act.

Reminds me of the opinion in the made-up Canadian case of Regina v. 
Ojibway:

http://www.laborlawtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-101627.html

I think you'll like it.

-- 
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com

In uk.singles,  (Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}) wrote in
::

>Paul Carpenter wrote:
>> 
>> In the usual way of making it, the courts are only really available to
>> those who have deep pockets. This will be the method to add this onto
>> other types offences over time in the 'feature creep' methods governments
>> use.

It applies to *all* offences- it was flagged up by petrolheads, but
nothing in the SI mentions motoring.

>Perhaps the way to approach it is to insist that your lawyer will only 
>charge you at legal aid rates. If pretty much everyone did that, and was 
>prepared to stand up in court without one and explain to the judge that they 
>couldn't find one who was prepared to work for what the government was 
>prepared to pay, it could get entertaining.
>
>It helps to avoid the need to appear in court in the first place, but as we 
>know, guilt isn't always a determining factor in appearing there.

26% of those prosecuted were acquitted, apparently, that (and the cost)
is really irking TPTB.
-- 
Marc

Absence is to love what wind is to fire; it extinguishes the small, 
it enkindles the great. -- Comte DeBussy-Rabutin

In article , E-0C001302-3591-
E@cleopatra.co.uk says...
> In uk.singles,  (Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}) wrote in
> ::
> 
...
> >Perhaps the way to approach it is to insist that your lawyer will only 
> >charge you at legal aid rates. If pretty much everyone did that, and was 
> >prepared to stand up in court without one and explain to the judge that they 
> >couldn't find one who was prepared to work for what the government was 
> >prepared to pay, it could get entertaining.
> >
> >It helps to avoid the need to appear in court in the first place, but as we 
> >know, guilt isn't always a determining factor in appearing there.
> 
> 26% of those prosecuted were acquitted, apparently, that (and the cost)
> is really irking TPTB.

Save even more costs by reducing the potential 26%, by not persuing them
in the first place would also give more confidence in the processes
beforehand.

-- 
Paul Carpenter          | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/>    PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/>  GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:22:52 퍍, John Wright <""john\"@no spam
here.com"> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:03:10 퍝, Gordon H
>> <Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> In message , Ye Old One 
>>>  writes
>>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:56:59 퍝, Gordon H
>>>> <Gordon_News@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> enriched this group when s/he
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message , Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}
>>>>> <noone$$@llondel.org> writes
>>>>>> It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money,
>>>>>> plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court
>>>>>> costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one
>>>>>> in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Petition at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm innocent I tell you!
>>>> Of what?
>>>>
>>> Everything!    Errmmm, I mean nothing!
>> 
>> Come now Mr G, everyone is guilty of something. Make a clean breast of
>> it, it will be good for you.
>
>Indeed, but some people can hide behind the Resettlement of Offenders 
>Act :-)

Ah! I hadn't though of that :)


-- 
Bob.

If someone annoys you, remember that it takes 42 muscles to frown -
but it only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and whack them in the
head.