UKC

Magistrates court appearance

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
 Hardonicus 18 Nov 2021

I've got a court hearing next week. Any top tips?

1
 wintertree 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

You haven’t said which side of the dock you’ll be on.

If I recall correctly, you’ve called the police “pigs” on here before.  I think I would avoid that sort of thing if in a court of law.

Otherwise, same as any interview. Don’t lie, don’t over-think the questions, make advanced notes to consolidate your thoughts, be crystal clear on the timeline, don’t jump to assumptions about what’s being asked or implied, take water so you can have a drink if you need a moment to reign it in or do some thinking/recollecting.

I thoroughly enjoyed my day out to the magistrates court.  If I’d been on the other side of the dock I’d probably have gone for a jury trial.  The magistrates have seen far more guilty people saying “it wasn’t me, guv, it’s a fit up” than a jury…

 Lankyman 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> I've got a court hearing next week. Any top tips?

I've been hauled before them twice. Once for the theft of a roadlamp (and it WASN'T me, honest 'guv). The other for the heinous crime of camping on Ingleton Common. I was found guilty and ordered to pay the outrageous sum of £2! Life is cruel.

 profitofdoom 18 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> ....If I recall correctly, you’ve called the police “pigs” on here before.  I think I would avoid that sort of thing if in a court of law....

No need! Magistrates are a remarkably easy-going, happy-go-lucky fun-loving bunch who like nothing more than some lighthearted barracking from the floor ha-ha-ha

Or you could try like Ed Drummond and Colin Rowe in the Old Bailey - "When the pair were acquitted of criminal damage to the lightning conductor ... Drummond suggested to Rowe that they sing, "For he's a jolly good fellow!" to the judge. This they did ... And the pair were duly fined for contempt of court."

Link follows:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/ed_drummond_1945-2019_-_a_retrospective-11940

 PaulW 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Take your toothbrush

In reply to PaulW:

> Take your toothbrush

Is Chris Evans now a magistrate?

 Hardonicus 18 Nov 2021
In reply to profitofdoom:

I'll be in the dock.

I once put on a performance with Ed Drummond back in my University days - a colourful character and I'll give his approach some consideration should I be acquitted...

Post edited at 13:39
 didntcomelast 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

In magistrates court the main person in the know is the court clerk, they are legally qualified and advise the magistrates who are three people of good character who hear the evidence and make a decision ( unless it’s a stipend magistrate who is legally qualified). The prosecution will outline the evidence against you and your defence solicitor will attempt to rebuff that evidence. There’s an opportunity for any witnesses to give evidence and you r solicitor will question them on their accuracy. 

Best advice I can give is be polite toward the court, listen carefully to what is being said and use your solicitor to raise any issues. Resist the impulse to interrupt anyone talking, that annoys everyone. Again use your solicitor quietly.

magistrates court is a conveyor belt and whilst it may be a big thing for you, it’s a daily grind for the people working there. It may seem that everyone is dealing with your case without taking you into account and to an extent that is what happens, only the magistrates are left out of the machine to an extent. Clerks and solicitors see each other every day and form effective working relationships. There are prosecutors and defence solicitors who have reputations for grandstanding the court, don’t be intimidated as the magistrates also know these people. 

We used to have a defence solicitor who was really aggressive toward police officers in court but their best mates outside. I used to enjoy appearing against him. Don’t assume the magistrates are not switched on though, I lost an offensive weapon case because I stopped a guy with a 12” knife in his car door pocket in the middle of the night, he made no reply on interview and in court claimed he used it to gut and clean mackerel, one of the magistrates asked what the mackerel season was in our area and the guy answered it perfectly and got off with the offence. 

Oh and if it all goes wrong for you, remember and appeal is a 50/50 gamble weighted against you. 

 Hardonicus 18 Nov 2021
In reply to didntcomelast:

I'm representing myself and only have written (and video) evidence. Do you know how video evidence should be presented?

6
 Ridge 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> I'm representing myself

There a saying about that, can't quite remember it...

> Do you know how video evidence should be presented?

Taped over one of your 'niche interest' home movies, with just enough there to intrigue the magistrate?

1
In reply to Hardonicus:

> I've got a court hearing next week. Any top tips?


I think the tips will depend on your guiltiness, are you guilty or not?

1
In reply to wintertree:

I was given witness training once but never got called in the end.

It’s important to remain credible as a witness. Picking your battles is part of this- don’t deny or argue the toss over everything, just the few things that are important. Conceding some ground makes you appear more credible and less argumentative.

In reply to Hardonicus:

Your rack & ropes will be time  expired by the time you get out

I’ll start the bidding at £10 posted 

Best advice turn up   Do not be late take a pencil and paper  

Edit if you want to see what goes on and get a feel it’s a public building you can go and sit in If you ask the usher  to point you to a suitable case they will do so

Post edited at 15:32
 wintertree 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Twiggy Diablo:

> It’s important to remain credible as a witness. Picking your battles is part of this- don’t deny or argue the toss over everything, just the few things that are important. Conceding some ground makes you appear more credible and less argumentative.

Training to be an anti-Wintertree?  Powerful stuff.

 graeme jackson 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> Is Chris Evans now a magistrate?

If he is that's one heck of a comedown from being captain America.

 Wainers44 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Toerag:

> I think the tips will depend on your guiltiness, are you guilty or not?

Even if you are innocent,  plead guilty.

It will save time and then you will get peace and quiet to post on UKC to your hearts content. Maybe just try pleading mitigating circumstances? Diminished responsibility? Sport climber? Don't own a camper van etc etc?

If that fails, blub.

1
In reply to Wainers44:

I’d turn up to court looking like this guy. 


 Hardonicus 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

I promise not to mention bouldering...

 didntcomelast 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I’ve been retired 6 years now but video evidence from a defendant  (excuse the term) would normally be presented to the police by the their solicitor prior to the court date.

 The paperwork you should have been sent by the court should have instructions regarding presentation of evidence. If you spring it on the court/police on the day of your trial the court may choose not to accept it on the grounds that you should have presented it earlier, if it only became available at the very last moment that may be accepted but if you’ve had it a while you should have told the police. They are duty bound to take it and review it to see if it exonerates you and if it does they would then present it to the CPS ( the charging authority in most criminal cases ) who would also review it and again if it proves you innocent they would stop the prosecution. 

Saving the video for the court date doesn’t often work because the court doesn’t like the idea that you’ve wasted their time waiting till the court date when it could have been sorted before. 

 Wainers44 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Slightly more seriously, although Cvil Proceedings, not Magistrates etc, I have been to a couple of "litigant in person" cases. The court dealt very patiently with the individual giving them every opportunity to make their case. If anything they were extra hard on the Solicitor on the other side.

Only been a witness at a Magistrates Court once. Have to say not impressed by the experience....

In reply to Hardonicus:

I have never been in your shoes but a mate has and I sat in the court for 2 days watching. Slightly different as it was the sherrifs court in Scotland opposed to a magistrates court but.

I was watching the Sherrif closely and he responded the best to the witnesses who answered the questions concisely without adding explanations and opinions. He also responded exceptionally well to my mate who was the only person over the 2 days to refere to him as sir. A little respect went a long way. 

 Morty 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Unless you have friends in your lodge who have friends in the magistrate's lodge, I would seek professional representation.  

5
 Trangia 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Morty:

> Unless you have friends in your lodge who have friends in the magistrate's lodge, I would seek professional representation.  

Yes, and the OP should remember the famous quote "A man who represents himself, has a fool for a client." Abraham Lincoln I think?

1
 hokkyokusei 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> I've got a court hearing next week. Any top tips?

Yes, under no circumstances should you try to represent yoursel... oh.

1
In reply to Trangia:

> Yes, and the OP should remember the famous quote "A man who represents himself, has a fool for a client." Abraham Lincoln I think?

That might explain why a quarter of a US Yellow Pages is devoted to lawyers...

 Tom Valentine 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Better Call Saul......

 Forest Dump 18 Nov 2021
In reply to Tom Valentine:

You need a criminal lawyer, no, a criminal lawyer

 Hardonicus 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Right I'll divulge a little more info in the hope of gaining more of your excellent advice.

Flashed at 36 in a 30 zone at 12.30 am. Partner in labour. Worried as obstetrician strongly recommended labour ward birth due to previous complications (I have letter from community midwife confirming this) and previous labours have been very fast (like 2 hours fast). Annoyingly I only got done because they'd changed the camera but left the old markings on the road the sneaky bastards.

Ended up with the baby literally dropping out and landing on her head on the tarmac of the hospital car park (I have CCTV footage). Bruise to the head and kept in for observations.

I'm proposing this was an emergency situation and had I been going any slower the birth would have happened on the roadside without the possibility of medical intervention.

Have I got a leg to stand on? How do I present the video evidence (do I even need to)?

Post edited at 10:17
In reply to Hardonicus:

Get a solicitor.  Christ!

In reply to Hardonicus:

was the alternative 3 points and a fine?

 Darkinbad 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Now that's what I call an excuse.

I would have thought a statement from the hospital staff might carry a bit more weight than a home video, no matter how dramatic.

 wintertree 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I think you need the advice of a qualified solicitor, and I don't think one will be able to offer any here.

This is why:

>  How do I present the video evidence

I don't think the CCTV you describe is evidence.  AFAIK, the circumstances you describe do not fall under an exemption from the law on speeding, and so they have no evidentiary value to the charge that you face.

What your circumstances do have I think is weight when it comes to sentencing, and if your goal here is to avoid collecting any points on your licence (or perhaps being tipped over in to a suspended licence), then you need to make the right case in the right way to the court about your mitigating circumstance.  Presenting them as "evidence" against a charge where they hold no evidentiary value is likely to cause confusion, annoyance and time wasting that will count against you.  Presenting it as mitigation for sentencing requires a capitulation over the offence.

I might be completely wrong in my interpretation - I give it not as direct advice but to illustrate why I think beyond a shadow of a doubt you need to work this with a solicitor.

Post edited at 10:24
1
 Hardonicus 19 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

I have pleaded guilty to the offence already and am asking for mitigation. The 'evidence' I'm proposing to present is to illustrate the circumstances. I have received the summons to court rather than requesting it.

In terms of a solicitor - how much is that going to cost? I figure I may as well just give it my best and take it on the chin in terms of the outcome. I am therefore enquiring for advice on how to best present my case...

Post edited at 10:53
 3 Names 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

You need to plead guilty, then explain the circumstances.

 PaulW 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I'm sure the medical emergency excuse has been tried many times before, you can probably find case reports if you search.

Whether the cost is worth a solicitor depends on what you have to loose.

If just a few points and a fine then perhaps not.

But if you are looking at enough points for a ban and then possible job loss then perhaps.

if you are concerned about a ban then there are certain reasons you can plead for the magistrate to consider not banning you. If this is the case get legal advice for sure.

In reply to didntcomelast:

> Appeal is a 50/50 gamble weighted against you.

Eh?

 Hardonicus 19 Nov 2021
In reply to PaulW:

I'm a good boy - I've only got 3 points on my license and I cycle to work, so the stakes are low. I'll check out some example pleas on line...

Post edited at 11:05
In reply to Hardonicus:

>Annoyingly I only got done because they'd changed the camera but left the old markings on the road the sneaky bastards.

Can you explain that bit, as it seems important. 40Mph sign, but road limit changed?

I guess you're going for the 'special reasons' mitigation? You can always say that whilst the birth was predictable, the timing wasn't. There was no scope for an ambulance, as you've read lots about current waiting times for an ambulance being hours, rather than mins. I'd suggest using the phrase 'an immediate risk to life', and then presenting evidence of previous complications.

Say sorry, it wont happen again. Make a small joke about never having any more kids / kids being loveable trouble from day one / naming her NCP. Bow your head and cross your fingers and toes.

In reply to Hardonicus:

Over here all court reports go in the local paper so I have indirect experience of this.  You may get a reduced punishment for coming out with a sob story, however how long does it take you to get to hospital from your house? If it's 5 minutes and previous labours were 2 hours you don't really have that excuse.  People here often say they need their license for work and will lose their job, and that only washes if the offence was very minor and they've no history. Taxi drivers don't ever get away with it. The people that seem to get their bans reduced the most are those who claim they need their license to look after their sick relatives.  I suspect getting a lawyer will be sensible - they'll know which excuses work with which judges. PS. congrats on the birth

 rogerwebb 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

On what you have said you may well be able to do better than just mitigation which will only take you to the minimum penalty. You may have the grounds for a special reasons proof that could take the penalty to zero.

You really do need to speak to a solicitor, ideally one that often appears in the court you are going to (and isn't the one that winds everyone up).

Given the circumstances it may also be possible for your solicitor to speak to the prosecution and get them to put it in the bin. 

Post edited at 11:33
 Hardonicus 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Toerag:

It's 35 minutes fastest possible (legal) time to the nearest labour ward. There was a delay in setting off as Grandparents (who live locally) had to be raised at midnight to look after other kids. 

Partner was VERY insistent it was coming right away on the drive in, the fact we did not get through the hospital doors is testament to the veracity of this statement! The other key point in my estimation is the recommendation of the obstetrician that this was a high risk labour (which I have evidence of).

Post edited at 11:31
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Annoyingly I only got done because they'd changed the camera but left the old markings on the road the sneaky bastards.

This sounds the most likely reason for not being convicted. Incorrect signage, markings, etc seem to be commonly used for defence. Depends what you mean by 'markings', I guess.

In reply to Hardonicus:

Hope you get let off. I bet there’s not many on here who wouldn’t have done the same as you. 

1
 Wainers44 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> It's 35 minutes fastest possible (legal) time to the nearest labour ward. There was a delay in setting off as Grandparents (who live locally) had to be raised at midnight to look after other kids. 

> Partner was VERY insistent it was coming right away on the drive in, the fact we did not get through the hospital doors is testament to the veracity of this statement! The other key point in my estimation is the recommendation of the obstetrician that this was a high risk labour (which I have evidence of).

Mate your story matches the arrival of our third child, almost word for word. The upholstery in my company car was never the same again.

Only difference, the traffic offence I committed  (not speeding, road wasn't straight enough) went undetected. 

You know you would do the same again in these special circumstances.  Fingers crossed that justice is done, rather than simply the law applied. Best wishes for the day.

1
 elsewhere 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Perhaps politely and deferentially suggest the minimum penalty or an absolute discharge might be appropriate.

Google link as there is no point me telling you whether or not the Google results are legally accurate.

https://www.google.com/search?q=if+i+plead+guilty+can+i+get+absolute+discharge

And since I see you are in Yorkshire

https://www.google.com/search?q=if+i+plead+guilty+can+i+get+absolute+discharge+england

PS belated congratulations on the birth of your child!

Post edited at 12:10
 elsewhere 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

When a friend announced the birth of their second son, he also asked if anybody could recommend a company for car valeting.

 gazhbo 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

If you pleaded guilty to an FPN how have you ended up in the magistrates court.  Were you timed out of accepting the FPN?

It’s probably one of the better reasons the court will have heard, but assuming that the reason you’re in court is that you failed to deal with the paperwork rather than the offence itself (which you admit) a stressed out magistrate/DJ with hundred of other low end speeding offences in his/her list might not care.  
 

Worse case scenario is maximum fine (£1,000ish) plus some costs.  It’s still only 3 points.   Best case is they have sympathy with you and knock the fine down a bit.  Can’t see much sense in privately instructing a solicitor as you’re certainly not going to recover those costs.  You might even be better off without one.
 

I am a lawyer but not a criminal one.  Sorry if any of the assumptions in the first paragraph are wrong in which case ignore everything I’ve said!  Other than that - good luck and congratulations!

Post edited at 12:24
 Jamie Wakeham 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Any top tips?

You're asking on the wrong forum.  Go get advice from www.pepipoo.com - there are people there with vast expertise and they will be able to tell you exactly what to do.  Spell everything out as clearly as you can in your first post.

I'm not normally terribly forgiving of people who've been caught speeding, but in these circumstances I hope everything goes well!  And congratulations.

 Andy Hardy 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

A friend's wife (no, really!) was a magistrate when Gatso cameras first arrived. She was told by the clerk of the court that there was no mitigation (this was 20 years ago, things may have moved on), basically anyone who came before them after getting photographed was given 3 points and a fine, no ifs or buts.

I seriously hope things *have* moved on and you get the outcome natural justice would demand, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

E2A: Congratulations!!

Post edited at 12:18
 Hardonicus 19 Nov 2021
In reply to gazhbo:

I declined to accept the fixed penalty and got a form from the magistrates court with 3 options: plead not guilty, guilty, or guilty with mitigation. I did the latter and supplied the circumstances (hoping it would finalised via paperwork only). I was thereafter summoned to court.

 gazhbo 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Ah ok - that makes sense then.  I guess given that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the mitigation then the court is bound to do that.  I guess it will depend on the judge and you might find some benefit to instructing a lawyer (but you’ll only really find out after the case).  The court will have to deal with you as a litigant in person if you don’t and you won’t be explicitly penalised for that.

I can’t help with any of the procedural stuff for filing any evidence you want to rely on etc, but if you were required to file evidence in advance there should have been some sort of directions order.  I assume if there was you’ve complied with it?!

Best of luck - it will be interesting to hear how it goes!

 Hardonicus 19 Nov 2021
In reply to gazhbo:

Thanks for that. There were no explicit instructions for attaching evidence to the online form, so I cited in my statement the points for which I had evidence.

This is one of the reasons why I am asking on the procedure for producing evidence in court. Obviously I'll take a stack of paperwork, but there is also the video.

I'll report back to the forum after next week. I was amazed that hearing is being held on a Saturday (I assume to try and deal with Covid backlog).

Post edited at 13:53
 graeme jackson 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

For 36 in a 30 zone I'm surprised you haven't been offered a speed awareness course. 

 Xavierpercy 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

At Court you say you want to argue special reasons on the basis of emergency. Bring all the evidence as the burden to establish this is on you. If special reasons are found then the Court will not endorse the licence with points. If they don’t feel that there are special reasons it will be 3 points. Speak with the prosecutor beforehand to see if they will take a view to dropping the case.
Definitely worth a punt. It’s not worth getting a solicitor as the cost will be fairly prohibitive.  

 Hardonicus 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Xavierpercy:

How do you get to speak to the prosecutor?

 Xavierpercy 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Just ask the usher who and where the prosecutor is and try and have a word before the court gets going. The magistrates start sitting at 10:00. 

In reply to graeme jackson:

The OP has stated that he has 3 points on his licence already. I think you need a clean licence to have the speed awareness option.

2
In reply to Hardonicus

 I would advise that you go and watch at least one trial. Representing yourself will be less stressful if you understand the format. 
 

Re your footage - ensure your video is in DVD format. The court can play footage but may or may not do so. I don’t think they’ll wish to spend time marvelling over the circumstances, as great a story as it is. A paper record of events may be more useful as this is a quick way for them to verify your information. Good luck.

2
 graeme jackson 19 Nov 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

> The OP has stated that he has 3 points on his licence already. I think you need a clean licence to have the speed awareness option.

Ah. missed that bit. Thanks for the clarification Nick.

In reply to graeme jackson:  It is possible to be offered a speed awareness course with 3 points on your licence.

 Hardonicus 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Simon CD:

Not eligible because I did a course within the last 3 years!

 Billhook 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Keep it simple.  

If you have anything to say in your defence - don't come up with elaborate  or long winded made up excuses or explanations of what happened.  And don't make anything up!!

Don't play the clever dick. You'll be cut short and told to get on with answering the question/s.

If you were guilty, then my experience (as a regular visitor, taking youth groups to our local magistrates court) is to be trite and apologetic.

Good luck

PS don't overdress and don't look scruffy either.   Let us know how you get on.  If we hear nothing we'll assume they've taken you down to the cells!

 raincloud 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Try not to mention that or you may be deemed to have “ history” with regard to speeding

1
 Hooo 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Wow that's a pretty good claim for mitigation. On the other hand, it is totally dependent on the magistrates attitude. Quite a long time ago now I got flashed at 69 in a 40. Mandatory court appearance with the likelihood of getting banned. I produced a letter from my boss saying I'd lose my job if I got banned, so they reduced it to 6 points. I already had 6 points, so they gave me special dispensation of 12 points but no ban! I couldn't believe I walked out of there with my licence. If they let a dickhead like me go and convict you, there is no justice in this world

 65 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

See rogerwebb's reply and follow that. He knows what he's talking about here. Good luck, and congratulations!

 Maggot 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Not eligible because I did a course within the last 3 years!

hahahaha, they’re going to hammer you!!!

Edit: they take a REALLY dim view of re-offenders.

Post edited at 19:20
23
 donrobson 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

The time to get worried might be when a magistrate or clerk starts with "Ah Mr Hardonicus"!

Seriously good luck

 Billhook 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I'll second the other recommendation to go to watch a magistrates court in action before you go.  

I used to go quite often. Its an education and can be quite entertaining.  

But most of all you'll be familiar with the surroundings.  You'll know where or even see the clerk, the court usher and so on.  It will make your day in court less intimidating for you and leave you feeling a little less apprehensive, thus making you more likely to give a clear account of what and why you did what you did.

1
 Hardonicus 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Billhook:

Yes this seems particularly good advice. I'll nip out from work on a late lunch to the local one. This means I won't get to see the actual court I'm attending in Leeds, but should give me a flavour of proceedings.

Post edited at 20:39
 Hooo 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Billhook:

I've watched the proceedings at court a couple of times while waiting for my case to come up. It was all driving offences and I came to the conclusion that most of the defendants were complete morons who didn't actually understand what they were being charged with, or arrogant dickheads. I figured that if I managed to not appear as either of these it would be a refreshing change for the magistrates, and this seems to have paid off in my cases.

Hardonicus appears to be an articulate and intelligent person, so my recommendation would be to just be yourself. You'll probably be the most pleasant person the magistrates have to deal with that day.

 Hooo 19 Nov 2021
In reply to Hooo:

Just occurred to me that I should check my privilege, as they say...

I should point out that I'm white and middle class. If you're not, just being yourself might not work so well for you.

1
 Hardonicus 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Hooo:

I'm fully white, middle class and gritcentric like 97 percent of all UKC users...

 Hooo 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

That's what I assumed. Then I felt bad for assuming it...

 Darkinbad 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> I'm fully white, middle class and gritcentric like 97 percent of all UKC users...

Are you sure you are not even slightly lime-curious?

 Hardonicus 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Darkinbad:

I've been known in my younger days to extol the virtues of Malham Right Wing and Stoney but I know better now mi'lord.

 Wire Shark 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Is fighting a minor taffic offence really the best use of court time (and public money)?  Life isn't always fair, and if this is the most unjust thing that happens to you then you'll have been blessed indeed.

Post edited at 03:30
36
 Sean Kelly 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

It should be the baby standing in the dock, if he is capable of standing. He caused all your grief in the first place. Good luck, but I think sleepless nights lie ahead!

 wercat 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

The happiest thing I saw in Durham magistrates was a case involving someone who hadn't taxed his car.  On being told he was a bad lad he dared open his mouth to describe a car in the court car park he'd seen without a current tax disk.

Exit a pink faced lady magistrate hastening to the Post Office!!  (I actually saw this happen, not a made up story)

Post edited at 16:52
 Lankyman 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> I've been known in my younger days to extol the virtues of Malham Right Wing and Stoney but I know better now mi'lord.

Hanging's too good for the likes of you!

 profitofdoom 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Always look straight at the judge when you're speaking

You probably got summoned by letter. Take the letter with you to court (a requirement)

Switch your phone off in court

Answer questions completely, but also as briefly as you can. Don't waffle or add extra details

Lots of luck

1
 Timmd 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

My Dad put on a navy wool jumper with button down whatsits on the shoulders and had a beard trim and haircut, towards looking like he was from the services, and he got let off. 

I can't remember what it was for, but he felt the hint of being from the services may have helped, he's slightly jaundiced about how society functions. 

Post edited at 20:23
3
 Hardonicus 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Timmd:

I'm a long way from looking like anything from the services...

 Red Rover 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Wire Shark:

The court summoned Hardonicus though so he has no choice. 

 Timmd 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> I'm a long way from looking like anything from the services...

Fair enough, though it's not a comment on anybody from the services, his jaundicedness, more other aspects of society. He rather respects people's desire to serve their country.

I conform visually, figuring I'm different enough in other ways to make it not worth being different visually too. 

Post edited at 17:51
2
 Hardonicus 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Timmd:

I'll probably dress like a scruffy academic since I am one. Jacket no tie (since it's a special occasion).

Post edited at 20:46
1
 mutt 15:11 Tue
In reply to Hardonicus:

at what point did you decide that speeding was the right course of action when you have a heavily pregnant woman in the car, and possibly a new born child. Frankly if you choose speeding in those circumstances I suspect the magistrate will ban you from driving entirely.

73
 Stichtplate 15:19 Tue
In reply to mutt:

> at what point did you decide that speeding was the right course of action when you have a heavily pregnant woman in the car, and possibly a new born child. Frankly if you choose speeding in those circumstances I suspect the magistrate will ban you from driving entirely.

It's called risk assessment.

For example: jumping out of a first floor window is a stupidly risky thing to do... unless the staircase is on fire.

In reply to mutt:

What would propose instead?  Not bothering and having someone give birth in a car despite medical advice to be in hospital?

1
 Stichtplate 15:57 Tue
In reply to MG:

> What would propose instead?  Not bothering and having someone give birth in a car despite medical advice to be in hospital?

In such circumstances Mutt would probably advocate transport via a vegan powered tandem, stopping to applaud Insulate Britain protesters if they happened to by lying in the road en route

2
In reply to mutt:

36 in a 30 is hardly Grand Theft Auto territory.

1
 Wainers44 16:19 Tue
In reply to mutt:

> at what point did you decide that speeding was the right course of action when you have a heavily pregnant woman in the car, and possibly a new born child. Frankly if you choose speeding in those circumstances I suspect the magistrate will ban you from driving entirely.

Guessing you have never found yourself in that situation in the early hours of the morning....well done you.

1
 Stichtplate 16:26 Tue
In reply to Wainers44:

> Guessing you have never found yourself in that situation in the early hours of the morning....well done you.

I have and we were going a lot faster than 6mph over the limit. Nobody wants to be stuck outside maternity sponging amniotic fluid out of the upholstery.

Post edited at 16:41
1
 Sealwife 16:36 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

Indeed.  Having been the woman in advanced labour, kneeling on the passenger seat, hanging onto the headrest and wailing, it is an urgent situation, babies don’t wait and travelling to hospital in this state is extremely stressful for all concerned.  We did make it in time but only just.

My third child was a planned home birth as I didn’t want to repeat the experience.

 Timmd 17:54 Tue
In reply to mutt:

> at what point did you decide that speeding was the right course of action when you have a heavily pregnant woman in the car, and possibly a new born child. Frankly if you choose speeding in those circumstances I suspect the magistrate will ban you from driving entirely.

Had you actually clocked that he was unaware of the change in speed limit, and didn't decide that speeding with a heavily pregnant woman in the car was the right thing to do?

He did 36 in a 30, thinking it was a 40 limit...

Post edited at 18:16
1
 Wainers44 18:21 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I have and we were going a lot faster than 6mph over the limit. Nobody wants to be stuck outside maternity sponging amniotic fluid out of the upholstery.

As per up thread, me too. Number 3 is one of those special express deliveries. The grandparents child minding service at 0300 on the other hand took a bit too long to arrive. 

I preferred to face the jump the red light at a junction with full visibility charge,  rather than the leave the 6 and 3yr old kids home alone charge. 

I had to keep the company car the full 3 years, noone else seemed to want it?

 mutt 18:50 Tue
In reply to captain paranoia:

> 36 in a 30 is hardly Grand Theft Auto territory.

6 miles an hour further into the killing cyclists , and pedestrians whilst distracted by imminent birthing.  All 29 dislike are from idiots who hav bought into the invulnerability myth that nothing bad can happen when encased in one tom if steel.. good luck to you all but I hope I never meet any of you lot on the road.

74
 hang_about 19:14 Tue
In reply to Hardonicus:

I hope you're having a fantastic time with the new baby!

 Timmd 19:25 Tue
In reply to mutt:

> 6 miles an hour further into the killing cyclists , and pedestrians whilst distracted by imminent birthing.  All 29 dislike are from idiots who hav bought into the invulnerability myth that nothing bad can happen when encased in one tom if steel.. good luck to you all but I hope I never meet any of you lot on the road.

Did you read the bit where it used to be a 40 limit, which he still believed it to be when doing 36?

I cycle everywhere, and I'm not judging him...

Post edited at 19:26
2
 mutt 19:25 Tue
In reply to Wainers44:

> As per up thread, me too. Number 3 is one of those special express deliveries. The grandparents child minding service at 0300 on the other hand took a bit too long to arrive. 

> I preferred to face the jump the red light at a junction with full visibility charge,  rather than the leave the 6 and 3yr old kids home alone charge. 

> I had to keep the company car the full 3 years, noone else seemed to want it?

That is also f*cking stupid. Jumping red lights might get you some points but nighty also run down the child who looks to the green man for assurance that they can cross. And as for the visually impaired who rely on the noise of the green man to set off across the road or the road user who assumed that a green light gives them safe passage. Do they all bear the responsibility when your totally legitimate need trump's all off their safety. I expect dislikes but those who disregard the safety of others so that they Matt arrive 2 minutes earlier absolutely disgusted me. I assume you wouldn't treat your climbing partners with such selfish indifference. And that's good for the OP too. If you didn't notice the 30 limit or absence of 40 signs then how can you reasonably expect to spot the vulnerable road users on that road?

Post edited at 19:27
46
 Maggot 19:27 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I have and we were going a lot faster than 6mph over the limit. Nobody wants to be stuck outside maternity sponging amniotic fluid out of the upholstery.

My Mrs had the last two on the lounge floor.  Good job we have bare floorboards. Added bonus of not having to go to hospital.

 Stichtplate 19:37 Tue
In reply to Maggot:

> My Mrs had the last two on the lounge floor.  Good job we have bare floorboards. Added bonus of not having to go to hospital.

I am having terrible images of potential splinter injuries!

 Wainers44 19:47 Tue
In reply to mutt:

Love you too mutt. Hope you have a happy life x

2
In reply to Hardonicus:

Take a wad of cash with you. One of my employees was summoned for various things. 3 speeding, 1 red light and 1 not updating his licence when he moved house so they had a job tracking him down. He was rushing his kid to hospital on a managed motorway. 

He already had 3 points so was definitely facing a ban. My Co director went with him to say if his licence went his job went with it (can't be a mobile service engineer if you can't drive).  Whilst waiting a solicitor was trolling the waiting room. £500 cash only and the solicitor went to see the judge / magistrate or whatever and the lad walked with no points and a £300 fine. 

5
 Stichtplate 19:50 Tue
In reply to mutt:

> 6 miles an hour further into the killing cyclists , and pedestrians whilst distracted by imminent birthing.  All 29 dislike are from idiots who hav bought into the invulnerability myth that nothing bad can happen when encased in one tom if steel.. good luck to you all but I hope I never meet any of you lot on the road.

Oh get a life. He was doing 36 in a 30 during the early hours of the morning. I regularly drive in the small hours and there's usually no bugger about. The law recognises situations such as the OP describes and allows for them, so I wouldn't be surprised if he gets off (fingers crossed Hardonicus). If he'd been going 1 MPH slower, he wouldn't even have got a ticket in most counties.

The 29 dislikers you label idiots are simply people capable of empathising with the plight of a man desperate to get his wife medical attention when faced with a birth imminent that has already been flagged up as high risk in a home setting, let alone in the back of a car. 

As an aside, one of the things I like about the up/down buttons is that when faced with an avalanche of disapproval I'm afforded the opportunity to reassess my position, perhaps you should do the same.

2
 hms 19:51 Tue
In reply to mutt:

whilst I too take a dim view of speeding, this was at just after midnight which means the roads will have been really empty, not packed with cyclists, school kids or nuns wheeling prams full of rescued puppies...

1
In reply to MG:

> What would propose instead?  Not bothering and having someone give birth in a car despite medical advice to be in hospital?

Mrs Profitofdoom had to rush to the hospital (quite a long way away) with me in a taxi just before she gave birth. It was a very worrying and frantic journey. We made it, she gave birth just after getting in to the hospital

 FactorXXX 20:16 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I am having terrible images of potential splinter injuries!

I was thinking of the scene in Hellraiser where the dripping blood leaking through the floor reawakens Frank.

 Stichtplate 20:18 Tue
In reply to FactorXXX:

> I was thinking of the scene in Hellraiser where the dripping blood leaking through the floor reawakens Frank.

Jesus! Have you considered therapy?

 Hardonicus 20:19 Tue
In reply to mutt:

Are you lonely Mutt?

2
 FactorXXX 20:28 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Jesus! Have you considered therapy?

No, but I believe Maggot has now decided to have a carpet fitted.

 Stichtplate 20:35 Tue
In reply to FactorXXX:

> No, but I believe Maggot has now decided to have a carpet fitted.

If there's more on the way I'd recommend lino.

 Timmd 20:42 Tue
In reply to Wainers44:

I don't suppose all red lights are equally dangerous to jump, it can depend on the layout and time of day.

3
 Hardonicus 20:48 Tue
In reply to Hardonicus:

Baby now 8 months (such is the pace of justice) and seems to be well recovered from hitting the tarmac from fanny height...

https://ibb.co/3vSxL8D

 Stichtplate 20:50 Tue
In reply to Timmd:

> I don't suppose all red lights are equally dangerous to jump, it can depend on the layout and time of day.

I jump reds all the time (carefully), it's the bloody cyclists wearing headphones you have to especially watch out for.

3
 Stichtplate 20:53 Tue
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Baby now 8 months (such is the pace of justice) and seems to be well recovered from hitting the tarmac from fanny height...

Delightful, and already landed Dad in court. What a legend.

When are you up before the beak? You really have to let us know how you get on.

In reply to mutt:

> .  All 29 dislike are from idiots

That's one possibility.  There is another.

1
In reply to Hardonicus:

Take a copy of the photo for the magistrates.

No idea if it will work, no experience of court, but it must tug on some heartstrings. 

Post edited at 21:04
 EddInaBox 21:25 Tue
In reply to hms:

> ... the roads will have been really empty, not packed with cyclists, school kids or nuns wheeling prams full of rescued puppies...

You missed out the Salvation Army Band and the family of Ducks.

youtube.com/watch?v=YSZJufHv5kg&

In reply to mutt:

> All 29 dislike are from idiots....

I’m a disliker !

(I’m not really, never dislike anything, but it is Panto season).  

 Wainers44 21:32 Tue
In reply to Timmd:

> I don't suppose all red lights are equally dangerous to jump, it can depend on the layout and time of day.

As per love letter to mutt, it was 0330, about a mile from the maternity unit at the end of Barrack Rd in Exeter.  No other cars, no people,  no badgers. Clear view for 150m+ in all directions. Things were staring to get, er, "runny"? I was trying to stay calm while clearly going through the highway code in my mind. Strictly speaking it was only the right turn light that was red.  Only time in 50+ years I have jumped one , honest. 

Some things I feel guilty about, sometimes for years afterwards.  Others,  less so.

 Wainers44 21:33 Tue
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Baby now 8 months (such is the pace of justice) and seems to be well recovered from hitting the tarmac from fanny height...

That paints such a romantic and nostalgic picture,  you old softie.....

 wintertree 21:37 Tue
In reply to Wainers44:

I would contribute my 03.30 am delivery story out of solidarity, but pleading the fifth isn’t actually a thing over here.

One enduring memory was the song “convoy” coming on the radio.  Mercy, saints alive…

Post edited at 21:39
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Jesus! Have you considered therapy?

>

It’s actually ‘Jesus Wept’.  Big fan of that film. 

 Maggot 21:47 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

> If there's more on the way I'd recommend lino.

A re-varnish was sufficient. Currently getting overrun with kittens pissing everywhere, little barstards

In reply to Stichtplate:

> I am having terrible images of potential splinter injuries!

I am having terrible images of potential sphincter injuries!!!  
My wife’s piles!  Wow man, nearly knocked the midwife unconscious!!!

In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Forget the photo, take the baby into court in one of these autobuggies....


In reply to mutt:

> 6 miles an hour further into the killing cyclists , and pedestrians whilst distracted by imminent birthing. 

This sentence has all the clarity of a porridge avalanche. 

 Stichtplate 21:58 Tue
In reply to Maggot:

> A re-varnish was sufficient. Currently getting overrun with kittens pissing everywhere, little barstards

Kittens are even more delightful than babies (if you can ignore the fact that they’re all budding psychopaths)


 r0x0r.wolfo 22:05 Tue
In reply to mutt:

> That is also f*cking stupid. Jumping red lights might get you some points but nighty also run down the child who looks to the green man for assurance that they can cross. 

Who are these children crossing at 3.30 in the morning? That's what I want to know. 

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> Who are these children crossing at 3.30 in the morning? That's what I want to know. 

Probably children taking kittens to the local cat orphanage. Two for the price of one!  

In reply to mutt:

> All 29 dislike are from idiots who hav bought into the invulnerability myth that nothing bad can happen when encased in one tom if steel..

I'm a cyclist.

I don't drive.

I don't have a driving licence.

I don't own a car.

I'm fully aware of my vulnerability.

I disliked your post.

In reply to bouldery bits:

> 6 miles an hour further into the killing cyclists , and pedestrians whilst distracted by imminent birthing. 

This sentence has all the clarity of a porridge avalanche. 

Let me clarify:

‘6 miles’ = 9.65673636373938363 km

‘an hour further into ‘the killing cyclists’ ‘. You not seen the Killing Cyclists!  Man, you’ve never lived. It’s a classic Romero film where 60 minutes into the film a bunch of cyclists overrun a police station and eat the fat bellies of a load of sleeping policemen. 

‘and pedestrians whilst’...TBH, not a clue. 

‘distracted by imminent birthing’....my friends aunties best friends cousin was there. Turns out it was a big fart. Bit of a follow through, but no baby. Disappointed she was. 

In reply to Hardonicus:

> I've got a court hearing next week. Any top tips?

Where can we buy tickets! Given all the advice, could be the hearing of the century! In fact, if you sell them it could pay for your court fees !!

Post edited at 23:06
 Ian W 23:18 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Kittens are even more delightful than babies (if you can ignore the fact that they’re all budding psychopaths)

The kittens or the babies are budding psychopaths?

Both, in my experience.......

 Timmd 00:50 Wed
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I jump reds all the time (carefully), it's the bloody cyclists wearing headphones you have to especially watch out for.

In an ambulance driver capacity I'm figuring, people engrossed in their phones can be annoying too, in a reactionary way I was irritated by Holland bringing in pavement lights for phone zombies.

'Let them step into traffic if they lack the common sense to look up from their phones.' Bah humph 

Post edited at 00:50
1
 mutt 09:19 Wed
In reply to captain paranoia:

why! Magistrates have heard every excuse under the sun. They may well see things as I do. Has anyone asked what Mrs OP thinks about the speeding ticket? 

Likely everyone is under the collective delusion that they are perfect drivers but 5 deaths a day and having completed a driver awareness course he OP knows full well how speed increases the risk of accident, injury and death. The OP has no excuse.

39
 Hardonicus 09:29 Wed
In reply to mutt:

Having been through one traumatic birth resulting in an emergency caesarian (which contributed to this being a high risk delivery - risk of scar rupture etc.) and concerned about the other possible complications of having the birth in a layby I can ensure you Mrs OP was fully onboard with the decision you fecking cretin.

Anyway the court will decide!

Post edited at 09:30
1
 mutt 09:32 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

That's what ambulances are for

46
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Baby now 8 months (such is the pace of justice) and seems to be well recovered from hitting the tarmac from fanny height...

See baby got your credit card to pay the fine!   Can’t see any toes, are you binding them? Reddy for I’ll fitting rock shoes  

In reply to Hardonicus:

My suggestion would be to focus on the birth part of your mitigation argument, and steer well clear of even mentioning the "it used to be a 40" part - the adage that ignorance is no mitigation stands and could well just get their backs up.

 Hardonicus 09:46 Wed
In reply to mutt:

1) Normal labour is not considered an emergency. It is only considered an emergency if the labour is progressing faster than expected and there is a strong urge to push (advice from NHS) see https://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/your-service/Our-Maternity-Services.htm. Hence no justification for calling an ambulance in the first instance.

2) The transition to 'faster than expected labour' and therefore emergency situation happened en route to the hospital. This is 'born out' (ho ho) by the fact we did not make it into the hospital.

3) In relation to ambulances generally,  I live in a rural area (HD8) 35 minute drive from nearest labour ward. From: https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/health/two-huddersfield-postcodes-waiting-almost-20963897 on ambulance service performance in HD8 (where I live) "calls were slower still in May with an average response time of almost 37 minutes for a Category 2 call". Add that to a transit time of I imagine at least 25 minutes even on blue lights and we are looking at an >1 hour to the labour ward and thus a birth in the back of an ambulance. See point 1 however.

4) Underlining all this is the obstetrician strong recommendation that the birth take place in a labour ward due to high risk relating to patient age and history.

Thanks for helping to clarify some key points for my defence. It's been a useful exercise.

Post edited at 09:52
 Darron 09:46 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Baby now 8 months (such is the pace of justice) and seems to be well recovered from hitting the tarmac from fanny height...

Re the pic. That kids trouble. First he gets you done for speeding now he’s nicked your credit card😊.

 Hardonicus 09:49 Wed
In reply to Darron:

It's a girl - too lazy to grow hair!

 rogerwebb 10:00 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

Accept facts, explain background, apologise for and regret breaking the law.

Do not attempt to justify your actions which as you have pled guilty would be justifying breaking the law. Regret that in the circumstances you allowed your speed to creep up.

If you want to go for special reasons get a lawyer, preferably local to the court. You may be incredibly lucky in the composition of the bench, you may be lucky in the prosecutor, you may not be. If you aren't lucky it is a tough day representing yourself.

If it isn't too late and you do get a lawyer see if they can speak to the prosecution and get them to bin it before the court date. This is often the most effective approach. (You can do this yourself but, if south of the border is anything like here, getting through to a decision maker is tricky. It is much easier for someone who has access to the relevant person.) 

Post edited at 10:05
 off-duty 10:14 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

I stay as far as I possibly can away from traffic matters (and magistrates courts!)

On the face of it Xavierpercy and rogerwebb 's advice seems to make the most sense (unsurprisingly!)

My (not legal advice) suggestions - make sure you know the specifics of the defence/mitigation you are putting forward eg no reasonable alternative/extenuating circumstances (not sure of the specifics).

The letters supporting previous difficulties with pregnancy would seen useful. Birth certificate and any evidence of time of arrival at hospital to demonstrate it was a quick birth (not sure if that's your video evidence?). 

Video evidence in as many formats as possible - DVD etc. Take a laptop for worst case scenario. But only if the video actually shows something useful evidentially, otherwise you risk just annoying everyone/wasting time.

I'm a bit unsure what you meant about changing the camera/road markings - might be a whole different defence available there.

Being polite, respectful and smartly dressed will go a long way as well (fair or unfair as that might be!) .

In reply to mutt:

I take it you have not tried to call an ambulance lately. They would arrive when the baby starts university at the current load levels.

 mutt 14:50 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

I don't really understand why you are making a stand. You admit you were speeding but you seem entirely sure that you mitigating circumstances provide all the justification you need. You've got external approval from pretty much everyone else on this forum, albeit a rather self selecting bunch. Why not just pay up and accept the points? You have contravened the law after all, Does getting a magistrate to agree with you really matter that much ? 

29
 wintertree 14:53 Wed
In reply to mutt:

> You've got external approval from pretty much everyone else on this forum, albeit a rather self selecting bunch.

Echo chamber!  Bingo.

> Does getting a magistrate to agree with you really matter that much ? 

Sometimes a man’s godda do what a man’s godda do…

1
 mutt 14:57 Wed
In reply to wintertree:

> Sometimes a man’s godda do what a man’s godda do…

I think that is how the OP got into this mess in the first place!

Post edited at 14:58
6
 Stichtplate 14:57 Wed
In reply to mutt:

> I don't really understand why you are making a stand. You admit you were speeding but you seem entirely sure that you mitigating circumstances provide all the justification you need. You've got external approval from pretty much everyone else on this forum, albeit a rather self selecting bunch. Why not just pay up and accept the points? You have contravened the law after all, Does getting a magistrate to agree with you really matter that much ? 

Look up the phrase “mitigating circumstances” and the word “justice” and then see if you can fathom out the answer.

 mutt 15:02 Wed
In reply to Stichtplate:

in this case (as is common these days) mitigating circumstances means self justification and finding a community of like minded people to validate your selfish decisions. So that has nothing to do with justice. Justice is about obeying the laws regardless of whether you'd rather not. 

30
In reply to Stichtplate:

I'm fairly strongly against irresponsible road use, as people will recall from previous threads, and I did expect this to be another one where there would be no justification.  But a medical emergency in the early hours of the morning - I would speed judiciously too.  I can't say if it'd be better to take the fixed penalty and points on the chin as a price worth paying for the OP's wife and baby's health - it may well be - but I do think this is one of those exceptions that prove a rule, particularly in a time when (see other threads) the ambulance service, the other option for a very quick ride to hospital, is seriously overloaded and leaving very sick people for hours.

I wish the OP luck.  Obviously guilty, but I hope the fine/points can be reduced.  (Points are more of a nuisance than the fine, really, as they cause insurance etc to go up and can be an issue in some jobs).

Post edited at 15:11
 Stichtplate 15:12 Wed
In reply to mutt:

> in this case (as is common these days) mitigating circumstances means self justification and finding a community of like minded people to validate your selfish decisions. So that has nothing to do with justice. Justice is about obeying the laws regardless of whether you'd rather not. 

Yeah, you’ve just described another phenomenon formulated to promote justice of outcome. You may have heard of it: the right to be judged by a jury of your peers.

 Sir Chasm 15:27 Wed
In reply to mutt:

So what you're saying is that we should just follow orders?

1
 mutt 15:44 Wed
In reply to Sir Chasm:

when the orders are issued after careful consideration by elected members of parliament and have undergone scrutiny by all interested parties and the upper house. Yes I would say that we should follow those orders. 

are you one of those libertarians?

26
 Timmd 15:48 Wed
In reply to mutt:

Would the OP doing 36 in a 30 zone because it used to be a 40 zone and he was mislead by the road markings do anything to change your perspective?

 ''Annoyingly I only got done because they'd changed the camera but left the old markings on the road the sneaky bastards.''

Post edited at 15:54
 Andy Hardy 15:50 Wed
In reply to mutt:

I'm glad I'm not your wife.

2
 Stichtplate 15:54 Wed
In reply to mutt:

> when the orders are issued after careful consideration by elected members of parliament and have undergone scrutiny by all interested parties and the upper house. Yes I would say that we should follow those orders. 

> are you one of those libertarians?

so what’s changed your mind since you were all in favour of insulate Britain blocking roads, breaking laws and endangering their fellow citizens?

or is it simply the case that you pick and choose which laws you personally agree with?

In reply to Timmd:

This aspect actually makes me wonder a bit about his case.  He seems to be saying that  he wouldn't have been speeding if he had known the speed limit.  In which case I don't think he can also argue it was so pressing a situation that it was OK to.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I don't think you understand.  Breaking Bad Laws where you have authority from smug moral superiority is fine.  Speeding is a Good Law only broken by bad people and therefore absolute.

 Myfyr Tomos 16:40 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

Would it help your case if a large and vocal group of UKCers came along to the court with banners and placards wanting "Justice for Hardonicus"? Some could even superglue themselves to main doors. Just say the word...

Remember, if all else fails, "I am Hardonicus".

Post edited at 16:42
In reply to Timmd:

> Would the OP doing 36 in a 30 zone because it used to be a 40 zone and he was mislead by the road markings do anything to change your perspective?

>  ''Annoyingly I only got done because they'd changed the camera but left the old markings on the road the sneaky bastards.''

To me this argument is an absolute non-starter - a "safe and competent driver" is expected to know the speed limit for the road they're on, and be observant enough to realise if it has changed. I'd steer well clear of trying to claim that a change in the speed limit counts as mitigation, and focus on the "emergency" aspect of the offence.

 Timmd 16:50 Wed
In reply to MG:

> This aspect actually makes me wonder a bit about his case.  He seems to be saying that  he wouldn't have been speeding if he had known the speed limit.  In which case I don't think he can also argue it was so pressing a situation that it was OK to.

Unless he talks about having been doing the speed he was doing due to the urgency, and happening to have been caught out by the road markings too? It possibly depends on how it's phrased?

Post edited at 16:51
 mutt 16:54 Wed
In reply to Stichtplate:

I anticipated that so here we go. Rules are rules until the external situation meaningfully changes. Insulate Britain are testing the rules because the climate crisis was not factored in. When speed limits or freedom to travel was codified. In fact had it been speed limits would be much better. 

But the most important thing is that insulate Britain, just like to OP admit that they are breaching the law. But unlike the. OP they are insistant on receiving the full punishment under the law. In face 5 insulate Britain have just been jailed for breaching the court order. The OP is choosing to breach a law that is longstanding and there is no argument for relaxing. Indded many people would suggest it be tightened and better enforced. The O P Is seeking to evade punishment for his selfish reasons.

38
In reply to mutt:

> The O P Is seeking to evade punishment for his selfish reasons.

I'm not really sure that wanting his wife and child-to-be in the best place possible for a safe birth constitutes 'selfish'. 

1
In reply to mutt:

So, just to be utterly clear: imagine you were driving your wife to hospital.  It's 3 o'clock in the morning, the streets are absolutely deserted.  It's still 20 miles to go.  Her water broke some time ago and she is screaming that she's crowning.  

You're telling me that you'd drive at exactly 30mph?

 Wainers44 17:10 Wed
In reply to mutt:

You still going mate? Fair play, well done. 

If you have read the thread properly,  all the OP was seeking was mitigation to be considered. Probably basic justice section 1 part 1 type stuff? He's pleaded guilty so not seeking to evade anything! xx

Post edited at 17:12
 wintertree 17:24 Wed
In reply to mutt:

> But unlike the. OP they are insistant on receiving the full punishment under the law.

Martyrdom at the state’s expense seems to be part of their intent however, so I’m not sure that’s comparable…

> The OP Is seeking to evade punishment for his selfish reasons.

The OP is going to ask the magistrates to consider the full scope of their sentencing powers.

In reply to mutt:

You’re being too lenient. 30 mph can still kill, he should have been going about 20 mph (although he would probably have to now be forking out for a divorce lawyer!)

 mutt 17:31 Wed
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> So, just to be utterly clear: imagine you were driving your wife to hospital.  It's 3 o'clock in the morning, the streets are absolutely deserted.  It's still 20 miles to go.  Her water broke some time ago and she is screaming that she's crowning.  

> You're telling me that you'd drive at exactly 30mph?

Maybe or maybe not. But if I broke the speed limit it would not be by accident and no I wouldn't be wasting the magistrates courts time trying to justify myself with spurious arguments. 

My objection to the OPs position is that he drove without care and attention definitively  putting others at risk. And that he is arguing that it was right to do that and will try and convince a magistrate that to do so was reasonable. 

I understand that mistakes are made, and that in certain circumstances calculated risks need to be taken but this one looks more like inattention. For a fact if I were in that position and if I thought really that speed was the solution (it never is by the way)!I would be going a hell of a lot faster than 6 mph over. 

Going 6 mph over is a mistake,  in this case due to the obvious distractions. Nobody should be driving when distracted. A car is just too dangerous to soft bodies inside or outside the car.

39
 wercat 17:40 Wed
In reply to mutt:

a plea in mitigation admits the offence but asks for consideration of the circumstances surrounding the offence to be taken into account in arriving at a sentence where the sentence is not fixed by law.  Nothing to do with claiming a right to break the speed limit as there never has been a legal defence of "necessity".

Post edited at 17:42
In reply to Myfyr Tomos:

> Remember, if all else fails, "I am Hardonicus".

And "I'll have justice in this life or the next"? 

In reply to mutt:

> Going 6 mph over is a mistake,  in this case due to the obvious distractions. Nobody should be driving when distracted. A car is just too dangerous to soft bodies inside or outside the car.

So he should have stayed at home, hoping for an ambulance to turn up in a timely fashion, despite being told that the best place for his wife to be was in hospital? 

 Stichtplate 17:49 Wed
In reply to mutt:

> I anticipated that so here we go. Rules are rules until the external situation meaningfully changes. Insulate Britain are testing the rules because the climate crisis was not factored in. When speed limits or freedom to travel was codified. In fact had it been speed limits would be much better. 

> But the most important thing is that insulate Britain, just like to OP admit that they are breaching the law. But unlike the. OP they are insistant on receiving the full punishment under the law. In face 5 insulate Britain have just been jailed for breaching the court order. The OP is choosing to breach a law that is longstanding and there is no argument for relaxing. Indded many people would suggest it be tightened and better enforced. The O P Is seeking to evade punishment for his selfish reasons.

Ahh, so now it’s right and proper that insulate Britain have their day in court, even though they knowingly broke the law, but Hardonicus must shut up, pay up and take it in the chin because, errr, he knowingly broke the law???

As to the “change in external situation” his wife and unborn child were at risk and required urgent medical attention…, seems like justifiably big enough change in the external situation to me.

In reply to mutt:

I bet playing Monopoly with you would be hard work. 

In reply to summo:

> And "I'll have justice in this life or the next"? 

“The frost - it sometimes makes the accelerator pedal stick”

In reply to mutt:

> ... I wouldn't be wasting the magistrates courts time trying to justify myself with spurious arguments. 

He's been summonsed.  He has no choice but to waste the magistrate's time.

> For a fact if I were in that position and if I thought really that speed was the solution I would be going a hell of a lot faster than 6 mph over. 

OK, so you'd break the law too.  Glad we've established that.  But because you'd do it deliberately (and indeed more flagrantly than the OP did) that puts you into a superior position?

> (it never is by the way)!

If your child is about to be born on the back seat, speed is absolutely the bloody solution!

> Nobody should be driving when distracted.

Ah - right.  He should have pulled over?

1
In reply to mutt:

> Rules are rules until the external situation meaningfully changes.

All of us on here should be grateful that the Kinder Trespassers took a different view. Thank god for Young Communists.

 Yanis Nayu 18:26 Wed
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> I'm glad I'm not your wife.

For many reasons I’d imagine…

1
In reply to mutt:

>… if I thought really that speed was the solution (it never is by the way)

Sure. The emergency services just put the blue lights on for a giggle. Nothing to do with a societal agreement that human life is worth more than an arbitrary speed restriction.

In reply to mutt:

> My objection to the OPs position is that he drove without care and attention definitively 

How do you come to this conclusion? Speed by itself does not imply lack of care and attention even when it is breaking a speed limit.

1
In reply to mutt:

Someone's in a situation and has asked for advice.  People are offering advice and the original poster has offered up more information about his situation, leading to further advice.  He's getting attention.

You seem to have decided that this is unacceptable and have embarked on a bid to make this thread about you and your opinions, not him and his situation.  

It's a while since I've seen such a pitiable case of thread envy.  Well done you.

T.

1
In reply to Myfyr Tomos:

> Remember, if all else fails, "I am Hardonicus".

God no. Then you'd just have the entire banner-waving UKC massive, each standing up and saying "no, I'm Hardonicus!"

("and so's my wife...")

In reply to Hardonicus:

I have to say that, if this was me, I would forget all about the speed limit recently having changed.  That muddies the waters and makes it look like you're trying for two different defences at once.  That's not a good look.

I'd simply say that I made a calculated decision to exceed the limit, to a degree I felt was still reasonably justified and reasonably safe, given the time of night and the urgency of the journey.  We all know we'd have done the same thing in the same circumstances, and frankly most (as Mutt says) would have gone a bit quicker than 36mph.

 Toccata 19:36 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

Mrs Toccata nearly died in labour with child number one so when child number two announced her imminent arrival 5 weeks early with a lot of blood we called for an ambulance. On learning it could be several hours Mrs Toccata's transit to hospital through Bolton was rapid. Very, very rapid. Daughter was born within a few minutes of arrival and life-threatening bleeding was, for the second time, stopped. Points or ban were not important but care was taken at all times. Daughter is now 13, Mrs T is fine but to this day I wonder what might have happened at 30/50mph?

I doubt you will be listened to because the law must be applied to the little people.  But I think most of us agree we would have done the same.

 deepsoup 19:36 Wed
In reply to Sir Chasm:

"Obedience is justice" has more of an Orwellian ring to it don't you think?

 scotthldr 19:45 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

You were caught speeding end of, not only that you would’ve been distracted by what was going on within the car from what was happening outside and were probably not in a fit state of mind to be driving anyway. Just take it on the chin and learn from it, I’d only be too thankful that both my misses and child were/are both in good health, and everything worked out this time.

On a side note: What if another car driving on that night when there was no pedestrians/cyclists or nuns about , but somehow crashed into the only other car on the road(you). The driver was found to be doing 37mph, and at the time was thinking about the massive row he just had with his wife and not 100% concentrated on the road ahead. The collision resulted in serious medical complications to both your wife and unborn child. Would you be hoping he got off, or wish to see him hang and pay dearly for his actions🤷‍♂️?

35
 mutt 19:48 Wed
In reply to scotthldr:

At last someone talking sense!

28
In reply to scotthldr:

I think it is clear to me that morally a medical emergency is a case for judicious speeding but being het up and unfit to drive because you have had an argument with another adult most definitely is not.

I would myself be going down the "medical emergency" line of mitigation, not "I was driving without due care and attention due to being distracted so didn't see the speed limit sign" which I agree with whoever said that wouldn't sound good.

I have driven someone to hospital who worsened during the journey, and I (carefully, and watching for cameras) exceeded the speed limit in doing so.  I think most people would.  I was debating calling an ambulance to meet the car, but that would have taken longer.

Post edited at 20:01
In reply to scotthldr:

> On a side note: What if another car driving on that night when there was no pedestrians/cyclists or nuns about , but somehow crashed into the only other car on the road(you). The driver was found to be doing 37mph, and at the time was thinking about the massive row he just had with his wife and not 100% concentrated on the road ahead. The collision resulted in serious medical complications to both your wife and unborn child. Would you be hoping he got off, or wish to see him hang and pay dearly for his actions🤷‍♂️?

I'd have been more cross if someone was doing 42 in a 40 and crashed their exploding Porsche into a whole family of ducks, an orphanage and a convent. But that didn't happen either. 

 wercat 20:00 Wed
In reply to mutt:

Crap.

Being in a highly emotional state after a row is NOT. I say again, NOT the same as acting in an emergency.  In a panic yes it would be the same but in emergency or gravely dangerous situations it is possible, and frequently is actually the case, to act very coldly and clinically.  I know this to be the case from numerous situations in which panic would have been disastrous and probably fatal.

You can distinguish decision making from execution of actions in this case.

You are arguing shite, even though the OP is clearly guilty of the offence and you didn't even give credit for his guilty plea

Jumping a red light at a junction I'd definitely draw the line even in an emergency but not necessarily a red at a short section of temporary lights on a long straight road with total visibility.  These sometimes stick on red anyway

Post edited at 20:06
 mutt 20:01 Wed
In reply to Neil Williams:

A birth is not a medical emergency. It's a natural function..didn't the child I'm question get born on the pavement? If so I think being born in the car 2 minutes out isn't significantly worse. 

52
In reply to wercat:

> You are arguing shite, even though the OP is clearly guilty of the offence and you didn't even give credit for his guilty plea

Exactly.  He isn't saying he didn't do it, he's just asking for mitigation of the punishment given the reason he did do it.

In reply to mutt:

> A birth is not a medical emergency.

It absolutely is, particularly given the complications the OP mentioned.

> It's a natural function..didn't the child I'm question get born on the pavement? If so I think being born in the car 2 minutes out isn't significantly worse. 

It was clearly an attempt for that not to happen.

Post edited at 20:04
 65 20:12 Wed
In reply to mutt:

> At last someone talking sense!

The key bits of sense on here are from 2 lawyers and a policeman. 

 wintertree 20:18 Wed
In reply to mutt:

> A birth is not a medical emergency

Its been entertaining in a daft sort of way, but now you’re just being outright insulting to the many parents on here who’ve experienced the wide range of medical emergencies associated with childbirth.

> If so I think being born in the car 2 minutes out isn't significantly worse. 

2 minutes closer to the baby resuscitation stations.  If you’ve never looked at one of those you should probably just pack it in now.

1

In reply 

I had to rush baby Profitofdoom to hospital from primary school for emergency treatment. I drove through 4 red traffic lights enroute, time was of the essence. She got the urgent treatment she needed

There was virtually no traffic on the road. I never got a ticket, I suppose there were no cameras there decades ago

I don't regret what I did

 deepsoup 20:26 Wed
In reply to 65:

> The key bits of sense on here are from 2 lawyers and a policeman. 

And, specifically addressing the bit of low grade 'trolling' that's been going on, Tony Buckley's post at 19:17 above.

In reply to mutt:

> A birth is not a medical emergency. It's a natural function..didn't the child I'm question get born on the pavement? If so I think being born in the car 2 minutes out isn't significantly worse. 

Based on your experience of giving birth how many times? 

 PaulW 20:39 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

i've really enjoyed this thread. I think everyone, even Mutt, raise valid points. It's not black and white, it is a grey area. To what extent should you be able to break the rules, possibly endangering others, and for what reasons.

in the circumstances described it does not seem unreasonable at all. How about 70 mph through a town centre? Or how about slightly over the speed limit to get to a job interview on time when you really need the job.

Having decided what we would all do and consider acceptable - we are all different - then think about the punishment. Unless you are a multiple offender or a very high speed offender then speeding penalties are relatively trivial. Myself, I'm sure I would have driven to hospital quickly but also just accepted the points and penalty fine, I would have though that was fair.

We do seem to have become a bad tempered bunch recently. Brexit? Covid? Perhaps we always were but I didn't notice. Be nice.

 peppermill 20:47 Wed
In reply to mutt:

> A birth is not a medical emergency. It's a natural function..didn't the child I'm question get born on the pavement? If so I think being born in the car 2 minutes out isn't significantly worse. 

What happened to "That's what ambulances are for"?

 65 21:03 Wed
In reply to mutt:

> A birth is not a medical emergency. 

I'm guessing you haven't read Toccata's post of 1936 then.

In reply to mutt:

> A birth is not a medical emergency.

Yeah, childbirth never goes wrong, does it?

Be honest. If it was you, if your partner has experienced difficult births before, if you knew full well that the ambulance would have added another half hour or more of delay, you'd have driven her yourself. And if she was in distress and crowning half way there, you'd have floored it.

 Hardonicus 21:14 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

Thanks all, this has been a most awesome and entertaining thread for many reasons both good and bad. I  enjoy a bit of low grade trolling, and I appreciate Mutt may have a slightly different (yet valid) perspective from the majority because he may not yet have been able to form emotional attachments with meaningful others - there's still time though my friend.

Thanks also for the professional input,  I'll do my best to make my case strongly. It's clearly a grey area and brings up some moral considerations. I feel the experience will be worthwhile regardless of the outcome.

I'll report back after the event on Sat afternoon! Just checked and my license is now clean, not sure if the have my speed awareness course on record or not.

Post edited at 21:24
1
 Stichtplate 21:15 Wed
In reply to mutt:

> A birth is not a medical emergency. 

HaHaHa... you try passing a melon sized, living, sentient being out of your arse and then tell me it's not a medical emergency! Read up on evolutionary human biology, put simply our heads evolved to be bigger much faster than our Mum's pelvises did.

I'll let you into a little secret, 99% of ambulance crews hate delivering babies (the other 1% are weirdos). This isn't because it's a bit icky. It isn't because it's a bit messy. It's because of all the terrifying possible outcomes when managing an out of hospital birth. 

Post edited at 21:27
 FactorXXX 21:28 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

> I'll report back after the event on Sat afternoon!

If you've got Internet access... 

In reply to mutt:

> A birth is not a medical emergency. It's a natural function..

This is the most idiotic thing I ever read on here 

In reply to mutt:

> A birth is not a medical emergency. It's a natural function..didn't the child I'm question get born on the pavement? If so I think being born in the car 2 minutes out isn't significantly worse. 

So why would also have been speeding on a similar situation as you state above?

 John Ww 21:50 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

If you live in HD8 (as I do), I’m assuming you’ve got the obligatory tattoo on your forehead - you know, the one that reads “In the event of an emergency, for the love of god, take me to Barnsley, because if you take me to either HRI or (god forbid) Calderdale, I’ll be dead before we get there”. As for getting an ambulance from where we are - yeah, right.

 Stichtplate 21:52 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

> I'll report back after the event on Sat afternoon! Just checked and my license is now clean, not sure if the have my speed awareness course on record or not.

Speed awareness courses stay on record for three and a half years, but you become eligible for another course, rather than points, after three years (errr, a mate told me?).

All the best for Saturday youth.

 Billhook 21:55 Wed
In reply to Hardonicus:

Good luck for Saturday.  

Just one futher thought.  I don't know how good or confident you will be  to remember all the important relevant bits you wish to say in mitigation without getting muddled up.

You can, with permission read from a text, or refer to notes you've previously made, outlining the important bits etc., etc.,  Its what I did and I did it because I'd seen others do it too.

Good Luck - and don't worry too much, they don't ship the guilty abroad or flog you in public anymore.

 Myfyr Tomos 22:12 Wed
In reply to Billhook:

But if you do get muddled up, go straight to Peppa Pig.

In reply to Toccata:

> I doubt you will be listened to because the law must be applied to the little people.

Ah. Do you think he should go for the 'testing his eyesight' defence...?

In reply to Hardonicus:

I'm very disappointed by your reply at 21:14. Except for "next week" you hadn't really given an indication of which day your appearance was due and I was starting to think "could this possibly be a brilliant 9.8/10?" - you'd lose the 0.2 because of re-entry to the thread.

However this now seems much less likely and I wish you good luck.

Would have been brilliant if it had been a troll though 😁

In reply to Hardonicus:

> Thanks all, this has been a most awesome and entertaining thread for many reasons both good and bad. I  enjoy a bit of low grade trolling, and I appreciate Mutt may have a slightly different (yet valid) perspective from the majority because he may not yet have been able to form emotional attachments with meaningful others - there's still time though my friend.

My guess is pretty much every woman who's given birth and every man who's partner has given birth will be on your side as regards speeding to get get to hospital faster in that situation.  That includes lawyers and magistrates, I'd be surprised if they aren't very sympathetic.

 John Ww 23:59 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Hang on Tom - surely it was the fault of the English/Tory scum party which deliberately altered the calibrations of the speed cameras to maliciously capture anybody with a Scottish gene in their body?

12
In reply to John Ww:

> Hang on Tom - surely it was the fault of the English/Tory scum party which deliberately altered the calibrations of the speed cameras to maliciously capture anybody with a Scottish gene in their body?

Even Tories have kids, in fact some of them have so many they can't even answer when asked how many.

1
 Wire Shark 05:26 Thu
In reply to Red Rover:

> The court summoned Hardonicus though so he has no choice. 

Nice try, but he's only been summoned because he decided to be a dick about it and not pay the fixed fine.  I stand by my comments regards this being a waste of the court's time and our money.  Guy needs to grow up.

53
 deepsoup 06:17 Thu
In reply to Wire Shark:

Jeez, was there really any need to be quite so unpleasant about it?  Have you shat the bed this morning or something?

3
 Wire Shark 08:02 Thu
In reply to deepsoup:

> Jeez, was there really any need to be quite so unpleasant about it? 

Sorry, didn't hear you above the echo.

> Have you shat the bed this morning or something?

Seems a bit unpleasant, but since you ask no.  Still, no doubt your avalanche of "likes" make you feel better.  Well done.

39
 deepsoup 09:25 Thu
In reply to Wire Shark:

> Still, no doubt your avalanche of "likes" make you feel better. 

Haven't seen them - I turned the likes/dislikes off when I realised I was starting to care about them more than was probably healthy (ie: at all).  Perhaps you should do likewise since they clearly bother you.

Post edited at 09:27
1
In reply to Wire Shark:

> Nice try, but he's only been summoned because he decided to be a dick about it and not pay the fixed fine.  I stand by my comments regards this being a waste of the court's time and our money.  Guy needs to grow up.

I don't see what's "being a dick" about asking for mitigation when effectively doing the job of an ambulance when ambulance availability is at a proper nadir.

1
 deepsoup 10:28 Thu
In reply to Neil Williams:

Nor indeed how it is wasting the court's time asking it to consider a case when that is precisely what the court is for.  The right to a trial is a pretty fundamental one, if it ever becomes compulsory to accept the offer of a fixed penalty without the right to challenge it we'll be living in a different kind of society to the one most of us grew up in.

It's like ranting at someone for wasting the doctor's time if they go to see them when they're unwell, on the grounds that somebody somewhere is more unwell.  It's hardly the OP's fault that the criminal justice system is in the state it's in.  (Well, unless he's a Tory voter, in which case hanging is too good for him!)

1
 timjones 10:36 Thu
In reply to Neil Williams:

Surely it is a 3 points and small fine type of offence?

Is it worth spending time trying to avoid it?

5
 Red Rover 11:17 Thu
In reply to timjones:

Having 3 points can push the insurance premium up quite a lot. 

1
In reply to Red Rover:

> Having 3 points can push the insurance premium up quite a lot.

Agreed, the points can be more of an issue than the fine - in some driving jobs they will result in the sack, for instance.  A larger fine but no points would be preferable.  I don't know if the Court has the ability to do that, though.

Whether this is worth it or not is down to the individual, but I do agree that removing the right to a trial or appeal of any kind for any criminal offence would be a step in completely the wrong direction in the justice system.

Post edited at 11:37
 timjones 11:53 Thu
In reply to Red Rover:

> Having 3 points can push the insurance premium up quite a lot. 

My experience is that an SP30 hasn't altered my premium at all.

In reply to timjones:

> My experience is that an SP30 hasn't altered my premium at all.

Quite a lot of insurers don't do much for one low level speeding offence, as with so many cameras about it's rather common to have one.  It does depend on your insurer, though, and some jobs do still require a clean licence.

Post edited at 11:58
 Ian W 16:39 Thu
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Quite a lot of insurers don't do much for one low level speeding offence, as with so many cameras about it's rather common to have one.  It does depend on your insurer, though, and some jobs do still require a clean licence.

He stated quite early on that he cycles to work, and is a self confessed "scruffy academic" (maybe he should have said academic who dresses to the minimum acceptable standard...) so isnt likely to need the license for work.

For me this is a demonstration of the "easy option" of using speed cameras for enforcement. If he'd have been caught doing the same speed in the same place at 12.30 pm rather than am, the potential consequences would have been much more serious, but the punishment is the same.

Perhaps variable speed limits might be useful? But i can see the advantages of having a very small number of different limits, as its easier to be aware of them.

In reply to Hardonicus:

Take stiff shoes and lots of gear, heard getting into the dock is the crux.

 Hardonicus 17:20 Thu
In reply to dseed:

"I wasn't top roping your Honour,  I was headpointing"

Post edited at 17:21
 Timmd 22:51 Thu
In reply to mutt:

> A birth is not a medical emergency. It's a natural function..didn't the child I'm question get born on the pavement? If so I think being born in the car 2 minutes out isn't significantly worse. 

You've never heard of a breach birth, a premature birth, the umbilical cord strangling the baby, or an emergency C-section happening?

I was the first 2, a maths tutor had the 3rd happen, and the 4th happened to a sis in law, all sorts of things can happen all the time.

Post edited at 22:53
1
 Lankyman 09:14 Fri
In reply to Hardonicus:

> "I wasn't top roping your Honour,  I was headpointing"

Just don't chalk up in the dock!

In reply to Hardonicus:

It would be ironic if one of the magistrates has been following this thread 😁

 jkarran 09:44 Fri
In reply to mutt:

> So that has nothing to do with justice. Justice is about obeying the laws regardless of whether you'd rather not. 

Ah bless.

jk

In reply to mutt:

Ah, so that's how all of the laws come into being, good to know! Cynical me had previously thought vested interests might also play a part, laws might reflect commonly held prejudices, etc. 

In reply to Ian W:

If he had been stopped by a traffic cop, he probably would have got a police escort to the hospital.

 Ian W 14:47 Fri
In reply to The New NickB:

> If he had been stopped by a traffic cop, he probably would have got a police escort to the hospital.


Absolutely agree. Even if because the alternative is the copper having to help deliver the baby! Or in this case, fielding at 2nd slip. Seemed to amount to the same thing....

In reply to Hardonicus:

I love how many of the "Mutt camp" are so absolutely militant about a few mph over an ARBITRARY speed limit.

Don't forget, in one village 20mph is safe, 21mph is "dangerous", in the next village 30mph might be "safe" and 31mph "dangerous"; in one country 71mph is "dangerous" on the motorway, in others 155mph is "safe" and so on....   

During the pandemic, lots of villages in Scotland applied for a 20mph limit. I personally think this is too slow for many places and is difficult to keep (I feel less safe, as I feel I have to spend more time watching my speedo than watching the road). From the hodge-podge of successful applications, it's clearly more about local will than risk...

Speed limits are in place to bring the average risk down to an acceptable level, most of the time (given typical weather / visibility, built-upness, business of traffic etc.) and to limit fuel waste (hence original motorway speed limits) they're only *very* loosely linked to actual specific risk. If the roads are quiet, there's not much pedestrian traffic and you're fully focussed (I've not been involved in a birth, so I'm unsure if you're me more focussed, or more distracted  -might depend on the individual) then you can certainly drive above the arbitrary speed limit *safely*. 

5
 toad 16:15 Fri
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

>  

. I personally think this is too slow for many places and is difficult to keep (I feel less safe, as I feel I have to spend more time watching my speedo than watching the road). 

 Nottm has lots of average speed cameras. When they first appeared, I felt this way, but these days I don't notice them, you get used to a lower limit very quickly. ( cruise control helps if the road is empty)

In reply to toad:

I agree for dual carriageways - I still hate average cameras but have got used to them. 20mph is just painfully slow on a main road through a village, fine (and sensible, easy to stick to) on a side road / residential area.

You can't / shouldn't!! use cruise control at 20mph in a village.

3
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

> You can't / shouldn't!! use cruise control at 20mph in a village.

Why?

1
In reply to Morty:

Funny handshakes not needed in today’s courts. I know several magistrates, non of whom are in any lodge and one who,s an accomplished climber.

In reply to rj_townsend:

1. Cruise control doesn't usually work under 25mph for a start.

2. Cruise control is designed / intended for clear, open roads (motorway etc.) as your ability to jump on the brakes using cruise control is slower, so it's only really safe to use it when the chances of emergency braking is relatively low. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28118033/

I would also hazard a guess (but don't have backup) that you're generally less focussed/aware/reactive when using cruis control  - the last thing you want in a village with kids wandering out, cars pulling out in front of you and grannies tripping over the kerb. 

Many people aren't even aware that it's not recommended to use cruise control in the wet.

Driverless cars are a different subject. Getting rid of the driver will, in the long term, massively reduce all car accidents IMO. (said by someone who likes driving)

4
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

The best way to do 20 limits is "20 zones" where rather than enforcement you design the road with calming measures such that exceeding 20 is difficult.  Lots of options, such as raised junctions, bumps, controlled parking to produce natural chicanes etc.

As for those talking of cruise control, you want to use a limiter, not that.  Most newish cars (last 5 years) that have cruise also have a limiter.  Alternatively, it is fairly easy to drive at 20 in second gear on most cars.

4
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

> 20mph is just painfully slow on a main road through a village,

For you in the car maybe, for the people living in that village, it's much, much better which is surely the point?

> You can't / shouldn't!! use cruise control at 20mph in a village.

I use it all the time for all sorts of speeds - we've got a 30kph (18mph) through our village (and cruise control works at that speed) - it's a continuous straight road for about 2km and does feel very slow, especially with impatient French drivers up your arse but its the main street - all the shops are there, the cinema, the library, the primary school, the market square. The street is made for people - those 2km would take me 144 seconds at 50kph (the old limit up to a few weeks ago). At 30kph it would take me 240 seconds. I can live with that.

> Cruise control is designed / intended for clear, open roads (motorway etc.) as your ability to jump on the brakes using cruise control is slower, so it's only really safe to use it when the chances of emergency braking is relatively low.

Like anything in your car, use it as appropriate - there are stretches where it works, stretches where its better to tap the breaks and go manual. I find driving an automatic makes me happier to cruise along slowly in built up areas - its much more relaxing for all concerned. If I'm not looking at the speedo I'm more likely to anticipate braking situations and have my right foot ready.

 fred99 18:10 Fri
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

> I love how many of the "Mutt camp" are so absolutely militant about a few mph over an ARBITRARY speed limit.

> Don't forget, in one village 20mph is safe, 21mph is "dangerous", in the next village 30mph might be "safe" and 31mph "dangerous"; in one country 71mph is "dangerous" on the motorway, in others 155mph is "safe" and so on.... 

Totally agree.

There are many roads around where I live where varying speed limits apply in various villages. In the smaller ones, whether it's 30 or 40 (or even 50!) seems to be more in line with the value of the houses rather than their proximity to the road, and whether or not there are homes on 1 or more sides of the road - which would indicate people crossing, or for that matter children living there.

Yes you've guessed it, the slower speed limits are where the homes are big and expensive, and the faster limits are where the poorer people live.

1
 wintertree 18:10 Fri
In reply to yorkshireman:

> If I'm not looking at the speedo I'm more likely to anticipate braking situations and have my right foot ready.

This.  I can't access the paper to see if the drivers being tested were keeping their foot in the usual place, poised for the usual move to the brake pedal, or if they were planting their foot somewhere else.  There's a reason I keep my foot in the normal place when using CC a lot of the time...

I think a speed limiter is ideal for 20 mph and 30 mph zones where holding speed in a modern ICE "by ear" or "by eye" is very difficult, and where you want to keep your eyes 100% looking out the windscreen, not regularly at a dial.

In reply to fred99:

There is a correlation between ability to earn money and ability to have the world arranged to your liking

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

That paper is dated 2017. Things have moved on a lot since then I would suggest.

Modern ACC can be set at 20 mph and can fully control of braking and speed and can allow the car to stop without any intervention by the driver in modern cars I’ve driven with it. Braking can be extremely powerful depending on what the sensors detect or usually gently. I suspect using ACC would help most drivers to be safer, if only as it stops them tailgating!

Re use in wet, most I’ve discovered disable themselves automatically!!

Personally I use ACC in a variety of circumstances and that includes 20 zones. Not always, but when I think it is safer. Not needing to overly be concentrating on speed, I feel more time can be spent scanning the road for potential problems, and besides it is more relaxing.

 Timmd 18:44 Fri
In reply to mutt:

> in this case (as is common these days) mitigating circumstances means self justification and finding a community of like minded people to validate your selfish decisions. So that has nothing to do with justice. Justice is about obeying the laws regardless of whether you'd rather not. 

Going off on a 'huge' tangent, I once saw a programme about a guy who, reading between the lines, had got involved in a scheme to smuggle drugs into the UK, and he was so freaked out by the prospect of going to jail for rather a while, that on unexpectedly being found innocent (perhaps from only contributing money and not being linked in a paper trail way) he was avowed to being the most law abiding citizen imaginable.  It struck me that in a roundabout way, other than the cost of his trail and being held in custody, the best outcome for society had been arrived at in him changing his ways without him having to be housed in jail for a decent amount of time (with a financial cost in that, and a personal cost to him in terms of being a productive member of society once he was out again). 

It obviously wouldn't work in all cases, but I sometimes think that while rules and laws are the fairest approach we have if everybody follows them, in practice there's sometimes a grey area where the desired outcome may be arrived at 'without sticking to the script'. 

Post edited at 19:07
In reply to wintertree:

A btw you will no doubt be aware of … the latest ACC systems are linked to the sat nav which itself is programmed with road speed limits. This I was told in a conversation whilst looking at BEVs and the salesman was referring specifically to the ID range.

If the ACC is used on that type of car, it is therefore impossible for the driver to speed (except temporary/part time situations of the variable speed areas/temporary reductions for road works, etc) as the car slows down automatically (or speeds up!) to the speed limit changes.

In reply to Climbing Pieman:

Ok, yeah, modern ACC with all the sensors etc. I can handle that at 20mph - but that's more akin to the driverless future than the majority of cars on the road.

We still drive a 23yr old VW T4 when we actually need to drive (mainly cycle). Believe it or not it actually has cruise control! (we also just had a Zoe for 2 weeks in Spain, really nice but was sadly lacking the "A" in the adaptive bit of cruise control...

In reply to Climbing Pieman:

> A btw you will no doubt be aware of … the latest ACC systems are linked to the sat nav which itself is programmed with road speed limits. This I was told in a conversation whilst looking at BEVs and the salesman was referring specifically to the ID range.

> If the ACC is used on that type of car, it is therefore impossible for the driver to speed (except temporary/part time situations of the variable speed areas/temporary reductions for road works, etc) as the car slows down automatically (or speeds up!) to the speed limit changes.

So who's responsible if you speed by mistake? You, or VW?

1
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

> So who's responsible if you speed by mistake? You, or VW?

I believe the driver is still fully responsible afaik. It would be the driver’s choice to use the system. 

Edit: Other than a fault I’m not sure how someone using the latest ACC can accidentally speed as I was told the cars also have an associated traffic sign recognition camera so if a lower speed is on display, say at roadworks, the car will slow to the speed on the signs.

Just what I was told; sure someone who has one of those cars can clarify.

Post edited at 20:49
 RobAJones 20:49 Fri
In reply to Climbing Pieman:

 I was told the cars also have an associated traffic sign recognition camera so if a lower speed is on display, say at roadworks, the car will slow to the speed on the signs.

If it’s true I’m putting 20’a outside my house 

In reply to Name Changed 34:

> If it’s true I’m putting 20’a outside my house 

😂 The system would have to be on for it to work though. Next generation of autonomous cars without driver input however!!

 Siward 22:24 Fri
In reply to Philb1950:

> Funny handshakes not needed in today’s courts. I know several magistrates, non of whom are in any lodge and one who,s an accomplished climber.

Seriously, the Magistracy needs younger, representative, thoughtful people. Anyone able to do so should consider applying.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

I love my T4, a mere 21 years old but no cruise control (1.9TD so can't retrofit easily either) but the good news is I am never going to get caught speeding on a motorway unless it is a LONG down hill stretch 

In reply to Hardonicus:

Good luck today! 

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

My T5 has retrofitted non-adaptive cruise control and I do routinely use it in long stretches of 20. It handles it fine and I rest my foot on the brake so that if something happens I can brake even more promptly (and just tapping disengages it immediately).

 OrangeBob 10:49 Sat
In reply to mutt:

Justice doesn't mean obeying the law.

 OrangeBob 11:19 Sat
In reply to mutt:

Can you not think of any examples from history where something was legal, according to the laws in that place and time, but was clearly unjust? I don't just mean ancient history. I'm thinking during the lifetime of people using ukc. Or even still today.

The legal process the OP Is going through allows for mitigating circumstances to be taken into consideration. He is following through the legal process in claiming mitigation. He's not a wild anarchist refusing to follow the law. He's working through the process decided upon by your elected leaders that you want to unquestioningly obey. 

 Ger_the_gog 12:27 Sat
In reply to Hardonicus:

Is it today?

I'm sure that most sensible people would sympathise with your position, at least to some degree. Good luck.

 Rob Parsons 13:38 Sat
In reply to Timmd:

> ..., I once saw a programme about a guy who, reading between the lines, had got involved in a scheme to smuggle drugs into the UK, and he was so freaked out by the prospect of going to jail for rather a while, that on unexpectedly being found innocent ...

Nobody is found 'innocent' in a court of law. Being found 'not guilty' is not the same thing.

 Timmd 13:47 Sat
In reply to Rob Parsons:

You're technically correct, but also.

'I still think you did it' 'But I was found not guilty, I'm innocent' 

Post edited at 13:50
In reply to OrangeBob:

> Justice doesn't mean obeying the law.

https://imgur.com/63QlqPF

 Hardonicus 13:50 Sat
In reply to Hardonicus:

Running hours late. Won't let me talk to the prosecutor beforehand. Fingers crossed!

 Rob Parsons 13:53 Sat
In reply to Timmd:

> 'I still think you did it' 'But I was found not guilty, I'm innocent' 

That's the same misconception. Anybody can claim to be innocent of anything at any given time. But a court verdict of 'not guilty' does not mean 'innocent.'

 Timmd 13:56 Sat
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Which is why I said you're technically correct. The argument room is down the corridor.

Post edited at 13:59
In reply to Rob Parsons:

It's  a nonsense  distinction. If you are not guilty of something, by definition you are innocent of it. If the verdict was "not found guilty " it would make sense.

Even the law seems to agree sometimes "innocent until proven guilty"

Post edited at 14:05
 PaulW 14:27 Sat
In reply to MG:

I think Scotland has a half way house verdict of Not Proven as well as Guilty and Not Guilty

 Sealwife 14:49 Sat
In reply to PaulW:

> I think Scotland has a half way house verdict of Not Proven as well as Guilty and Not Guilty

It does and what it usually amounts to is - we think you did it but the evidence is not good enough for it to be beyond reasonable doubt

 Rob Parsons 14:54 Sat
In reply to MG:

> It's  a nonsense  distinction. If you are not guilty of something, by definition you are innocent of it.

It's a very important distinction, and yours is a common misconception. 'Not guilty' means that the jury were not sure that you did what you were accused of.

> Even the law seems to agree sometimes "innocent until proven guilty"

You are indeed 'presumed innocent until proven guilty.' But nobody is ever 'found innocent' in a court of law.

2
 Rob Parsons 14:55 Sat
In reply to Timmd:

> Which is why I said you're technically correct.

There is nothing 'technical' about it. It's just the way the legal system works.

3
 Timmd 15:25 Sat
In reply to Rob Parsons:

https://justice.org.uk/our-system-of-justice-is-innocent-until-proven-guilty/

To quote the official UK Justice site.

‘Our system of justice is innocent until proven guilty’

I guess it should be 'unless', but I'll leave it to you to tell them they're more generally wrong.

The argument room is still down the corridor, where they can be found. 

Ha.

Post edited at 15:28
 Rob Parsons 15:32 Sat
In reply to Timmd:

> To quote the official UK Justice site.

> ‘Our system of justice is innocent until proven guilty’

> I guess it should be 'unless', but I'll leave it to you to tell them they're more generally wrong.

Your statement above - namely 'that on unexpectedly being found innocent' (sic) -, is what I am trying to put you right on. In case you would take the correction better from a qualified barrister, have a look at point 1 of https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

There are many other general dicussions of the same general topic online.

> The argument room is still down the corridor, where they can be found. 

You certainly seem to have found it.

1
 Timmd 15:37 Sat
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Which is why I told you that you were technically correct (about not guilty not meaning innocence), and you've found an argument to be had still.

I'm done, have a pleasant afternoon.

Post edited at 15:39
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> It's a very important distinction, and yours is a common misconception. 'Not guilty' means that the jury were not sure that you did what you were accused of.

Which is why I pointed out "not found guilty" would make sense.  "Not guilty" is a positive statement, not the lack of a finding.

1
In reply to PaulW:

It does.  Interpreted by everyone but lawyers as "guilty as hell but we can't quite prove it"

1
 Rob Parsons 15:58 Sat
In reply to MG:

>  "Not guilty" is a positive statement, not the lack of a finding.

'Not guilty' covers everything from the jury being certain that the accused didn't do it, to the jury being pretty certain - but not completely sure - that the accused did do it.

1
In reply to Rob Parsons:

For comparison, if someone told you something was "not dangerous", I'd be surprised if you interpreted that to mean "it might be lethal but they are not completely sure." 

If lawyers mean something different to normal English by "not guilty" they should probably find a better phrase as it isn't just used technically among lawyers but widely by the public.

1
 Ridge 16:10 Sat
In reply to MG:

> If lawyers mean something different to normal English by "not guilty" they should probably find a better phrase

I thought the whole point of being a lawyer was to twist language?


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
Loading Notifications...