BrendanS
Well-known member
Re: boat babe and string....
As Fred Drift goes, this was a classic
<hr width=100% size=1>
As Fred Drift goes, this was a classic
<hr width=100% size=1>
M4 speed cameras. Completely non boaty.
- Thread starter longjohnsilver
- Start date
MainlySteam
New member
<<<MainlySteam's "public sector employees are low calibre, therefore deserve lower salaries" argument.>>>
Come on, that is not what I said. If you took notice of what I wrote you will see that what you quote is nowhere in my post at all and that I used the terms "by and large" and "generally". Typical of one with a poor argument, you take the others words and socially engineer them to suit your ends.
I quite agree there are some very competent people in the public sector but far fewer in proportion than in the private one. They also come in two kinds, those who truely are competent and those who are competent at making the most of a career in the public service. As you say there are some dolts in the private sector, but again in proportion far fewer than in the public one.
Again as a generalisation, but more generally so than not (and I cannot speak for the UK, but I would suspect little difference) privatised government departments (or whatever) are more successful if the new owners move as many of the old management and staff out as is possible. Part of that because of too many staff and part to inject a better culture and skills.
Just giving one example, I was very closely involved in the recovery of a company which was privatised out of the Government (as interim CEO for the recovery period) and was failing because of the inappropriate culture and low skills. Unfortunately a significant proportion of the staff could not be replaced to enable the culture and skills be improved (the ex Government employees actually resisted training as they appeared to think they did not need it) as whilst a Government department it had held the monopoly for the activities it performed, so people with the skills required did not exist in the private sector to recruit from. It took approximately 4 years with an active policy of training new recruits from the private sector, bringing in suitably trained immigrants form overseas (including from the UK), and "encouraging" unwanted employees to move on as soon as others gained the skills. At the end of the period the company was successful (it was sold off to a large European multinational).
I am the first to say that it is not always the employees fault that in the public service they develop as they do, it is a stifling and burdensome environment to work in suited to no initiative and the appearance only of working (no real measures of performance exist) except for the case of the need to apply those things to protecting ones own career, if that is important to one, or having an easy time, if that is important to one.
Society pays a very high price especially in the case of the inflexibility of the institutionalised public professions and the attitudes held in those which strongly resist change or measurement of real performance (teaching, nursing, police as in this thread, etc).
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
Come on, that is not what I said. If you took notice of what I wrote you will see that what you quote is nowhere in my post at all and that I used the terms "by and large" and "generally". Typical of one with a poor argument, you take the others words and socially engineer them to suit your ends.
I quite agree there are some very competent people in the public sector but far fewer in proportion than in the private one. They also come in two kinds, those who truely are competent and those who are competent at making the most of a career in the public service. As you say there are some dolts in the private sector, but again in proportion far fewer than in the public one.
Again as a generalisation, but more generally so than not (and I cannot speak for the UK, but I would suspect little difference) privatised government departments (or whatever) are more successful if the new owners move as many of the old management and staff out as is possible. Part of that because of too many staff and part to inject a better culture and skills.
Just giving one example, I was very closely involved in the recovery of a company which was privatised out of the Government (as interim CEO for the recovery period) and was failing because of the inappropriate culture and low skills. Unfortunately a significant proportion of the staff could not be replaced to enable the culture and skills be improved (the ex Government employees actually resisted training as they appeared to think they did not need it) as whilst a Government department it had held the monopoly for the activities it performed, so people with the skills required did not exist in the private sector to recruit from. It took approximately 4 years with an active policy of training new recruits from the private sector, bringing in suitably trained immigrants form overseas (including from the UK), and "encouraging" unwanted employees to move on as soon as others gained the skills. At the end of the period the company was successful (it was sold off to a large European multinational).
I am the first to say that it is not always the employees fault that in the public service they develop as they do, it is a stifling and burdensome environment to work in suited to no initiative and the appearance only of working (no real measures of performance exist) except for the case of the need to apply those things to protecting ones own career, if that is important to one, or having an easy time, if that is important to one.
Society pays a very high price especially in the case of the inflexibility of the institutionalised public professions and the attitudes held in those which strongly resist change or measurement of real performance (teaching, nursing, police as in this thread, etc).
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
DeeGee
Active member
You are really obnoxious in this matter....
As one working most definitely in the private sector - but spent some 14 years in public sector (lecturer) - I am gobsmacked by your generalisations. When you first posted them, I really thought they were so absurd that you had to be trolling. I would hate to think what your generalisations on other issues like immigration, british minority-ethnics, women in society etc etc.
One thing I learned late in life - one's own experience is too little and parochial to generalise from - except in an area of particular and demonstrable expertise.
<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all
As one working most definitely in the private sector - but spent some 14 years in public sector (lecturer) - I am gobsmacked by your generalisations. When you first posted them, I really thought they were so absurd that you had to be trolling. I would hate to think what your generalisations on other issues like immigration, british minority-ethnics, women in society etc etc.
One thing I learned late in life - one's own experience is too little and parochial to generalise from - except in an area of particular and demonstrable expertise.
<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all
G
Guest
Guest
Post deleted by danfoley
Observer
Active member
Re: No signature - non boaty
Brian,
I'll try to summarise position for you. First, you should check the following:
A) Is the NIP you received dated within 14 days of the alleged offence? If not, it's invalid.
B) Was it sent to you by first class post? If not, it's invalid.
Turning to the "unsigned" issue.
1. Under s.172 RTA 1988, you're obliged to give information to identify driver of vehicle involved in alleged offence (this is a "s.172 request" which is often/usually part of the notice of intended prosecution or NIP). Crucially, s.172 doesn't require the person to sign the form. There's loads of stuff on this written up on http://www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html. Also lots of debate on the Pepipoo forum at <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewforum.php?f=5>http://www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewforum.php?f=5</A>. You mignt come across some of my own postings on there.
2. In order to secure conviction for speeding, the prosecution has to give evidence of identity of driver. S.12 RTOA 1988 provides that a statement "purported to be signed by the accused" will constitute acceptable evidence of identity. So if you complete, sign and return the form you will be convicted.
3. In a decided High Court case (Mawdesley & Yorke) which is binding on lower courts, it was ruled that an unsigned s.172 response does not meet the s.12 requirement. However, the judge also ruled that an unsigned form could be a "confession" admissible under PACE. However, it seems that CPS are reluctant to use this part of the ruling because it opens a can of worms with regard to applicability of PACE in these cases. Some experts/observers recommend that you should not deal with the form yourseld but pass it to your 'agent' (wife or solicitor) to complete and return (unsigned). The thinking is that it can not then be a confession because the accused did not complete and return the form. This was so ruled in the case above. This approach may be helpful but I'm not convinced it would be decisive in all cases. Anyway, because CPS seem reluctant to use this ruling, I think it's unlikely to be relevant.
4. If you fail to provide information in response to a s.172 request, there is a separate offence of "failing to provide" for which the penalty is similar to that for the speeding offence. Police/fixed penalty offices up and down the country assert that failure to sign is the same as failure to provide. There have been a number of cases decided against defendants at magistrates court but the issue has not yet been tested at a higher court. There is an appeal expected to be heard in January involving a high profile defendant named Idris Francis. This may clarify the issue.
As there is still uncertainty over the requirement to sign, it seems to me that anybody in this position may as well take advantage of it. So, my suggestion for you to consider would be to complete the form with driver's details (name, address, dob, licence number) and return it unsigned and undated, without covering letter. Obviously keep a copy and send it by recorded delivery if you feel it necessary. You will probably receive a letter saying something to the effect that you're required to sign by s.172. This letter may refer to the "Broomfield" case. This is a try on because that case wasn't about an unsigned form, although the mags in the Idris Francis case did use it to justify their decision to convict. I would recommend against being drawn into correspondence.
If, as may be suggested, you ignore this letter, you will probably receive a summons for speeding and failure to provide. Don't be panicked - the charges are alternative. The speeding offence can't succeed if there's no evidence of driver's identity so any trial will be on the s.172 offence. By then, the law may have been clarified and you can reconsider best course of action. Even if the law is decided against the "no obligation to sign" argument, there is a real possibility that your case will be dropped for any one of several reasons, including: (i) volume of unsigned forms cases maans not enough time to prosecute; (ii) offence relatively trivial. If you do end up in court on the s.172 charge, there is possibility of large fine and more points if found guilty. However, signs are that mags are not imposing graeter penalties in the cases that have been decided - possibly because the law is uncertain and defendants should not be penalised because they are testing it.
If you want more direct advice, pm me.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Brian,
I'll try to summarise position for you. First, you should check the following:
A) Is the NIP you received dated within 14 days of the alleged offence? If not, it's invalid.
B) Was it sent to you by first class post? If not, it's invalid.
Turning to the "unsigned" issue.
1. Under s.172 RTA 1988, you're obliged to give information to identify driver of vehicle involved in alleged offence (this is a "s.172 request" which is often/usually part of the notice of intended prosecution or NIP). Crucially, s.172 doesn't require the person to sign the form. There's loads of stuff on this written up on http://www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html. Also lots of debate on the Pepipoo forum at <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewforum.php?f=5>http://www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewforum.php?f=5</A>. You mignt come across some of my own postings on there.
2. In order to secure conviction for speeding, the prosecution has to give evidence of identity of driver. S.12 RTOA 1988 provides that a statement "purported to be signed by the accused" will constitute acceptable evidence of identity. So if you complete, sign and return the form you will be convicted.
3. In a decided High Court case (Mawdesley & Yorke) which is binding on lower courts, it was ruled that an unsigned s.172 response does not meet the s.12 requirement. However, the judge also ruled that an unsigned form could be a "confession" admissible under PACE. However, it seems that CPS are reluctant to use this part of the ruling because it opens a can of worms with regard to applicability of PACE in these cases. Some experts/observers recommend that you should not deal with the form yourseld but pass it to your 'agent' (wife or solicitor) to complete and return (unsigned). The thinking is that it can not then be a confession because the accused did not complete and return the form. This was so ruled in the case above. This approach may be helpful but I'm not convinced it would be decisive in all cases. Anyway, because CPS seem reluctant to use this ruling, I think it's unlikely to be relevant.
4. If you fail to provide information in response to a s.172 request, there is a separate offence of "failing to provide" for which the penalty is similar to that for the speeding offence. Police/fixed penalty offices up and down the country assert that failure to sign is the same as failure to provide. There have been a number of cases decided against defendants at magistrates court but the issue has not yet been tested at a higher court. There is an appeal expected to be heard in January involving a high profile defendant named Idris Francis. This may clarify the issue.
As there is still uncertainty over the requirement to sign, it seems to me that anybody in this position may as well take advantage of it. So, my suggestion for you to consider would be to complete the form with driver's details (name, address, dob, licence number) and return it unsigned and undated, without covering letter. Obviously keep a copy and send it by recorded delivery if you feel it necessary. You will probably receive a letter saying something to the effect that you're required to sign by s.172. This letter may refer to the "Broomfield" case. This is a try on because that case wasn't about an unsigned form, although the mags in the Idris Francis case did use it to justify their decision to convict. I would recommend against being drawn into correspondence.
If, as may be suggested, you ignore this letter, you will probably receive a summons for speeding and failure to provide. Don't be panicked - the charges are alternative. The speeding offence can't succeed if there's no evidence of driver's identity so any trial will be on the s.172 offence. By then, the law may have been clarified and you can reconsider best course of action. Even if the law is decided against the "no obligation to sign" argument, there is a real possibility that your case will be dropped for any one of several reasons, including: (i) volume of unsigned forms cases maans not enough time to prosecute; (ii) offence relatively trivial. If you do end up in court on the s.172 charge, there is possibility of large fine and more points if found guilty. However, signs are that mags are not imposing graeter penalties in the cases that have been decided - possibly because the law is uncertain and defendants should not be penalised because they are testing it.
If you want more direct advice, pm me.
<hr width=100% size=1>
jfm
Well-known member
Re: No signature - non boaty
Good stuff observer, thanks. However, I thort the max points for a failure to sign section 172 is 3 points. There will be a £££ fine, but likely same level as the £££ fine for the alleged speeding. So nothing to lose. I have not read RTOA to check this, Nick Freeman told me this so I assume correct. In fact he told me ages ago (before the no-sign analysis came out) that if flashed at say 98mph it is always better to take the 172 charge and get 3 points, instead of the 6+ that would apply for that kind of speed
<hr width=100% size=1>
Good stuff observer, thanks. However, I thort the max points for a failure to sign section 172 is 3 points. There will be a £££ fine, but likely same level as the £££ fine for the alleged speeding. So nothing to lose. I have not read RTOA to check this, Nick Freeman told me this so I assume correct. In fact he told me ages ago (before the no-sign analysis came out) that if flashed at say 98mph it is always better to take the 172 charge and get 3 points, instead of the 6+ that would apply for that kind of speed
<hr width=100% size=1>
ParaHandy
Active member
Re: No signature - non boaty
Tim
In an earlier piece, you thought that asking for a statement of rights would cause the CPO much adminstrative problems and grind them to a stop ... I rather like that idea but what is it, exactly, that one should ask for?
Douglas
<hr width=100% size=1>
Tim
In an earlier piece, you thought that asking for a statement of rights would cause the CPO much adminstrative problems and grind them to a stop ... I rather like that idea but what is it, exactly, that one should ask for?
Douglas
<hr width=100% size=1>
Observer
Active member
Re: No signature - non boaty
I think it is now increased to max. 5 points. I'll check and post later.
<hr width=100% size=1>
I think it is now increased to max. 5 points. I'll check and post later.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Observer
Active member
Re: No signature - non boaty
Douglas,
This is a bit complicated but I'll try to explain. I said:
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>
However, there is argument that rights have to be explained anyway so latest thinking, if NIP received, is to write requiring explanation of rights befoire completing form - which of course will bring the whole system grinding to a halt.
<hr></blockquote>
Having thought further on this, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to invite an interview - in case the interview is accepted. That's less likely to happen if thousands of people request one (and this probably would gum up the works) but if only a few do so, out of thousands who are simply following the unsigned form route and nothing more, it seems possible that one may get a knock on the door.
Problem then is that you would be cautioned under PACE and then asked to identify driver. Admission of being driver would be evidence of identity so support the speeding charge. Refusal to answer would be "failure to provide" so support a s.172 charge.
If the form has not already been returned, then, if interviewed, cautioned and asked "who was the driver?", the response could be "Thank you but I do not wish to answer your question until I have taken further advice. I will ensure that my obligation under s.172 is discharged in due course" and show PC the door. Then, you could complete the written form and still send it back unsigned. But this is no different position than if unsigned form was returned without having requested explanation of rights - except you have been cautioned. So, if there is any mileage in the argument that caution is needed even with written request, it's been nullified. Also possible risk that police/CPS decide to pick on you for being smartass.
So, on the whole, I prefer the simple unsigned form approach, which leaves the PACE argument open, for whatever it might be worth.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Douglas,
This is a bit complicated but I'll try to explain. I said:
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>
However, there is argument that rights have to be explained anyway so latest thinking, if NIP received, is to write requiring explanation of rights befoire completing form - which of course will bring the whole system grinding to a halt.
<hr></blockquote>
Having thought further on this, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to invite an interview - in case the interview is accepted. That's less likely to happen if thousands of people request one (and this probably would gum up the works) but if only a few do so, out of thousands who are simply following the unsigned form route and nothing more, it seems possible that one may get a knock on the door.
Problem then is that you would be cautioned under PACE and then asked to identify driver. Admission of being driver would be evidence of identity so support the speeding charge. Refusal to answer would be "failure to provide" so support a s.172 charge.
If the form has not already been returned, then, if interviewed, cautioned and asked "who was the driver?", the response could be "Thank you but I do not wish to answer your question until I have taken further advice. I will ensure that my obligation under s.172 is discharged in due course" and show PC the door. Then, you could complete the written form and still send it back unsigned. But this is no different position than if unsigned form was returned without having requested explanation of rights - except you have been cautioned. So, if there is any mileage in the argument that caution is needed even with written request, it's been nullified. Also possible risk that police/CPS decide to pick on you for being smartass.
So, on the whole, I prefer the simple unsigned form approach, which leaves the PACE argument open, for whatever it might be worth.
<hr width=100% size=1>
MainlySteam
New member
Re: No signature - non boaty
News just out here in NZ is that despite over 4 years of greatly intensified policing of traffic offences (ie mainly of speed, with coppers even skiting in public about being able to issue more than a 100 tickets a day while on patrol - 1 every 12 minutes) by a government bent on social engineering, the previous decline in road deaths has reversed - just killed as many this year now as were killed for the whole of last year.
Despite many saying that the whole approach needs to be looked at, seems the government's reaction is that what is needed is more policing. Kinda interesting as during the week I was held up by a serious road accident where a copper in his private vehicle had wandered onto the wrong side of the road (on a straight bit of road and only a 80 kph zone!) straight into an oncoming truck. They will never learn.
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
News just out here in NZ is that despite over 4 years of greatly intensified policing of traffic offences (ie mainly of speed, with coppers even skiting in public about being able to issue more than a 100 tickets a day while on patrol - 1 every 12 minutes) by a government bent on social engineering, the previous decline in road deaths has reversed - just killed as many this year now as were killed for the whole of last year.
Despite many saying that the whole approach needs to be looked at, seems the government's reaction is that what is needed is more policing. Kinda interesting as during the week I was held up by a serious road accident where a copper in his private vehicle had wandered onto the wrong side of the road (on a straight bit of road and only a 80 kph zone!) straight into an oncoming truck. They will never learn.
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
BrendanS
Well-known member
Re: No signature - non boaty
John,
with all respect, I've driven in NZ. A hold up there is not on the same scale as e.g. 3 lanes closed on the M25 here. One of the wonderful things about NZ is that it is like the UK in the 1950's
(couldn't make the trip out this month, so Feb more likely)
<hr width=100% size=1>For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three
John,
with all respect, I've driven in NZ. A hold up there is not on the same scale as e.g. 3 lanes closed on the M25 here. One of the wonderful things about NZ is that it is like the UK in the 1950's
(couldn't make the trip out this month, so Feb more likely)
<hr width=100% size=1>For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three
MainlySteam
New member
Re: No signature - non boaty
Yes, I realise that Brendan - have spent alot of time in USA and Europe. However, because of the non multiple laned roads in most areas here, if there is a fatal or bad injuries, even just involving one or two vehicles, everything still just stops, often with no alternative route. I have been stuck with no movement for up to 3 hours quite a number of times just between Wellington and out here (around 60 km) and that is on the main highway north.
Otherwise, as you say, is quite a free run.
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
Yes, I realise that Brendan - have spent alot of time in USA and Europe. However, because of the non multiple laned roads in most areas here, if there is a fatal or bad injuries, even just involving one or two vehicles, everything still just stops, often with no alternative route. I have been stuck with no movement for up to 3 hours quite a number of times just between Wellington and out here (around 60 km) and that is on the main highway north.
Otherwise, as you say, is quite a free run.
John
<hr width=100% size=1>