Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

R K

£100 On The Spot Fines For Driving On Motorway

Recommended Posts

Latest Tory tax

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23713732

Careless drivers across Britain who hog lanes or tailgate can now be punished with on-the-spot police fines.

Under the new measures, officers can issue £100 fines and three points rather than taking drivers to court.

Ministers said it would make tackling problem motorists easier. The AA said a third of drivers risked facing a fine.

Fixed penalties for a number of offences, including using a phone or not wearing a seatbelt while driving, have also risen from £60 to £100.

More serious driving offences will still go through the courts and could result in much higher fines and penalties.

'Lives at risk' But people caught carrying out offences subject to the new penalties, which were first announced in June, will be able to choose between an on-the-spot fine or the chance to go on a driving course.

The move brings careless or inconsiderate driving offences into line with the penalties for similar non-motoring fixed penalties. Drivers can still appeal against any decision through the courts.

Among the offences police are expected to focus on are:

• Driving too close to the vehicle in front

• Failing to give way at a junction (not requiring evasive action by another driver)

• Overtaking and pushing into a queue of traffic

• Being in the wrong lane and pushing into a queue on a roundabout

• Lane discipline, such as needlessly hogging the middle or outside lanes

• Inappropriate speed

• Wheel-spins, handbrake turns and other careless manoeuvres

Many such offences currently go unpunished because of the bureaucracy involved in taking a case to court.

Not only does a motorist have to be stopped by the police, but a summons has to be issued and evidence presented in court.

Road safety minister Stephen Hammond told BBC Breakfast that the fines had been increased to "reflect the severity and the seriousness of offences".

Being in the wrong lane at a roundabout??!?!?!

Failing to give way at ajunction?!?!?!

Lane discipline?!?!?!?1

Inappropriate speed?!?!?!

All determined by a rosser not a court.

Fascism is alive and well and living in No 10 Downing Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All determined by a rosser not a court.

Fascism is alive and well and living in No 10 Downing Street.

Seriously considering getting one or two in-car cameras..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
• Being in the wrong lane and pushing into a queue on a roundabout

FFS, people get lost especially if they don't know the roads.

Should be a huge money spinner on the Park Square roundabout in Sheffield, and I presume there are other roundabouts around the country which can completely confuse those who've never been before.

The should also fine people for getting lost, it's a needless waste of energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, people get lost especially if they don't know the roads.

Should be a huge money spinner on the Park Square roundabout in Sheffield, and I presume there are other roundabouts around the country which can completely confuse those who've never been before.

The should also fine people for getting lost, it's a needless waste of energy.

Ask a policeman for directions, get fined £100..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, people get lost especially if they don't know the roads.

Should be a huge money spinner on the Park Square roundabout in Sheffield, and I presume there are other roundabouts around the country which can completely confuse those who've never been before.

The should also fine people for getting lost, it's a needless waste of energy.

Indeed if an approach to a roundabout is solid and there are several lanes, it is inevitable you will occasionally be in the wrong lane if it is your first time; since the lane indicators will be covered by traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a load of B0ll0x anyway. If you're stupid enough to give your "Name" to a Police Officer then you deserve to get fined for nothing.

There is no law in this Country that says you have to give a Police Officer, (or anybody else for that matter) your "Name".

The "Name" that they are wanting is to establish "Joinder" as the Police have no jurisdiction over any "Human Being", but they do have jurisdiction over "Persons". If you willingly agree to represent your "Legal Fiction", (Birth Certificate Name) by giving a Police Officer your "Name" then they can fine you as much as they like. If you ask them, "Am I Lawfully Obliged to Give you that information?" and they say "Yes", ask them "Under What Law?", (Police hate questions). They will quote probably "The Road Traffic Act 1988" which in itself is not a Law but an Act, (the clue is in the name).

Acts, Statutes and Legislation are not laws unless you consent to be governed by them, (they then have the force of law). If a Police Officer tries to tell you that you already consent by "Driving" on a Public Road, just ask for proof of consent, which they can't provide. Additionally, "Driving" refers to acts of commerce and not "Travelling" which is what you would be doing unless you are a Taxi Driver/Bus Driver/Lorry Driver etc.

As you haven't committed a crime, (no injured Third Party) and there is no Law stating that you must give your name when asked, the Police cannot issue you with points or a fine as they have to bind it to a Legal Fiction which you are not Lawfully obliged to represent.

mspL4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the police want this?

Or is it a summer recess press release bunged out to give the impression of "doing something".

I've also noticed that Eric Pickles' department has a regular Friday press release to give this impression.

We've had "You can rent out parking space on your drive", "Councils told to clamp down on illegal traveller sites" and now the blockbuster policy that new houses should have somewhere to put the wheelie bins. That is the last three Fridays. During that time the report concerning the 2011 riots was slipped out without any press release at all so the MSM didn't report it much (too much work to write your own copy).

Maybe the transport dept or Home office are fighting back with the `we'll fine you if we don't like the way you're driving` policy.

re the `pushing in in the queue` offence. Could this be extended to the cafe in M and S for people who send someone to sit at a table before they've got their food?

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the police want this?

Maybe the police aren't interested in this

But I can think of a few potential tax farmers who'd be more than happy to bid on the contract to take the burden off plod's shoulders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on a related note...

Warning over 'flash-for-cash' car accident insurance scam

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23717575

Motorists are being warned about a new insurance scam where criminals flash their lights to let other drivers out of a junction, then crash into them on purpose.

Anti-fraud experts are calling it "flash-for-cash".

The gangs tend to target new, smarter vehicles or vulnerable road users, including older people and women with children in the car.

The scam is costing insurers hundreds of millions of pounds every year.

It is a new tactic for an already well established crime, called "crash for cash", where criminals slam on the brakes for no reason so that the victim drives into the back of their car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh I see.......

anything to do with the economy introduced by Tories is off topic.

clever

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you're on benefits and don't have £100 do you (or rather we) pay at 20p a week.

Yet another fleece the middle-classes tax. Why not just have three points on your licence and forget the fine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you're on benefits and don't have £100 do you (or rather we) pay at 20p a week.

Yet another fleece the middle-classes tax. Why not just have three points on your licence and forget the fine?

Fleecing the middle classes is what the Tory party exists for.

Didn't you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the £1000 fine for using your mobile in the car, none of this will ever really happen and after a couple of months of FUD it will all return to how it was before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a load of B0ll0x anyway. If you're stupid enough to give your "Name" to a Police Officer then you deserve to get fined for nothing.

There is no law in this Country that says you have to give a Police Officer, (or anybody else for that matter) your "Name".

The "Name" that they are wanting is to establish "Joinder" as the Police have no jurisdiction over any "Human Being", but they do have jurisdiction over "Persons". If you willingly agree to represent your "Legal Fiction", (Birth Certificate Name) by giving a Police Officer your "Name" then they can fine you as much as they like. If you ask them, "Am I Lawfully Obliged to Give you that information?" and they say "Yes", ask them "Under What Law?", (Police hate questions). They will quote probably "The Road Traffic Act 1988" which in itself is not a Law but an Act, (the clue is in the name).

Acts, Statutes and Legislation are not laws unless you consent to be governed by them, (they then have the force of law). If a Police Officer tries to tell you that you already consent by "Driving" on a Public Road, just ask for proof of consent, which they can't provide. Additionally, "Driving" refers to acts of commerce and not "Travelling" which is what you would be doing unless you are a Taxi Driver/Bus Driver/Lorry Driver etc.

As you haven't committed a crime, (no injured Third Party) and there is no Law stating that you must give your name when asked, the Police cannot issue you with points or a fine as they have to bind it to a Legal Fiction which you are not Lawfully obliged to represent.

mspL4

That's helpful, I'd like to think I'll remember it... But why do I see an unpleasant outcome resulting from this kind of conversation? Have you tried this? If so, what was the outcome?

If i was on my own & not in any real hurry to get anywhere and thought the reason for stopping me really was unnecessary I might well be tempted to try it, but otherwise I'd be worried about the copper getting awkward with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a load of B0ll0x anyway. If you're stupid enough to give your "Name" to a Police Officer then you deserve to get fined for nothing.

There is no law in this Country that says you have to give a Police Officer, (or anybody else for that matter) your "Name".

The "Name" that they are wanting is to establish "Joinder" as the Police have no jurisdiction over any "Human Being", but they do have jurisdiction over "Persons". If you willingly agree to represent your "Legal Fiction", (Birth Certificate Name) by giving a Police Officer your "Name" then they can fine you as much as they like. If you ask them, "Am I Lawfully Obliged to Give you that information?" and they say "Yes", ask them "Under What Law?", (Police hate questions). They will quote probably "The Road Traffic Act 1988" which in itself is not a Law but an Act, (the clue is in the name).

Acts, Statutes and Legislation are not laws unless you consent to be governed by them, (they then have the force of law). If a Police Officer tries to tell you that you already consent by "Driving" on a Public Road, just ask for proof of consent, which they can't provide. Additionally, "Driving" refers to acts of commerce and not "Travelling" which is what you would be doing unless you are a Taxi Driver/Bus Driver/Lorry Driver etc.

As you haven't committed a crime, (no injured Third Party) and there is no Law stating that you must give your name when asked, the Police cannot issue you with points or a fine as they have to bind it to a Legal Fiction which you are not Lawfully obliged to represent.

mspL4

I am pretty sure I have heard of people trying this route in court and being given short thrift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the £1000 fine for using your mobile in the car, none of this will ever really happen and after a couple of months of FUD it will all return to how it was before.

In a 15 minute journey to work, everyday I see people driving whilst holding a phone to their ear or fiddling with their phones. I think it's totally out of order & offenders should be fined heavily for it. Climbing inside a 2 tonne metal cage and propelling it along a road is by far the most dangerous thing most of us will do during a normal day. Anyone who thinks driving whilst on the phone is ok is displaying an unhealthy level of arrogance for my money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a load of B0ll0x anyway. If you're stupid enough to give your "Name" to a Police Officer then you deserve to get fined for nothing.

There is no law in this Country that says you have to give a Police Officer, (or anybody else for that matter) your "Name".

The "Name" that they are wanting is to establish "Joinder" as the Police have no jurisdiction over any "Human Being", but they do have jurisdiction over "Persons". If you willingly agree to represent your "Legal Fiction", (Birth Certificate Name) by giving a Police Officer your "Name" then they can fine you as much as they like. If you ask them, "Am I Lawfully Obliged to Give you that information?" and they say "Yes", ask them "Under What Law?", (Police hate questions). They will quote probably "The Road Traffic Act 1988" which in itself is not a Law but an Act, (the clue is in the name).

Acts, Statutes and Legislation are not laws unless you consent to be governed by them, (they then have the force of law). If a Police Officer tries to tell you that you already consent by "Driving" on a Public Road, just ask for proof of consent, which they can't provide. Additionally, "Driving" refers to acts of commerce and not "Travelling" which is what you would be doing unless you are a Taxi Driver/Bus Driver/Lorry Driver etc.

As you haven't committed a crime, (no injured Third Party) and there is no Law stating that you must give your name when asked, the Police cannot issue you with points or a fine as they have to bind it to a Legal Fiction which you are not Lawfully obliged to represent.

mspL4

What are you on about? The law is expectation of consequences to ones actions enforced by some state organisation. If you expect it's possible to get caught and society seeks to make some issue of it then it's clearly the law.

I doubt you can do what you're saying and nor would I want to live in a society where anyone could get away with mental driving by not giving their name. Not saying that list there constitutes mental driving but I have seen plenty of mental driving and it's good that it's illegal.

The mobile phone one is interesting as I have to admit that my first inclining is to want to ban it but there is a lot of evidence that this isn't the way to go as it makes no difference on road safety the way they are enforcing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the subjectivity that is the concern.

If you're speeding or using a mobile phone then there can be objective evidence (of a sort) - you either were or weren't doing the deed.

Judging if use of the middle lane is appropriate, or what constitutes tailgating, or if some of the other behaviours mentioned are serious enough, is subjective.

At the moment there is too much speeding, too many people driving whilst using their phones, too many uninsured drivers and non VED'd vehicles - plenty to be going on with without inventing new endorsable offences.

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure I have heard of people trying this route in court and being given short thrift.

Fre(e)men on the land stuff, hmmmm...

It's never impressed me all that much. You can argue with the state till the cows come home. At the end of which, if it's not happy with the outcome the sending out men with sticks option still remains.

There are some arcane elements to our legal system. So, it's always possible that a particular form of words or presentation may do the trick. It'd be a bit like trying to summon a demon though. Get the slightest thing wrong and it'd tear your throat out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you on about? The law is expectation of consequences to ones actions enforced by some state organisation. If you expect it's possible to get caught and society seeks to make some issue of it then it's clearly the law.

I doubt you can do what you're saying and nor would I want to live in a society where anyone could get away with mental driving by not giving their name. Not saying that list there constitutes mental driving but I have seen plenty of mental driving and it's good that it's illegal.

The mobile phone one is interesting as I have to admit that my first inclining is to want to ban it but there is a lot of evidence that this isn't the way to go as it makes no difference on road safety the way they are enforcing it.

Why is it that it is called the Road Traffic Act and not Road Traffic Law then? I don't agree with "Mental" driving any more than you do, but someone driving "Mentally" does not constitute a crime unless they cause injury or worse to a 3rd Party, only then has a crime been committed. Why do you think that Police Officers sometimes "Let People Off" with certain driving contraventions? If they had committed a crime, it would be nigh on impossible to just let someone get away with it, (Murder, for example). Police have no right to detain you unless you have committed a crime, not contravening an Act. Acts are governed by Parliament from the top down to control certain facets of society and that is all. Ever got on a bus/train with an out of date saveway or before the time when it becomes valid has occurred and been caught? Depending on the mood of the "Enforcement Officer" they may let you off or they may fine you. You haven't committed a crime, otherwise you'd be detained and thrown in the slammer, you've just contravened an "Act" which has no force of Law unless you consent to it by providing your "Name" when asked.

The truth of the matter is that all Police Forces are registered companies who turn a profit like any other company, Police are mostly revenue collectors now and nothing more, they're not interested in proper crimes as they have quotas to reach and the more money they can extract from you the better they look to their superiors.

Remember, "You have the right to remain silent"...use it!

mspL4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure I have heard of people trying this route in court and being given short thrift.

They made the mistake of going to court in the first place. The fact that they must've received a court "Summons" in the first place, (merely an invitation in "legalese") means that they've already given too much information in that they've already provided a "Name"

mspL4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fre(e)men on the land stuff, hmmmm...

It's never impressed me all that much. You can argue with the state till the cows come home. At the end of which, if it's not happy with the outcome the sending out men with sticks option still remains.

There are some arcane elements to our legal system. So, it's always possible that a particular form of words or presentation may do the trick. It'd be a bit like trying to summon a demon though. Get the slightest thing wrong and it'd tear your throat out.

I suspect a lovetap from a billystick is the first thing you'd be on the receiving end of. Arrest you on sus then cuff and smack you for resisting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's helpful, I'd like to think I'll remember it... But why do I see an unpleasant outcome resulting from this kind of conversation? Have you tried this? If so, what was the outcome?

If i was on my own & not in any real hurry to get anywhere and thought the reason for stopping me really was unnecessary I might well be tempted to try it, but otherwise I'd be worried about the copper getting awkward with me.

A copper getting awkward with you will not mean much if they don't have a name. Sure, they can waste your time, but you're really wasting theirs as their attempts to be able to land a fine or ticket on you will be fruitless so no money for them in the long run. They could even "plant" a bag of weed on you if they so wished, unless they also planted a set of scales and some little baggies the most they could try and get you for is possession, which is also not a crime as there's no injured 3rd Party, (not intending to supply to other people, which would make it a crime). Just don't be funny with them, remain polite and whenever they ask a question, respond with a question as Police hate that and don't expect it. Don't do anything they say as it means that you're bowing to their superiority and are therefore under their jurisdiction from that point onwards which means that you consent. They try all sorts of funny stuff to try and get you to consent, "do you understand?" is a typical response, don't say "yes" as it means that you stand under their authority and they can do whatever they want.

It's all over the net and I'd have no reservations about trying it if the opportunity came up, (hopefully it won't) but the truth of the matter is, Police will slap a fine on you for almost anything if they could and most of the time do, but none of these things are actual crimes but contraventions of acts.

mspL4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Rationalwiki, not a favourite source of mine admittedly, Fre(e)men successes to date are approximately...

Tumbleweed.gif

There's a solid list of heroic failures though...

Despite the numerous failed attempts to use freeman legal methods, freemen will always insist that they do work, even clinging to this delusion when arrested and thrown in the cells. Below are some examples.
  • New Zealand woman Kiri Campbell pleads guilty to four counts of fraud What began as a Freeman inspired protest against the banking system ended with a young woman being convicted of four counts of fraud.
  • 2012 October 3rd - State of Tennessee v. Anthony Troy Williams "we determine that Appellant was properly convicted of driving on a canceled, suspended, or revoked license. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed."
  • Meads v. Meads (2012-09-18) Alberta judge writes the all time smack down of Freeman on the land claims. "I agree with Justice Sanderman’s succinct evaluation of Henry’s claims as 'total gibberish'".
  • Judge challenged to produce oath by man disputing summons. Full panoply of Freeman delusion on display here, down to Black's Legal Dictionary being produced in court. End result: conviction, and when The FreeMan Bobby of the Family Sludds wanted to appeal—"I can’t accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can’t be verified," the Judge said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.
  • Two men are arrested and charged with growing cannabis. They claim to be "freemen on the land", but the courts state that they have "no personal circumstances applying to them which affords immunity to prosecution", that there was "no legal significance" to the term "freeman on the land" and that they would be tried anyway.
  • Freeman Mark of the family Bond gets arrested (more) after refusing to recognise the court and giving police his notice of intent. He gets a suspended 3 month jail sentence anyway, on condition that he pays off his debt
  • Freeman "Brian-arthur: alexander" tries to get out of speeding by telling a judge the law doesn't apply to him. The judge disagrees and the police suggest further charges of obstruction and mischief for his freeman shenanigans.
  • Mika Rasila gets stopped by the police for not having a licence plate. He tells them that he doesn't consent to their laws and that he isn't an employee of the "corporation of Canada". It doesn't work and they arrest him and impound his van. A judge later gives him a fine of $1,250.
  • Freeman Darren Pollard gets arrested despite telling the police officer he doesn't consent or contract. Not surprisingly it fails and they take him into custody anyway
  • Darren Pollard gets arrested again after refusing to appear in court despite trying to claim that he was "Darren of the family Pollard" and not the legal fiction of Darren Pollard they were looking for.
  • Freewoman Mary Gye recollects her account of being arrested for not having road tax or car insurance and having her "conveyance" impounded.img This in spite of all the freeman woo she tried. She was later sentenced to 14 days in HMP Styal women's prison for criminal contempt when she brought a tape recorder into a court hearing over nonpayment of council tax.[44]
  • Freeman Ben Lowrey is arrested for driving a motorcycle without registration, insurance, MOT or a crash helmet. Subsequently fined £500.
  • New Hampshire resident Ian Freeman (AKA Ian Bernard) arrested, tried and jailed for 93 days for dumping a couch. Within seconds of his trial commencing, he was rearrested and hand-cuffed for refusing to sit down when asked. He has since attempted using the freeman woo while defending a parking ticket.
  • James-Michael: Tesi arrested. After refusing to pay a fine for not wearing a seatbelt, he flooded the court with woo-woo documents basically refusing to pay. The court ignored this, and issued an arrest warrant. A police officer pulled him over, which resulted in gunfire and Tesi being wounded.
  • A Freewoman attempts to use the entire panoply of freeman woo to deny a court's jurisdiction in child custody proceedings. She was sentenced to nine months for contempt.
  • A person is a "person", a Canadian judge rules, after freeman[45] David Kevin Lindsay tries to get out of paying tax by asserting otherwise. Lindsay has also been designated a vexatious litigant.[46] (Whether entering into litigation counts as consent to said laws is not clarified.)
  • Star: Hills' house is foreclosed upon when her attempts to just stop paying her mortgage fail, and even her fee schedulesimg don't work. Despite having bought the entire $250 package from Robert Menard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.