StarGateWars Forums

Kit-Fox wrote:

GrizzZzzly wrote:Another problem is the attitude of everyone here. Sure they generate revenue and slow cars and make drivers aware that they could recieve a punishment. I don't think there was ever a primary reason.

you might think, well they would only introduce speed camera's if they make some money back from it. that also may be true but do you really know?

the point is they serve 2 purposes, and therefore prove to be far more efficient than if they were entirely for 1 purpose. It is thinking logically. The people in power think, well how are we going to make this work efficiently.

Because until the cameras were given a chance to be self financing there was less than 2% of cameras on all of britians roads. Since rule/law changes were made to make the cameras self financing the UK has seen a growth in camera numbers to the tune of over 200% on previous numbers.

Ergo, they are only and solely a source of revenue.

Also the money doesnt go to government Mordack, it goes into the local police authorities pockets. So it doesnt pay for social benefits or the NHS etc etc.

I dont see the problem. What is fundementally wrong with more speed camera's?

If you drive too quick, thats your own fault. If the government know people drive too fast then it's only logical to hit those that do it. The fact that there are far more speed camera's does not prove your point either.

The police service is a government service like the NHS, therefore they need to be paid using the money they make like every other service.

We already pay for the police through other taxes and the police had no shortage of funding before the cameras were used. Are you saying they have one now?

EDIT: I also have to ask, do you really want a police force that is self-financing? police running low on funds, they know what to do go out and arrest anyone they dont like the look of and charge a release fee, or just find something to fit the person up with.

The police should not have any direct means of raising money, they should have to rely on being paid by the treasury, otherwise we really would be in a policestate, more so than we are now!

Does anyone else find the faster they go the more they pay attention?

Thriller wrote:Does anyone else find the faster they go the more they pay attention?

Generally speaking the quicker you are going the more you should be paying attention and dedicating more of your brain to the process of driving.

Of course this doesnt always translate to all drivers, especially in more modern cars it seems.

you only pay if you drive too fast. Your fault. By choice your finding the police by speeding. they aren't conning anyone of any money. Every country has speed limits, thats just the way it is.

I wasn't talking about shortage of funds, simply applying the good old brain to bring in more funds to combat problems the police is facing. Gun crime, knife crime, whatever it may be, whilst at the same time acting as a deterent so people don't drive as quicky. Thats the thought process and reasoning behind what they are doing.

And if speed limits were fair & appropiate more people might stick to them, but when you have arbitrary limits based on nothing more than blind guessing is it any surprise that people dont appreciate them.

A good example would be the 20Mph limits cropping up in the UK everywhere atm. While I can see that such low limits might have a good use on a few roads such as roads a school is located on, it is not needed for a 5 mile radius around the school.

People also wouldnt speed if the Govs allowed driving instructors to teach people to drive correctly, rather than right on the speed limit all the time. When you drive like that you become accustomed to the speed and it is much easier to go over without realising it or to start thinking how slow the speed your accustomed to is. Again the fault of the Gov for not allowing instructors & examiners to pass 'good' drivers who can and do drive not only to their ability but to the ability of the car and to the conditions of the road. A good example of this is the UK test atm (still the hardest in the world but starting to get rather stupid) where if you drive in a 30Mph zone at say 26/27Mph you will get a point (examiners choice on how bad the point it) for not making sufficent progress along the road, prevailling conditions of the road not withstanding.

Kit-Fox wrote:

GrizzZzzly wrote:Another problem is the attitude of everyone here. Sure they generate revenue and slow cars and make drivers aware that they could recieve a punishment. I don't think there was ever a primary reason.

you might think, well they would only introduce speed camera's if they make some money back from it. that also may be true but do you really know?

the point is they serve 2 purposes, and therefore prove to be far more efficient than if they were entirely for 1 purpose. It is thinking logically. The people in power think, well how are we going to make this work efficiently.

Because until the cameras were given a chance to be self financing there was less than 2% of cameras on all of britains roads. Since rule/law changes were made to make the cameras self financing the UK has seen a growth in camera numbers to the tune of over 200% on previous numbers.

Ergo, they are only and solely a source of revenue.

Also the money doesnt go to government Mordack, it goes into the local police authorities pockets. So it doesnt pay for social benefits or the NHS etc etc.

Yes, it does. Revenue generated from speeding fines goes directly to the Treasury. You may be getting them confused with parking fines, from which revenue generated goes to the local authority. This is the case in the United Kingdom, at least.

Actually nevermind, I was gonna try and explain it all but its by farrrr to complex to even work out where to begin. If you like Mordack I'll try over PM to explain my view to you?

Be warned I have no idea where to begin explaining it so it might sound a lil convoluted.

EDIT: Sorry I know this sounds a lot like KMA's 'do your own research' but its just that i'm not happy with how I explain it to myself as its sooo ass-backwards.

renegadze wrote:also got to love the 'newer' on the spot fines...how on earth do you know where that goes? they march people to the cash point to draw money out, then they disappear.

I think I just got robbed by the police

For real? You mean, a Police officer can pull you over, say you were speeding and demand that you pay the fine on the spot? I suppose, it's a lot easier for the authorities to get their way. If you contest the fine and lose, they already have your money and don't have to waste $5,000 in man-power chasing you for $326.50.

It doesn't surprise me that much though. The stubborn belief that at no time does any person have the right to further appeal or contest your own person judgement is a character prerequisite for the Police force.

just do what i do (or maybe not), about 3.5 years ago, i parked for literally 2 mins in a disabled bay outside Halfords because there was no parking anywhere except for the 10 disabled bays. so i park up, dash in and out and find a ticket on the car demanding £80 within 28 days, £40 if paid in under 2 weeks...i put that ticket in the bin and every subsequent letter of intent and threat, the same happened for driving at just under 40 MPH in a 30 zone.
a week later i get the threatening letter demanding my hard earned cash, both letters went in the bin and so did all the follow ups, i haven't heard a single peep out of them in over a year and a half.

basically, what happened is this, once we get the ticket we just pay-up because we cant be bothered with the hassle. but what happens when we dont pay?! (for whatever reason). and by that time, the debt has grown as if it was magic. in short what happens is this (in the UK at least), the local authority just wants its money but because they have no authority to extort money from you, they sell the debt to a debt recovery agency, who in turn pile on their fees and profit, and so starts months and months of them threatening you with all sorts of action to pay a debt that doesn't exist.
so one day either out of fear of the latest threat from these animals or shear ignorance, we pick up the phone and make an arrangement to pay...what you have done is enter into a legally binding contract to give these people money for something that doesn't exist...now the courts can get involved because prior to you making the agreement, they have no power to order you to do ANYTHING!

they stopped chasing me because i never once entered into a contract with these "people" either verbally or written....

but that's what i do, i dont suggest for 1 minute anyone else try this because before it stops you will get some of the nastiest letters you have ever seen, threatening you with all sorts of ridiculous amounts of money and prison time as well. for some strange reason, the more they demand from us the more scarred we get

also, if you look up the definition of the word "summons" in blacks law dictionary, it means "invitation" ALL courts are places of business and have absolutely nothing to do with "justice". once you enter a court you are admitting guilt and have agreed to go and receive punishment. and if you appoint a lawyer, you are admitting that you are incompetent and unable to defend yourself...in short, you admit to the court you are stupid!

here's an excellent 3 part film on how to deal with courts if you find yourself unfortunate enough to be there. at times this is hilarious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ZEBq66 ... 5&index=13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf5ZrUVL ... 5&index=14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpnL48B ... 5&index=15

Sorry KMA but you are going to an extreme there, a Crown Court is not a place of business as you put it. Also hiring a lawyer does not admit stupidity, it means that you arent fully versed in the laws which given how many there are and how silly most of them are isnt really all that surprising in iths day & age. So in other words it really admits that you do something else for a living than study law books all day long.

Entering a court doesnt amount to an agreement for anything either.

Kit-Fox wrote:Sorry KMA but you are going to an extreme there, a Crown Court is not a place of business as you put it.

mate, the flags in the courts are battle flags, go look it up. i cant remember exactly but i remember something about the gold trim on the flag signifying an admiralty battle flag. its a place of business where 2 sides meet to slug it out.
that's a VERY general description i know, but i assure you its not far from the truth.

Kit-Fox wrote:Also hiring a lawyer does not admit stupidity, it means that you arent fully versed in the laws which given how many there are and how silly most of them are isnt really all that surprising in iths day & age.

they dont talk english in courts mate, they talk legalese (i'm pretty sure you know what legalese is so i wont presume to lecture you), so hiring a lawyer is taken by the courts as an admission of stupidity or at the very least, incompetence or child like mentality, which is why they can trample on your rights because the judge knows you wont know when he is denying you or trampling on your rights. the lawyer is also not there to help you, he's there to win, that doesn't always involve your bet interests

Kit-Fox wrote:So in other words it really admits that you do something else for a living than study law books all day long.

that's not how the courts view it, that's how you and i view it...there's a difference when 1 party speaks english and the other legalese

Kit-Fox wrote:Entering a court doesn't amount to an agreement for anything either.

it does if you dont know how to stand on your rights and you appoint a lawyer, because you have agreed to show up as incompetent and accept punishment.

did you see the films i posted above?

There should be no Flags displayed in an English court KMA. If there are any flags on display inside an English Magistrates or Crown Court you are not in a Court at all.

Also if you are a registered citizen you cannot ignore a crown court summons, it is not an invitation, but a demand.

Hiring a Lawyer is an admission of nothing either to the judge or the system or anything else KMA & If you have hired your own lawyer they are there to look after your rights and freedoms etc etc.

All of this you are posting relates to the freeman concept which doesnt really work all that well in the English system, but does for the US & Canada where it started from.

I could go on, but why bother?

we'll end up going round and round so erm...yeah...anyways...


on another side note...did the concept of freeman not originate in England after the protestant reformation when people started to read, educate themselves for the first time and understand the bible?

i seem to recall hearing about the freeman concept YEARS ago and always thought it came from that period in time. i never paid it any attention then, and until a couple years ago, forgot all about it.

It probably did KMA, but most of the stuff your quoting from now relates to the systems in place in Canada & the US where its a huge movement & they have produced the most literature etc (ie banged their drum the loudest)

And while those systems have a lot in common with the UK system, such as common law they are not the same thing. So you cant assume that such ideals will transfer across so easily into the English legal system.