DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: News / Press Articles
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64216--------------------------------------------------
Man convicted of obstructing speed camera van
By: Southpaw82 Date: March 26, 2025, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Daily Mail
HTML https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14538145/Grandfather-blocked-speed-camera.html
Convicted of obstructing an accredited person and a public order
offence.
#Post#: 64360--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man convicted of obstructing speed camera van
By: disgruntchelt Date: March 27, 2025, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Idiot. All he had to say was to the scammer man was he had
parked up to take his mandated break and couldn’t move now by
law until his break was over. If he said it ever so politely
with a knowing smile and he would have been fine.
#Post#: 64364--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man convicted of obstructing speed camera van
By: DWMB2 Date: March 27, 2025, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This related article that was advertised within the shared one
made me chuckle: Driver who taunted speed camera with sign
saying 'No photographs please' as he flicked V-sign is ordered
to do road safety course
HTML https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13222937/Driver-taunted-speed-camera-road-safety-course.html
#Post#: 64373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man convicted of obstructing speed camera van
By: andy_foster Date: March 27, 2025, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And we, being f*cking idiots, have been telling posters that
courts can't sentence drivers to a course.
#Post#: 65835--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man convicted of obstructing speed camera van
By: baroudeur Date: April 6, 2025, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=5678.msg64373#msg64373
date=1743069737]
And we, being f*cking idiots, have been telling posters that
courts can't sentence drivers to a course.
[/quote]
Where, in the link, is there a reference to a Court imposing the
course?
#Post#: 65836--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man convicted of obstructing speed camera van
By: andy_foster Date: April 6, 2025, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That would be the bit that says "Read More Driver who taunted
speed camera with sign saying 'No photographs please' as he
flicked V-sign is ordered to so road safety course"
Generally, we are here to offer legal advice, rather than teach
posters how to read. In general, text based online forums are
not ideally suited for such a task, regardless of their overall
purpose.
#Post#: 65926--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man convicted of obstructing speed camera van
By: dannyno Date: April 7, 2025, 6:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=5678.msg65836#msg65836
date=1743937932]
That would be the bit that says "Read More Driver who taunted
speed camera with sign saying 'No photographs please' as he
flicked V-sign is ordered to so road safety course"
Generally, we are here to offer legal advice, rather than teach
posters how to read. In general, text based online forums are
not ideally suited for such a task, regardless of their overall
purpose.
[/quote]
Um, could I gently point out that the "read more" article
relates to a different case to the "grandfather of 14" who
blocked a speed camera van, and if you actually do the "read
more" bit, you can see that it wasn't a court which ordered the
driver with the "no photographs please" sign in that case to do
a road safety course. Instead, as we'd expect, they were
offered it by the police to avoid penalty points.
The "grandfather of 14" who blocked a speed camera van was not
ordered by the court to do a road safety course, but given 120
hours community service and ordered to pay costs and
compensation.
#Post#: 65975--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man convicted of obstructing speed camera van
By: andy_foster Date: April 7, 2025, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
*Whoosh" - the issue is p*ss-poor "journalism.
"Read More" implies that it is more about the same case, and the
headline quoted is within the article originally linked,
although it concerns a different case. That however is not the
point at issue.
The point is that the Daily Fail claimed that a driver had been
"ordered" to do a road safety course. I forget whether I was
responding to DWMB2's post regarding the same moronic lie, or
whether I picked up on it on my own and our posts simply
crossed, but to the extent that the claim is not simply
meaningless gibberish, i.e. to the extent that an offender can
meaningfully be "ordered" to complete some form of restitutional
justice, it must have been ordered by a court upon conviction.
Obviously, he was not ordered by a court to complete the course,
as he was not "ordered" to do it at all. He was merely offered
it as an out of court disposal.
*****************************************************