Lord Duckhunter

I was caught up by the St Leonards hotel, going from Poole to Southampton direction. I believe that because of the local outcry the Holes Bay camera has been switched off for speeding now and only there for jumping the red light. Funny thing is, since this happened I've been observing the limit 100% and causing back ups galore. Going up from Poole to Fleetsbridge on the holes bay road last night at 50 some bloke was right on my tail, getting well flustered. Cars on the inside lane going about 40mph, me overtaking at 48 and him behind nearly having a heart attack.

don't you think the blatant money making scheme dressed up as a road safety issue highlights how "society has changed". The bit of road I was flashed on was a 60 for a number of years,2 years ago it becomes a 50, low and behold it's now a prime spot for cameras. A coincidence, I dint think so. Here in Poole the holes bay camera brought in more revenue that every other Dorset cameras added together. Guess what the permitted speed was also lowered prior to camera being sited . Again a blatant money making "safety " concern. Yes, I speed and know I need to slow down, but in 32 years of driving the number of accidents I've had stands at zero. A policeman I played football with once told me that if everybody opted for court and didn't take the offer, the magistrates courts would clog up and the cost would be unsustainable. They would have to set the cameras to not catching so many people. It is not and never has been a safety issue. It is a scam to make money. My mate has a company car, if he drives over 85 his company find out (god knows how). If it was a safety issue all new cars could be fitted with a tracking type device that could be checked, coppers wouldn't let speeding moterists off (as they do) and people would all potter about like Sunday drivers.

So you suggest I go down to the cop shop and tell them "I think I was speeding at 9pm on xxx date"? I doubt there is even a process for self confession of speeding offenses. Most likely they'd think I was taking the **** and tell me to do one.

Sometimes people aren't guilty. If I'm accused of speeding at 11am, then I'll fall into the not guilty pile. You seem to be saying that details of the time a speeding offense is committed is irrelavant. Perhaps the police should send out tickets to everyone on the basis that they would have broken the speed limit somewhen the past 6 months. "We have no evidence, but I'm sure you've broken the speed limit at some time, therefore please pay £60 fine and have 3 points." Would be a good money making scheme. Your moral stance only comes into play if they have evidence that I was speeding at 9pm and then charge me.

I did not commit a crime at 11am, I was working in my drive. Now unless you feel that everybody who goes over the speed limit, should contact the police and confess, why on earth should I tell them that I did speed at 9pm? If I receive a NIP asking who was driving at 9PM, I will fill it out and accept the punishment.

no , car was with me all day, I had the day off and was doing some work in the garden. My neighbour will confirm, I've already spoken to him. As someone said earlier I'm sure the photo will show it was dark when taken. I'm pretty sure I'll get off if the camera was set up wrong as they have no evidence i was speeding at 9pm , they may not even know the time i drove through there,and I'm certainly not going to tell them. My only doubt is if there was an admin error and the photo has the correct time on. They have evidence , it's just a question of whether the summons is invalid due to nip having wrong time. Shame there's no lawyers posting on here, as nodoubt I'll cock something up that'll come back and bite me in the arse.

Mrs duck has made a good point to me tonight over this. Had I not seen the flash that evening I would now be questioning mrs duck as to wtf she was doing in my car driving down that road when she told me she had a course at work. Therefore if they come back and admit they got the time wrong I am going today play the "this mistake put a strain on my marrige and effected my right to a family life" card", writing a heartfelt story of mistrust,upset and recriminations. They may drop the case.

Thanks for the replies, Wow, I thought everybody drove over the limit every now and again, but we do seem to have some very law abiding citizens on here. Hats off to them, but unfortunately I do go over the limitt occasionally and if caught would willingly accept my punishment. I was not however driving over the limit at 11am, so dont feel I should accept that. If anyone was pulled over by a copper and accused of breaking the limit, when they knew full well they weren't. Would they say " I wasn't then officer, but 10 hours ago I did do so, so can you charge me with that? My gut feeling is that it will boil down to whether the camera had the wrong time on it or whether a clerk made an error on the NIP. If the camera was wrong, surely I can defend myself on the grounds of "what else was wrong with that camera". If the clerk made an error, I guess it'll be whether the cort consider that material to the case. Either way, all I'm going to do is send back NIP with statement that nobody was driving car at that time and see what happens. I would be interested if this is a regular thing and if anyone else has had the same situation.

I wonder if anyone has any advise or has heard of similar to my situation. Got caught by a mobile Gatso the other night. Saw the flash and waited for the dreaded NIP to land on the door step. It duly came yesterday and as I was just about to fill it in noticed that they had the timings all wrong. Not by the odd hour, but by fully 10 hours. I was driving at night, but the NIP had me doing so in the morning. They have requested certain information as to who was driving the car at 11am that morning. 100% the car was not on the road at that hour and was parked in my drive. I will therefore wait 14 days, so a new NIP will be out of the time limit and advise them that I do not know who was driving and have a witness (my neighbour) that the car was in the drive at that time. Clearly it is not my place to do the police's job for them, so I am not going to answer a question they haven't asked ie who was driving at 9pm that night. Bearing in mind I already have points, I'm not going to go all moral and "do the right thing". Has anyone heard of this before and do you think I'll get off. Mrs Duck thinks they'll just say "ok, see you in court", as the NIP is just an offer of settlement in return for avioding court? I'm not so sure, as the only evidence they have is clearly wrong. Or maybe a clerk typed the NIP wrong ( I was led to believe they were automated).I dont want to get extra points/fine for taking the ****. But the allegation is I was speeding at 11am, and I am innocent of that.

I've been away all week, so have missed things on here. Perhaps someone could update me. Why was Guly playing, I thought Turkish told us that since the infamous "chat" Guly's "contract" of 15 mins minimum had been ripped up and Nigel is not being told to play him. Did his appearence yesterday mark the end of the "Adkin's alone" period with NC back in charge, or was it a legal decision after SFC's lawyers found we were in breach of employment law. The other option could be that Turkish was talking out of his arse, but that couldn't be the case, could it?

This is exactly right. We have decided to set a minimum wage that employers have to pay, and then by the very nature of topping up that wage, are admitting that it is set too low. All we are doing is subsidising Tesco, B&Q, ect's payroll costs and these Companies post millions of pounds in profit. By setting a minimum wage we are giving Companies a benchmark to pay their employees that is set at a level too low. I would imigane the Tesco's of the world, pay slightly above the minimum wage, saving themselves loads of money but looking like good employers who pay a reasonable wage (in that it's above the minimum). If you are going to set a minimum wage, then it needs to be set at a level that avoids the state topping it up. If there was no minimum wage the only benchmark they would have would be whether they could fill their vacancies, if they couldn't they would have had to increase the wage (forget about the present climate, I'm talking about the past 15 years). At the moment low paying employers are running a fixed price cartel. Ie, the price of their workers labour is fixed at a level and there is no competition to attract workers. I could except that, but only if the level was high enough that the state was not required to help out (disabled people, carers ect apart).

Agree, not that he's a good player particulary, but that he deserves our full support. One thing for sure, he's a better player than Chaplow, yet he would never get booed. I was really hoping he scored. Then the idiots would run on the pitch (surely they wouldn't chant and then not follow it through, not top boys like those), get chucked out and banned. We then wouldn't have to put up with the ****s anymore.

This is the point that the ****** Winklemen doesn't seem to understand. He keeps saying that without the move to MK, Wimbledon would have gone bust. If that was the case then surely an extra team would have come up from the Conference to the FL the following season. Therefore they either stole Wimbledon, or if they didn't do that, stopped another team from playing in the FL. The simple truth of the matter was that if they wanted a team in MK, they should have poured money into the existing MK team or started another one from scratch.

Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti has said that she does not support compulsory regulation, she says. "In a democracy, regulation of the press and imposing standards on it must be voluntary." This is pretty similar to Cameron's view. Do the Murdoch have something on her as well?

I thought the whole ground lacked any sort of atmosphere, their support was woeful. Couldn't understand the standing policy. Seemed to be vigourously enforced in one block, but not anywhere else. Where I was there was Zero tolerance of standing, even taking people out to "have a word with them", but one block over people stood all game. Away from the ground I found the people/taxi drivers ect great as always. Friendly and helpful.

Awful performance, seemd like the players had written this one off and were just happy to not get stuffed. Thought Fonte did well, but after that struggling to pick anyone out.

Thanks for the tip, great pub despite Pap's "feedback".

it's not as simple as that. Was it in the publics interest that perfumo was banging Keeler, if Cameron snagged Rebecca brooks would that be in the publics interest? Who decides what is and isn't in the publics interest. Now, you could say nobodies sex life can be published,but surely we don't want the great and the good hiding behind privacy laws. Please explain who deuces what can and can't be published. Is it you,who doesn't want to read about sex or someone who does.

Oh and just to add to the question " What do the Murdoch clan have on the PM" Levison found that they did no favours (despite what Gordon Brown claimed) and he also exonerated Jeremy Hunt , much to the lefties dissapointment no doubt. I dont suppose Tom Watson will accept that part of the report.

Oh and just to add to the question " What do the Murdoch clan have on the PM" Levison found that they did no favours (despite what Gordon Brown claimed) and he also exonerated Jeremy Hunt , much to the lefties dissapointment no doubt. I dont suppose Tom Watson will accept that part of the report.

The Irish have a similar regulation that Levision is proposing, yet that didn't stop a paper publishing Kate's knockers. The BBC and ITV are "underpinned" by state regualtion ( Ofcom, the body that Levison proposes) and that didn't stop McAlpine being accused of the worst type of crime, without foundation. What exactly are we regualting against? Phone hacking was already illigal, and known about by the present and previous Governments long before the Dowler hacking came to light. Paying police officers is illigal. Max Mosley, Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan seem to want some sort of privacy regulation, but that would end with rich and powerful people hushing up stuff ala France. Ok so maybe Steve Coogan's sex life is his own business, but is Gordon Brown's, was John Perfumo's, who decides whose sex life is private and whose is in the public's interest? Chris Pattern or some other career busybody? You cant make legislation on the basis of what victims want, if we did that, we'd have hanging and cutting off peado's and rapists balls. So who is going to lead this ofcom or similar type body? and whose going to appoint him? Is the Ofcom/similar chairman's sex life in the public interest or not? Who decides. There is a very simple way of regulating the press, of making sure they police themselves in a proper correct and harsh manner. It's called to buy or not to buy their ****ing papers. If a paper keeps printing rubbish, keeps hounding innocent people, then dont buy it. If a paper keeps printing stuff about Harry Hill's or Peppa Pig's sex life and you feel it's againt the public interest, dont ****ing buy it. If papers wont sign up and adhere to a code of conduct, dont ****ing buy it, and dont advertsie with it. Simple. Why do people always turn to the state to sort their problems out? We can sort our own out. Dont like the Sun, then dont buy it. Liverpudlians dont, if the rest of the country followed suit it would have 2 option, change it's practises or go bust.

The Irish have a similar regulation that Levision is proposing, yet that didn't stop a paper publishing Kate's knockers. The BBC and ITV are "underpinned" by state regualtion ( Ofcom, the body that Levison proposes) and that didn't stop McAlpine being accused of the worst type of crime, without foundation. What exactly are we regualting against? Phone hacking was already illigal, and known about by the present and previous Governments long before the Dowler hacking came to light. Paying police officers is illigal. Max Mosley, Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan seem to want some sort of privacy regulation, but that would end with rich and powerful people hushing up stuff ala France. Ok so maybe Steve Coogan's sex life is his own business, but is Gordon Brown's, was John Perfumo's, who decides whose sex life is private and whose is in the public's interest? Chris Pattern or some other career busybody? You cant make legislation on the basis of what victims want, if we did that, we'd have hanging and cutting off peado's and rapists balls. So who is going to lead this ofcom or similar type body? and whose going to appoint him? Is the Ofcom/similar chairman's sex life in the public interest or not? Who decides. There is a very simple way of regulating the press, of making sure they police themselves in a proper correct and harsh manner. It's called to buy or not to buy their ****ing papers. If a paper keeps printing rubbish, keeps hounding innocent people, then dont buy it. If a paper keeps printing stuff about Harry Hill's or Peppa Pig's sex life and you feel it's againt the public interest, dont ****ing buy it. If papers wont sign up and adhere to a code of conduct, dont ****ing buy it, and dont advertsie with it. Simple. Why do people always turn to the state to sort their problems out? We can sort our own out. Dont like the Sun, then dont buy it. Liverpudlians dont, if the rest of the country followed suit it would have 2 option, change it's practises or go bust.

Barry used to be iwearahalo on 606, I'm sure he's not Dune.......

Barry used to be iwearahalo on 606, I'm sure he's not Dune.......