Yes- that's a shame. When Peel founded the modern police service he said words to the effect of 'the police are the public and the public are the police'. My take on that is if policing represents the society it serves then there are going to be a few ars*holes. Give the majority of us a bad name..

Indeed. I was once chatting to one of our local cops and mentioned that I didn't think much of how a certain PC Snow had dealt with an issue involving one of my son's friends.

His response was to express his embarrassment and ask that we do not judge the majority of his colleges on PC Snow's behaviour.

Yup - I had enough problems to be dealing with at that point.

That was definitely the kind of situation where a find should have been waived, without a doubt!

I just worry that I'm susceptible to tripping up and costing myself a lot of money, due to my own stupidity. I am reliant on my car when I'm doing 2,3, 4.00 in the morning starts. It would kill me if I have to take to pedal power, as it seems the Hampshire Police are on a mission at the moment.

P.s, hope the fella is in better health now

I second that

The boy is good, thanks. Unfortunately it's the girl's turn. Faced with the same situation again, I'd have a different conversation.

I told the tax man back in January that I'd be late with my tax return and that I was letting them know out of courtesy. They thanked me for letting them know. I got a fine in April. I rang them and explained my situation and that I was happy to pay any interest owing but I hadn't actually been at my home where my files were since January. The tax man told me that I should have made other arrangements. To say I politely but firmly gave him a piece of my mind, almost covers it. At some point in the "conversation" I obviously passed some test because I was eventually put through to a softly-spoken lady who gave me an extension.

Oh mate,...my thoughts are with you and your poor daughter, bless her. Hope she picks up bud

P.s, as for the tax man, just shows how insensitive & inhuman people can be!

Oh no, this must be catching- earlier today a van just outside Wigston I think I was probably 35-36 in a 30...might be lucky!

Been reading the above posts with great interest and feel Ive unearthed a contradiction......

Speeding is speeding? yes
1mph above the limit or 5 mph above the limit.

I understand that the tolerences given by police forces are only guidelines and they do not need to consider such, the same can be said for driver awareness courses.

However, although I understand the above mentioned "Public Interest" case and the fact that I would probably do the same thing myself, is this still not speeding and breaking the law? What happens if your involved in an accident or kill a pedestrian and speed is a factor? Is your case any different now just because you had a wheelchair-bound person from a massive recent cancer op, was feeling sick from recent chemo and needed the toilet........Answer NO!!

Good debate, I'll enjoy reading more.................

PS Thoughts are with you and your family MRS, you seem to always be up against it

Yes Clintos - speeding is called an absolute offence so unless you can prove that you were not speeding you are presumed guilty in law. so yes, speeding is speeding. Hopefully I can explain the next bit in plain english...

However public interest can come in to play in certain cases at a later stage and in certain circumstances. This is basically where factors like severity, community impact, harm caused to any victim, culpability, age of suspect, proportionality (worth the cost) and even in extreme cases the need to protect the national security (PII) can come into play.

Normally this plays out as part of something called the full code test for offences that may result in a custodial sentence for example. For a minor issue like speeding there would need to be special circumstances. So in the circs outlined earlier, time of night, location and the other factors can be considered. it still doesn't guarantee success of course.

The fact that it was late at night, the location (not outside a school or built up area) the reasons behind it (the comfort and basic dignity of someone with illness) and no harm caused to any specific victim do not mean the driver wasn't speeding, (because unless you prove you were not the law says you are guilty) but it does allow the test to be applied.

The what happens if bit isn't part of the consideration when making this decision (as 'it' didn't happen). However, In the circs given earlier, if someone had been injured say due to a crash, then public interest would likely be in favour of prosecution if the offence was contested.

Many speeding offences are unlikely to be stopped due to public interest (because speeding harms and kills on the roads every day) and most reasonable people can understand that and accept they broke the law.

So speeding is a relatively minor offence that is proactively targetted due to the harm that sometimes happens, and might be prevented, if the speed was in limits. A change in driver culture is sought to prevent those more serious consequences. if that happens then another charge would likely take precedence.

I have pulled speeding motorists who were engaged in the following i) where a loved one was having a baby there and then and needed hospital treatment ii) where her son was bleeding out in the car having been stabbed and no ambulance was available. In both cases my crewmate got into the vehicle to assist and I provided a blue light escort. No one was killed injured or otherwise damaged by the speeding prior to our intervention. Both cases were speeding, and red light contravention, but later applied public interest stopped the prosecution.

There is actually nothing in law that says that a prosecution for an offence will actually take place, but its pretty likely that it will unless special circumstances apply.

i have just realised it is difficult to talk about the law in plain english...

Thanks for the detailed explanation Ballypete, very well put into text I might add.

Interesting read.....

One of the legends of this forum (Stan) was on the traffic side of "chequered gentlemen" and he was always clear and informative about such matters. Sadly he's not been on here for a while and those of us who are longer in the tooth miss his banter.

Your post is far from unclear and I for one look forward to hearing the POV from who's "been there" more often

Thanks Clintos and Edinburgh.

I am a newbie to coupe ownership and soaking up the good advice on this forum- in return I have a pretty good knowledge of the criminal law which I will try and share when needed in the same spirit

I'm pretty new to this site too. I've been on a few of the Punto Forums & Fiat Forum for a fair few years, but I'd just like to thank people for their advice too.

I know most of us are not complete mental cases in these machines, and I like most people, am grateful to the likes of Ballypete for any help regarding the legal side of things.

I think we've all just got to accept that even though we might be trying to drive sensible that (now the screws have been tightened down harder with the new approach by the authorities), we might still fall foul & end up with tickets on a more regular basis.

It's just going to be something we're all going to have to adapt to and accept