Mail Columnist Grumbles About Being Fined For Driving In A Bus Lane

[robert.saunders]

Daily Mail columnist, Tom Utley, laments the decision by Lambeth Council for fining him £120 for driving in a bus lane. In his article he says:"The true blame lies with sloppy legislators - we have far too many laws and they are far too complex - and with the police and Crown Prosecution Service, who make too many elementary mistakes when they bring their cases to court. But here's an idea: wouldn't the authorities have more time to prepare their cases properly if they concentrated on prosecuting the guilty - and left innocents like Mr Duffy, Mrs Cornwall and yours truly alone?"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=564972&in_page_id=1770

Taken from LGA Information Services 9/5/08

 

[Mr E]

If he doesn't know what day of the week it is, should he be behind the wheel?

And by extension, does that also call into his judgment his fitness as a journalist?

However, I would agree that his two examples demonstrate a heavy-handed approach. One would hope that the court would hear the circumstances of these incidents and act accordingly.

 

[Biscuit]

Whilst I agree to a large extent that rushing to hospital to see your son when he has been mauled by a dog (backed up with the documents) should be mitigating circumstances for a SP30, I don't agree that bus lane cameras should have a degree of variability over whether there is a bus behind you or not. trying to enforce a rule is much easier if its black and white not shades of grey. One man's 'i wasn't holding the bus up at all' is quite different to another, just as one man's i was only gone five minutes i dont deserve a parking ticket is very variable.
the rules should be absolutely clear - no driving in bus lanes, the speed limit is 30, there's no parking on double yellow. that way those of us who want to avoid any chance of a ticket can be assured of where the line lies. Likewise when we do step over the line (and who doesn't ?) we know what the risks are.

if one wants to plead mitigating circumstances after the event then of course avenues should be available for doing that, but 'I got confused between Friday and Saturday' doesn't avoid the punishment in my book.

 

[Stratman]

Errr..... why does he think he's not guilty?

 

[Frank O' Phile]

Errr..... why does he think he's not guilty?

Because he works for the Daily Mail. ergo, it must be someone else's fault.

 

[scumbag]

Because he works for the Daily Mail. ergo, it must be someone else's fault.

It wasn't me, and even if it was, nobody saw me!

Kind of a Bart Simpson defence "I didn't do it, and you can't prove I did"


Is it me, or is the country filling up with people who have forgot how to stand up and be counted?

 

[recycled]

well if you have nothing to fear. please tell me this is not about money.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...tml?in_article_id=565047&in_page_id=1770&ct=5.
How much will it cost to take the case to court?
But if yobs smash a car window in the street, no problem .
Now who said earlier that you word against 1 copper and that is okay for no proof. Why did they responded so quickly?

and for the mail haters

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/43994

Ahh. anyway what do i know, law enforcement and the police are always right.

 

[Biscuit]

Reading between the lines of the piece it seems as if he wasn't willing to give his details to the CSO and wandered off. thats never going to endear you to the authorities now is it? thats why they responded so quickly...

agree that taking this to court seems like a total waste of time but he wouldn't have been taken to court if it was just littering would he?

oh and he spent 18 hours in custody because he had to be seen twice by a police doctor, but you have to read down the article to find that out and not take the opening paragraph at face value.

 

[recycled]

Correction. he was arrested cos he was not willing to pay a fine.
Why should he give his details when he insisted he has done nothing wrong?Do not forgot it was his word against the plastic copper. as for responding so quickly, i know now that not giving your details is a bigger crime than a burglar battering your front door down,
Anyway the police never lie, only members of the public do.

 

[Biscuit]

Maybe because the police officer saw him do it or there was a witness who complained the the officer? its hard to judge without knowing the full details which which the article doesn't furnish us.

would you not agree that there is a simple rule of society that those who are police officers should in the first instance be respected and obeyed? just as there should be avenues to investigate the police when things go wrong.

I think you are jumping to the same reaction that the paper is...namely that the complainant against the police must be the aggrieved party. i don't think you have the information to make that judgement, wouldn't you agree?

 

[recycled]

Those who are police officers should be respected and obeyed? maybe 20 to 30 years ago yes.
The ones now are just glorified fine /tax collectors and number statisitic punchers. any problem that cannot be resolved with a fine is avoided like the plague. any that can be will be pursued at all costs.
not jumping to conclusions,beause a precedent has been set many times before. They thrive on the fear of court and people who are afraid to go to court and it is becoming all too frequent. just pay up and forget

Those who never question authority. end up in a totalitarian regime

With the image the police now have,/ council jackboots and other fine collectors and my personal experience with many of them, especially the younger ones, i am sorry but cannot respect or trust any of them.

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/...itter-case-dropped-by-council-65233-20772746/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511348&in_page_id=1770

 

[st4]

The Police have to prove you did the offense. Where is the proof that he did this. If he did this, and there were no witnesses or evidence then its hard to qauntify. His DNA was collected, Id like to see the human rights boys on that one....

Policemen are now just HMRC collectors with a badge, hand cuffs and car with noisy sirens.

 

[Biscuit]

no i wrote "in the first instance" respected and obeyed. not a blanket "they must be" respected and obeyed.

would you also agree that every case should be judged on its own merits? that is after all a main tenet of law. it matters not one whit if something has happened before each offence is judged on its own evidence. just because of your unfortunate experiences it should have no bearing on this one, surely.

ps have you ever lived under or visited a totalitarian regime?

 

[recycled]

ps have you ever lived under or visited a totalitarian regime?

yes i have for over 20years but that is irrelevant to this case.

Too much emphasis is put on fine collection and when yobs are stamping peoples heads on street corners and officers are responding to burglary calls with "no officers available" with alarming regularity, then there is serious calls for addressing the issue.
Now i do not know if he did or did not throw an apple but what is the punishment for first time users of cannabis? it is a warning. first/second. third burlary? warning. first time assault ? warning/ caution.
throwing apples on the ground? £60.

Now if it was a yob that threw the apple, nothing will happen. But a well dressed , respectable looking guy (or some OAP's playingin a park in bristol). is more likely to pay a fine, than a yob who will stick two fingers at the authorities

 

[recycled]

would you also agree that every case should be judged on its own merits? that is after all a main tenet of law. it matters not one whit if something has happened before each offence is judged on its own evidence. just because of your unfortunate experiences it should have no bearing on this one, surely.

?

And what is the evidence of the apple throwing? That a plastic copper said so.
Sounds like the council attendant who knows when people exceed the parking time.
Never mind they are on bonuses and like any business plan. the more money you can make, the more vigorous you pursue that avenue

 

[Biscuit]

yes i have for over 20years but that is irrelevant to this case.

If its irrelevant then it seems odd that you would bring it up.... just saying

you admit that you do not know what the evidence is or whether the man in question threw the apple.

so surely your opinion on the matter is as valid as mine might be if i quoted the exact same article and said how i was disgusted that people
'only got £60 for littering. I have to clean out my garden every saturday night from yobs like this and none of them ever get more than a flippin ticket from the Police officers. refused to give his details did he? well that should be a night in the slammer minimum. if only it was like it was 30 years ago and the police could hand out a clip round the ear once in a while. its a sign of anarchy i tell you anarchy, when the police start to lose control of the streets...'etc etc

we simply havn't got the information to reach a decision. sounds like both the police and the man in question want to have their day in court.

 

[recycled]

If the police really want to go to court, then charge him to court without option of fine.
They are hoping he will pay and forget but because he has refused to they are furious. how many yobs get taken to court? This is not about loitering because as the woman in the car showed, they can not prove it and i can honestly tell you they will lose in court, but it will cost the taxpayer thousands .
what they hope is that people will pay and forget but if not they threaten you with court. How many cases have they won?.
i have not reached a decision, i am saying there is no need to waste peoples times or treat cases that you can make money from any different from those that you can not. e.g burglary and shoplifting.
And if you are disgusted that people get only £60 for loitering which cannot be proved, then you should be revolted that people get a warning for car theft that can be proved or burglary and assault that is caught on CCTV and can be proved without doubt. and i would gladly see apples on the street floor, than hoodies jumping up and down smashing car windows and drinkling alchohol

 

[Biscuit]

they can not prove it and i can honestly tell you they will lose in court...

...i have not reached a decision...

goodness... enough said I think.

as a complete sideline - which totalitarian regime did you spend 20 years in?

 

[recycled]

The oil producing one in west africa which is in conflict right now. Was in the oil industry before being transfered back here.

 

[st4]

It seems that the law protects the wrong sort of people i.e. yobs and makes things hard for the right sort (like the OAP accused of the apple). Maybe because yobs won't hand over £60 becasue they a) don't have it b) have no respect for the law.

I bet this is an opinion shared by many.