Tiff Needell Not doing 91mph in his car but someone was

[Sidney Plowman]

Todays Telegraph reports that Tiff was cleared of speeding on a point of law (he did not recive his notice of intended prosecution although it was sent out by the Police) he also did not know who was dirving his £45,000 BMW he may just leave it in the drive with the keys in so that anyone can borrow it as they wish.The Judge said he was a man of good character and would not lie about not reciving his notice and so let him off.His Lawer was Mr. Freeman (MR. Loophole)as used by David Beckham ,and Sir Alex Ferguson who also happen to have got off speeding charges.
I wonder what would have happened if I had claimed not to have received my notice of intended prosucution last Febuary as it was not sent by recorded delivery,it just came in the post.
Celebs have a different rule book.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

Not really. If you take reasonable measures to ascertain the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question, but cannot identify that driver for given reasons, then you'll be ok. Measures such as looking at your diary, checking fuel receipts, etc.

If he genuinely couldn't remember who was driving then he would have been breaking the law by naming himself as the driver.

After all, he claims he never received the NoiP, and that months have passed since the day in question.

Quite reasonable IMO, and another small nail in the speed camera coffin.

 

[Rose Chap]

Well said PoD.

 

[GrahamC230K]

Well done Tiff.

 

[glojo]

Quite reasonable IMO, and another small nail in the speed camera coffin.

Surely it can only be reasonable if the reasons apply to all.... and not those that can afford the services of a prostitute (verb [T] FORMAL DISAPPROVING
to use yourself or your abilities or beliefs in a way which does not deserve respect, especially in order to get money

Without using the 'skills' of a very expensive lawyer would this person have 'got off'?

Gerald Nabaro sums up the services of these people perfectly when he stood outside a court of law and contemptuously stated how money buys innocence It is certainly interesting that the low life who gave this person his alibi has actually made national news on more than one occasion since then!!!

Knighted in 1963, Sir Gerald took as his motto "Audax et Fidelis". The British public adored the old dinosaur. He was a natural performer. Whenever Nabarro appeared on Any Questions?, listening figures peaked. Even liberals loved to hear him baying for the castration of sex-criminals, the repatriation of Caribbeans, the flogging of muggers.
But Nabarro's world crashed in 1971. It was his flamboyant practise to drive an expensive car with the personalised numberplate NAB 1. His driving style was more "audax" than "fidelis". On the night of May 21, NAB1 was seen to swerve at speed the wrong way round a roundabout at Totton, in Hampshire. It had two occupants. Sir Gerald and his company secretary, Margaret Mason.
Witnesses positively identified the reckless driver as Sir Gerald. Given his fame and vast moustaches, he was one of the most identifiable men in England. None the less, Nabarro insisted that Mrs Mason was at the wheel. She loyally backed up her employer.
The press had a field day. The cartoonist JAK, in the Evening Standard, depicted a police line up of young women, one with a handlebar moustache. The case came to court, the jury disbelieved Nabarro, the judge pronounced his behaviour "outrageous" and fined him £250. Stoutly proclaiming his innocence on his honour as an MP, he went to appeal.
In the year's interim, Nabarro - a 59-year-old man in robust health - suffered two strokes. A second trial was held, and he was cleared. "Calumny has been defeated," he proclaimed - a shadow of his old booming self - on the steps of Winchester Court.
I believed, as did most people, that the jury had brought in their verdict to spare the dear old fellow the horrors of a perjury trial. And he was an MP. Nabarro retired from parliament on health grounds a few months later, and died soon after, aged only 60. Broken.
"Behind him on the court steps," the Times reported after his second trial, "Miss Christine Holman, his private secretary, wept." What happened to Miss Holman? She married an up-and-coming young MP, Neil Hamilton, in 1983.
A number of commentators have remarked on Christine Hamilton's extraordinary composure, alongside her clearly shattered spouse. Why does she not weep now? Probably because she's seen it all before, poor woman. And, possibly, she's foreseen what happens next to mendacious MP's who stake their lives on their honour.

All I ask for is a level playing field that is available to all, and not just those that can afford to 'buy' their alleged innocence.

John

 

[SportsCoupeRich]

sorry john, the law is the tool of the bourgeoisie.

Richard Quinney, social commenter in the early C20th, i believe.

 

[glojo]

sorry john, the law is the tool of the bourgeoisie.

Richard Quinney, social commenter in the early C20th, i believe.

I was lucky enough to sit directly behind George Carman QC for fourteen days at the High Courts. This man was the most talented advocate I have ever met and yes, he undoubtedly used his skills to get the 'correct' verdict for his clients.

John

 

[BonzoDog]

Personally I would find it offensive to be placed in the same class as Fergusson and Beckham. Shame on you Tiff.

 

[BonzoDog]

And, just to go slightly off topic
Such shenannigans remind me of the way England and just about everybody except the All Blacks play rugby at the moment, it is just not the spirit of the game.
Are there no standards any more? Is winning at any cost more important than honesty and self esteem. Is 'getting off' to be lauded over doing what is right?

 

[Parrot of Doom]

Tiff Needel didn't 'get off'. Nick Freeman doesn't 'exploit loopholes'.

Tiff Needel is innocent. There are no loopholes in British Justice. Only bad laws, and poorly applied laws.

Tiff Needel undoubtedly hired Freeman because Freeman is an expert in that area of the law, and Tiff can probably very easily afford his services. Nick Freeman usually wins cases because the police and cps aren't doing their jobs correctly. If the police can convict people on 'a technicality' than its perfectly reasonable for a defendant to 'get off' on 'a technicality'.

Anybody who brushes up on that area of the law can quite easily defend themselves.

You've been eating too many sour grapes.

 

[Flasheart]

and another small nail in the speed camera coffin.

Surely that should be a nail in the coffin of the CPS. I am not sure how a camera can be responsible for sending out a NIP.

 

[glojo]

You've been eating too many sour grapes.

Or maybe someone is wearing rose tinted glasses (perhaps tinted with grapes!!)

John

 

[Pietre]

The issue I think isnt so much that he got a not guilty verdict, but the appearance that if you can afford the services of this particular advocate, then money can buy you innocence. Any judge in the judiciary should work on the basis that anyone appearing before him with a pleading of not guilty is of good character, and not telling lies as they are under oath. This though doesnt work for the average person without the mantle of "Presenter" or some other such title, and access to the media. Laws only work when the prejudice of others doesnt get in the way, and those concerned actually tell the truth. But isnt that Eutopia and never going to happen.

 

[Rob77]

Maybe it's me but I don't see how quietly doffing ones cap and paying up to sponsor the speed camera partnerships and their like is "doing the right thing".

If the relevant authorities chose to send out notices with no proof of receipt or delivery and chose to base such notices on flimsy evidence then they cannot reasonably expect to win any subequent case.

The point is made that the system acts against the "man in the street" who has no access to top legal representation. Well, that may be so but isn't that the way of the world and always has been?

 

[Parrot of Doom]

The issue I think isnt so much that he got a not guilty verdict, but the appearance that if you can afford the services of this particular advocate, then money can buy you innocence. Any judge in the judiciary should work on the basis that anyone appearing before him with a pleading of not guilty is of good character, and not telling lies as they are under oath. This though doesnt work for the average person without the mantle of "Presenter" or some other such title, and access to the media. Laws only work when the prejudice of others doesnt get in the way, and those concerned actually tell the truth. But isnt that Eutopia and never going to happen.

Money didn't buy him innocence. Money bought him a good defence solicitor.

He was always innocent, and will remain innocent until proven otherwise.

Its a basic tenant of our legal system that unfortunately seems to be ignored by sensationalist headline writers - and S172.

 

[glojo]

He was always innocent, and will remain innocent until proven otherwise.

You certainly talk like a lawyer.

How on earth do you know he was innocent when even he says he couldn't remember who was driving the vehicle??? Surely he was simply given the benefit of the doubt after letting a very skilled advocate tell the 'story'

he also did not know who was dirving his £45,000 BMW he may just leave it in the drive with the keys in so that anyone can borrow it as they wish

I am NOT saying he is guilty, I am NOT saying he committed any motoring offence.

I like a few others am simply suggesting that if we tried to use his excuse, we would perhaps not be as lucky, even if we were actually telling the truth. (just like he was )

John

 

[Plodd]

Isn't this the same Mr Freeman who was recently arrested?

I do know why he was arrested and will wait with interest to see the outcome.

Quite a few times Mr Freeman gets cases quashed because he confuses the Magistrates. That is why all his recent cases in my area have been heard before a Judge or 'stipe'. He doesn't brag about his 100% sucess rate any more.

 

[glojo]

Quite a few times Mr Freeman gets cases quashed because he confuses the Magistrates. That is why all his recent cases in my area have been heard before a Judge or 'stipe'. He doesn't brag about his 100% sucess rate any more.

Hi Plodd, Great to hear from you and I just love stories with a happy ending.

I wonder if Mr Freeman qualifies for legal aid

John

 

[Swiss Toni]

Money didn't buy him innocence. Money bought him a good defence solicitor.

He was always innocent, and will remain innocent until proven otherwise.

Its a basic tenant of our legal system that unfortunately seems to be ignored by sensationalist headline writers - and S172.

I am pretty sure that if I were to commit an offence (ie I was guilty of it) then I am guilty of it whatever a court may find.

I would only be innocent in "the eyes of the law" - which does go some way to proving the law is a (I forget the rest)

Folks get "remanded in prison" awaiting trial. They are innocent too.

Many folks spend hours in Police cells whilst the cops conduct their investigation - again, innocent.

Trial by media is a very dangerous thing imo, and getting Mr Freeman (name is so ironic ) as your brief sends a message that is now seen far and wide as "I did it but want to get off" (Didn't work for that DrinkDriver american, Caprice though... ).

I'll stick with the court verdict and agree that the Cops and CPS need to get better at their jobs - it would benefit "justice" all round.


I think no less of Mr Needell (because that would not be possible )

 

[Parrot of Doom]

You certainly talk like a lawyer.

How on earth do you know he was innocent when even he says he couldn't remember who was driving the vehicle??? Surely he was simply given the benefit of the doubt after letting a very skilled advocate tell the 'story'

He is innocent because in this country, guilt has to be proven. No evidence was offered, therefore he is innocent.

This is whats so wrong about S172.