Doh!

His father Carl asked for a copy of the picture after accepting James's protestations of innocence.

Mmmm-hmmm. *sips coffee*

Although taken from behind

*pfffffffffffffffft* Dammit!

17% the cost of the ticket just to see what the evidence is against you. How can this possibly be legal even not in the US? Oh, 2007. I should have figured we'd get here eventually. I can't wait for 2008.

SharkUW: 17% the cost of the ticket just to see what the evidence is against you. How can this possibly be legal even not in the US? Oh, 2007. I should have figured we'd get here eventually. I can't wait for 2008.

You would think that if you prove (by using the photo that you pay for) that you can get the money back....

You would think that at least...

Everything costs money, they have to print out the stuff, and mail it over, costs time and money.

But he was facing the threat of losing of his livelihood and the possibility of criminal charges over his attempt to shift the blame on to his pupil.

He should lose his job, and they should press charges.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. I can see the guy reading his logbook wrong and making an honest mistake.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. I can see the guy reading his logbook wrong and making an honest mistake.

Indeed... I can understand why this situation would suck, but let's not be getting our lynch ropes out just yet.

What a coont.

poehitman: Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.


Ummm. That's one of the many, many reasons the founding fathers revolted against England.

That and being able to marry our cousins.

So not so much "Innocent until proven guilty"

more sort of "Guilty until you prove you're innocent" ?

poehitman: Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. I can see the guy reading his logbook wrong and making an honest mistake.

It's England, so I'm not sure that applies.

Regardless, in the US, if you break the law "by accident", I believe you are still guilty. Otherwise every speeder would say "Judge, I'm sorry, I didn't know I was going that fast. Honest mistake."

Also "Innocent until proven guilty" does not keep you from going to trial. He says he read his log book wrong. Maybe, maybe not. Has anyone else looked at that logbook? Was the kid he tried to blame driving the car shortly before the pic was took? Shortly after? Or on a completely seperate day? Seems like if his story is true, someone else could take a look at that book. If the book doesn't match, then he tried to frame this kid.

Would you be defending him if it were your kid he set up?

And there seems to be no doubt that it was a set up. Whether due to an honest mistake or not, the kid was *not* driving - he was framed. He had to prove he was innocent. Why shouldn't his accuser have to do the same?

Slaxl: Everything costs money, they have to print out the stuff, and mail it over, costs time and money.

That's hardly an excuse.

smage: That's hardly an excuse.

Agreed; the erroneous party needs to cover the expense.

£10 for a photo? Are these the same guys that do yearbook pictures?

This the problem with these camera tickets. You should have a right to face your accuser. A sworn law enforcement officer is the least our gov't can provide.

The Brits are camera crazy. For a car crazy nation that allows some of the coolest cars on earth to roam the streets, (e.g. Ariel Atom) they are speed enforcement whores.

Phil Herup: e.g. Ariel Atom

...and the DB9

they are speed enforcement whores.

That's what the Isle of Wight is for. :)

Suck it Libs...

(oh wait, wrong thread)

Suck it Brits...

/never had a chance to add a suck it to a conversation
//carry on

I got pulled over for speeding when I was with my driver instructor. Cop pulls me over, walks up and asks for my license. I say "I can't, I don't have one" and point to the roof that has the giant student driver sign. My instructor talked our way out of the ticket.

/Wasn't speeding

JuggleGeek

And there seems to be no doubt that it was a set up. Whether due to an honest mistake or not, the kid was *not* driving - he was framed.

He was framed with the help of incompetent law enforcement. The car was registered to the instructor, and the instructor maintained that he was giving a lesson at the time. Had anyone in law enforcement actually looked at the picture, they'd have seen there was only one person in the car, which SHOULD have prompted them to look a little more closely at the situation instead of just blindly accepting the instructor's word.

Well no wonder he got a speeding ticket! The dumb bloke is trying to drive the van from the passenger side! DUH! Steering wheel is on the left hand side, buddy!

/morans.

Even if the student was in the car, the instructor should have used the dual controls to keep within the limit.

All these comments, and yet no one has mentioned that the Instructor wasn't able to follow his own advice and stick to the speed limit?

/still sets a poor example

"Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. I can see the guy reading his logbook wrong and making an honest mistake."

...and promptly accusing someone else. Or did we forget that part?

HAHA...
/drivers ed teacher was a pot-head
//found pot baggy with remnants
///teachers dad is a drunk
////dad also teaches drivers ed
//just got my license
//surprised I got it
//wondering how many more slashies to put

Phil Herup: Ummm. That's one of the many, many reasons the founding fathers revolted against England.

That and being able to marry our cousins.

24 states still approve