speeding on the A127 Rayleigh essex

[Man in the middle]

11 hours ago, guffedoffdriver said:

surely this is a violation of presumption of innocence , 

i am being co-ersed into a "lesser punishment"  under duress , 

 

No you're not.

 

The right you have is to see the matter dealt with by  a court. That remains and if you choose that route you will be provided with all the evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you before you enter a plea.

 

However, if you want to accept the offence as it stands the police are prepared to offer two different out-of-court disposals which you cannot demand as of right.

 

If you choose one of them you will not incur a criminal conviction and it does not impinge on the presumption of your innocence

 

. The out of court disposals will cost you considerably less than if you are convicted in court.

 

It costs the police far less to process your alleged offence that way and, of course, no court costs are involved so the savings are shared.

 

That is why you are made the offers. It's similar to being offered a caution. You have no right to one but the police will offer it, if they think fit, for both their benefit and yours.

 

You can take up one of their offers or decline them and see the matter dealt with in court.

[Man in the middle]

2 hours ago, guffedoffdriver said:

If that was the reason for my alleged excessive speed then I would have a legitimate excuse.

 

No you wouldn't. But if you think you have then  you have the option of having the matter heard in court. If you plead Not Guilty but are convicted (as you will be if you defend the matter on the basis you describe) you will face a fine of half a week's net income, a surcharge of 10% of the fine and prosecution costs of £620. So a bit more than £100.

 

Robert63 is quite right. Before you responded naming yourself as driver you could have asked for "photographs to help identify the driver". You are not entitled to evidence at that stage but most forces will provide photos for that purpose. That said, they rarely help with that task (especially those taken from the rear) as their purpose is to identify the vehicle not the driver. But they may give you some idea of the circumstances of the allegation. However, once you've named the driver you no longer have that option.

 

2 hours ago, guffedoffdriver said:

my point is if I am being fined £100 at the very least , and the Safety driving course is a fine by proxy , with no evidence offered then it amounts to a Stasi state extracting money by menaces,

 

I've explained to you as best I can why that is not so. You obviously have a different view to most people. As far as I'm aware Stasi states do not give their suspects the opportunity of a fair trial if they believe they are not guilty nor do they provide the opportunity to avoid criminal convictions by having matters dealt with out of court.

 

2 hours ago, guffedoffdriver said:

and I would be suspicious of the motives of  anyone defending such behaviour.   

 

Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm defending nothing. I'm simply explaining the situation as it is not necessarily as you'd like it to be. I did that to try to assist you (which I thought was the point of your post). I didn't do it to start a baseless and unjustified argument resulting in my motives falling under suspicion. If you are suspicious of my motives feel free to make your argument on another forum. I suggest www.pepipoo.com. There are lots of knowledgeable people who respond on there of whom you can be equally suspicious when they provide similar explanations.

[Man in the middle]

19 minutes ago, Gick said:

The OP is beginning to sound like a Freeman on the Land!!!

 

I was wondering that very thing yesterday when I read the latest post, especially when the "Stasi State" reared its head! I don't quite understand how the offer of avoiding a prosecution and settling the matter at a considerably reduced cost by accepting the allegation as its stands amounts to oppressive behaviour. After all, the choice to have the matter heard in open court where he can, if he chooses, put the prosecution to proof, always remains.