Surely it is treason to steal the queens money?

I think it is also illegal to offer favours ie. reduced fines for not contesting a fine.

Interestingly the Metric Martyrs ruling itself has not be challenged although there have been several legal attempts to challenge parking fines for instance, under the Metric Martyrs ruling, they ended in failure when it was ruled by I think Justice Collins, that they are not fines but are a civil duty, thus neatly side stepping the legal point about the English Common Law constitution.

The problem is those we elect have simply ignored Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, believing that Parliament has the power to change any law it wishes. But this means we now have a situation where we do not live in a democracy at all but in an elected dictatorship.

When Churchill said we would always be able to turn to Magna Charta for protection against an over powering state, I do not thinks he could have envisioned such a parliament of…… well traitors to the nation state is the only way to describe them, because they choose to ignore our constitution when it suits them in making laws for us, and taking powers for the state, but I notice they are very quick to hide behind the Bill of Rights when it is in their interests to do so.

T&W fined 100 people, then raise the fine level from £50 to £75. When you’re talking such low numbers, wouldn’t it be better to concentrate efforts on something more worth while, maybe like real crime?

are both sets of punishments not ‘within the legal limits’?

It is ‘lazy’ but is the judicial system not seriously over loaded and i think there is some kind of weird problem in making it work better, that is, you just cannot make more judges and bulid more courts for them to sit in because of asomething really odd likethe house of lords cvan only hold so many lawyers and it is full, it is something that is as stupid as that

Would the problem not be solved by more courts and more Judges, so your case could get seen more quickly?

are parking tickets the same?

Summary justice appears, on the face of it, to be an efficient way of dealing with people caught bang to rights but it’s a lazy way of enforcing the law, it’s unconstitutional, it’s illegal and it effectively deprives the accused the right to defend themselves or plead their case by promising punitive charges if they don’t admit their guilt whether they believe themselves to be innocent or not. It also assumes their guilt – you are given the ticket and told you have committed a crime before without being convicted. That goes against the most fundamental concept of English law but, co-incidently, fits in nicely with the continental Napoleonic code used by the EU where the punishment starts from when you’re accused and stops when you’ve proven yourself innocent.

do you get in trouble if you disagree and go to court?

There is that side to it, which is probably why the legislation was introduced in the first place. However, neither a police officer nor a Councillor can decide that you are guilty of an offence, no matter what that offence might be.

If you are arrested for a crime by a police officer, it is up to the courts to decide if you are guilty or not, based on evidence provided by prosecuting bodies and defence witnesses. Should a guilty verdict be returned, it is then up to the court to decide on punishment, subject to powers granted in relevant legislation.

Any other process is a breach of your constitutional rights.

Surely, it would just take a few sturdy volunteers to demand a court trial and clog up the judicial system?

I’m sure if you are right, the judges will be on your side aqnd laugh the charges out of court

Could they argue then, that its an offence, therefore a fine applies but gives you the option of going to court. They could argue its a way of freeing up the courts on small offences, but you have the option of a hearing and probably cop for alot of expenses as well.