Author Topic: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses  (Read 19150 times)

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #45 on: June 25, 2015, 05:36:13 PM »
I've belatedly received an answer to a Freedom of Information request today that I made as far back as 29th May, asking the questions about Pinel's actively seeking work amendment in P.52/2015 that all States Members mysteriously failed to ask before Tuesday's 'debate'. I'll post the full reply another time but the disclosure confirms the following:

1) Despite Pinel stating in the report accompanying P.52/2015 that her proposals "had been subject to a human rights audit", States Members "do not receive a copy of the Human Rights Audit" (quote from today's Freedom of Information response). So despite the very obvious human rights implications of removing for up to a year 100% of a household's entitlement to all means-tested benefits (including benefit paid in respect of children and housing subsidy to pay the rent, as well as regular hardship -'special'- payments), States Members passed this amendment on Tuesday without even knowing the grounds on which the Law Officers were claiming that this is human rights compliant.

This would not be the case if similar proposals of this magnitude were going through the UK Parliament- all legislators would be able to access the full deliberations of the relevant committee charged with examining the human rights aspects, which would include a copy of the government's reasons why it believed its proposals were compliant with the Convention. I presume that these UK Parliament documents are usually fully accessible to the public too.

The form of words used in the FOI response ("do not receive a copy of the Human Rights Audit") is also taken to confirm that States Members didn't receive a copy of the earlier Human Rights Audit mentioned several times by Le Gresley during the October 2013 debate. In any case, the Hansard transcript for the 2013 debate makes reference to the fact that States Members hadn't been supplied with a copy of this human rights audit.

2) The 2013 Scrutiny Panel (de facto controlled by Deputy Hilton at the time) received a briefing of the Le Gresley proposals on 9th September 2013 but this was held in private and no transcript was made (during the States debate a month later, Hilton rejected the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals).

3) No- I cannot have a copy of either the 2013 or 2015 Human Rights Audits as they are "subject to the Legal Professional Privilege" and therefore exempted under article 32 of the FOI Law.

4) I asked for confirmation that States Members were "made fully aware" before the October 2013 debate of the 6 consecutive week actively seeking work requirement. The response does not confirm that this was the case. It merely says that "States Members were briefed on the implications of P101/2013. The requirement to complete six consecutive weeks of actively seeking work was included within the legislation and is not an additional requirement."

I think its really telling that the FOI response doesn't go on to reveal exactly where in the legislation the requirement is currently included....


Well we know it will be included in the legislation from next week as a result of the States approving P.52/2015 on Tuesday, but I invite anybody to take a look at the current Regulations (specifically Regs 4 and 5), as they stand at the moment and as the States passed them in October 2013, and tell me if they can spot exactly where that requirement is explicitly mentioned (but please note that the 42 day "breach period" mentioned in Reg 5B(4) is not the same as a requirement to complete 42 consecutive days actively seeking work because the breach period clearly expires 42 days after the person is given notice of the breach - Reg 5b(5)(a) - whereas the ASW requirement being demanded by the Social Security Department currently extends indefinitely beyond those 42 days, theoretically until the failed jobseeker dies):

http://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%2fconsolidated%2f26%2f26.550.30_IncomeSupportRegulations2007_RevisedEdition_1January2015.htm#ID427


If you're that dedicated, you can read the original Le Gresley proposition (P.101/2013) upon which States members made their decision in October 2013. Decide for yourself whether you think States Members could have reasonably known that what they were about to approve was not, in fact, a stoppage of benefits to Breach 3 households restricted by statute to a period of 42 days, as appeared to be the case, but a stoppage that was capable of continuing indefinitely until such time as the failed jobseeker completed 42 consecutive days of actively seeking work:

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2013/P.101-2013.pdf

« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 06:00:28 PM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #46 on: July 01, 2015, 04:14:12 PM »
Pinal is a right B*****d, full on establishment!

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #47 on: July 17, 2015, 06:41:48 PM »
The States has now published its response to my FOI questions about the 6 consecutive week actively seeking work (ASW) requirement that I quoted extracts from in my previous post above dated 25th June. You can read it here:

http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=1488


The answers reveal the extremely secretive way the States went about passing Le Gresley's 2013 amendments into law - why? Here are some extracts from the FOI response, with my added comments:

(B) "A formal States members briefing was held on 1 October 2013, which explained the proposed actions."

This was a private meeting of States Members to which the public and media were not invited, so we have no idea what was said and whether or not States Members who attended that briefing might have been informed of the true nature of the Breach 3 penalty - that the stoppage of household income support was not merely restricted to a 6-week breach period as the proposition clearly stated but could continue to run indefinitely through a separate (and completely invisible in law) 6 consecutive week ASW requirement. If States Members were informed of the true nature of the Breach 3 at that private briefing then every last one of them who attended stands condemned for saying nothing about it during the subsequent debate in the House a week later. However, there is simply no evidence at the moment to suggest that those on the backbenches knew about the secret ASW requirement or fully understood its significance. If they did know and it could be proved, then they were collectively involved in a very serious cover-up which could damage the island's international credibility in terms of its desire to govern itself independently in the future without the intervention of Westminster.

(C) "The Scrutiny Panel received a private briefing on 9 September 2013. This was not a public Scrutiny hearing and no transcript was created."

This answer pretty much says it all. I would just add that the Scrutiny Panel refused to carry out official Scrutiny of the 2013 Le Gresley proposals, yet they still received this private briefing. Why? Was there something in these proposals that Deputies Kristina Moore (St Peter), Jacqueline Hilton (St Helier No. 3) and James Reed (St Ouen) knew about but wanted to avoid becoming known to all and sundry through the publicly accessible Scrutiny process?

(D) "The Human Rights audit is subject to the Legal Professional Privilege and is exempt from disclosure under Article 32 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011."

(E) "States members do not receive a copy of the Human Rights audit."


Why can't States Members or the public have access to a Human Rights audit, especially when it involves a clear interference with the human rights of its citizens, through the arbitrary and indefinite removal of 100% of means-tested benefit entitlement (including regular hardship or 'Special' payments) to all members of a household simply because one member of that household missed a jobseeker interview at the Department?

Yet below is an example of a recent States proposition (Draft Video Recordings (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201-) which includes a full two pages of 'Human Rights Notes' prepared by the Law Officers' Department. These notes explain in some detail the potential interference with article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression) and why they feel the interference is justified and legal. See pages 5 and 6 of the proposition:

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2015/P.010-2015.pdf


So they do sometimes publish the opinions of the Law Officers in relation to the human rights compliance of propositions, contrary to the impression given by the FOI answer. However, they only do so when it suits them politically. Clearly an amendment to the Video Recordings Law is a lot less controversial than removing 100% of benefit entitlement from some Jersey families in desperate need of financial support. What was so controversial about the Law Officers' notes prepared in respect of Le Gresley's 2013 jobseeker sanctions proposals (and also Pinel's unexplained trojan amendment in P.52/2015) that made them decide not to allow even States Members to read them before they voted them into law? We need to know.

(B) "As stated above, the six weeks actively seeking work compliance before making another application for income support was not an additional requirement, but part of the legislation changes within P101/2013."


If that is true, why was the six week ASW requirement only expressly introduced to the Regulations by Deputy Pinel's trojan amendment in P.52/2015, which did not come into effect until 30th June 2015? Why doesn't the FOI response reveal which part of the legislation contained the ASW requirement for the 20 months prior to her amendment becoming law? In my previous post on this thread (25th June), I provided links to the relevant legislation and to Le Gresley's 2013 proposition and invited everyone to find the clause which includes the 6 week ASW requirement. So far, nobody at all has responded to that challenge... 
« Last Edit: July 17, 2015, 06:46:06 PM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #48 on: July 18, 2015, 06:34:22 PM »
Listen when the ministers etc refuse to share information then it can only be because they are making something out of it. They would not put up with all the crap that comes their way for £44,000 per year when they made more than that in their private businesses. So there must be something in it for them.
We employ the government so they should and must disclose any and all information to the rest of the states.
We can sack them at the elections so we employ them, we are their boss. By law should not be able to with hold information from us.
so they must be crooks!!!!!!!!!!

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2015, 10:35:29 PM »
ONLY 4 OUT OF 36 TRIBUNAL APPEAL HEARINGS AGAINST SOCIAL SECURITY AND INCOME SUPPORT DECISIONS BETWEEN 2013 AND 2015 (UP TO 23RD JULY 2015) RESULTED IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY DEPARTMENT'S ORIGINAL DECISION BEING REVERSED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT*

* 5 of these 36 appeals were listed in the FOI response as either "awaiting judgment" or "adjourned" as at 23rd July 2015 - 1 of these 5 outstanding appeals is known to have been decided in the Department's favour after 23rd July 2015, leaving 4 appeals currently outstanding


Links to this disclosure as published on the States of Jersey website (added by me on 27th August 2015):

http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=1596


http://www.gov.je/Freedom%20of%20Information%20library/ID%20FOI%20attachment%20to%20request%20relating%20to%20SSD%20LH250815.pdf


A recent response to my Freedom of Information request has revealed these statistics, which confirm the abysmally small chance (little more than 10%) that a Jersey benefit claimant has of getting a Department decision reversed on appeal to either the Social Security Tribunal, the Social Security Medical Appeal Tribunal or the Income Support Medical Appeal Tribunal. In fact, the 4 appeals that were successful all occurred in 2013. There have been no successful appeals in either 2014 or 2015 up to the date when the response was issued to me.

Furthermore, a written answer supplied by Senator Francis Le Gresley in the States Assembly on 24th September 2013 (when he was still Social Security Minister) revealed that since the Income Support scheme had been introduced in January 2008, only 3 out of 28 Tribunal appeals against income support decisions had resulted in the Department's decision being "overturned". Link to this answer below:

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyQuestions/2013/Deputy%20Southern%20to%20SS%20Second%20determinations%20over%20decisions%20on%20Income%20support.pdf


The last of those successful Tribunal appeals revealed in the Le Gresley answer was in 2009. Therefore we know that no appellant was successful in getting an income support decision overturned at a Tribunal in either 2010, 2011 or 2012. The 4 successful appeals now revealed by my FOI request must presumably have happened in the latter part of 2013 after Le Gresley filed his answer in the House. It is presumed that Le Gresley's answer does not include the results of appeals heard by the Social Security Medical Appeal Tribunal, whereas my FOI request does reveal this.

Therefore combining the Le Gresley answer with the response to my recent FOI request, it is possible to state how many Tribunal appeals in respect of income support decisions only resulted in the Department's original decision being overturned ("reversed") in favour of the appellant for each calendar year since income support was introduced, as follows:

Income Support appeals (excluding Social Security medical appeals)-

2008: 1 decision overturned (out of 2 hearings);
2009: 2 decisions overturned (out of 6 hearings);
2010: 0 decisions overturned (out of 6 hearings);
2011: 0 decisions overturned (out of 3 hearings);
2012: 0 decisions overturned (out of 10 hearings);
2013: 4 decisions reversed (out of 6 hearings - not including 8 additional decisions of the Social Security Medical Appeal Tribunal);
2014: 0 decisions reversed (out of 6 hearings - not including 2 additional decisions of the Social Security Medical Appeal Tribunal);
2015 (up to 23rd July): 0 decisions reversed (out of 1 hearing decided, with 5 other appeals either awaiting a judgment or adjourned).

These statistics ignore 4 appeal judgments during 2013 and 2014 which resulted in the Department's decision being "varied", either in favour of the appellant (3) or against the appellant (1). Since the FOI response was received, I have learned of another Tribunal appeal in respect of an income support decision being decided in the Department's favour, so that is 0 reversals out of 2 hearings for 2015 so far, with a further 4 hearings either adjourned or still awaiting a judgment. If this was a proper functioning democracy, our States Members might be asking some serious questions about the types of people who are currently being appointed to the various Tribunals and how representative they are of the community as a whole, as well as looking at the standard of "impartial" advice being offered to benefit claimants by the Citizens Advice Bureau, which is run by a former Social Security Department senior officer who worked in that Department for 11 years, 10 months before leaving to take up the post of Chief Executive of the CAB.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 10:02:14 PM by Jerry Gosselin »

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #50 on: August 27, 2015, 09:53:48 PM »
1) The States has finally published on its website the FOI response showing the results of Tribunal appeal hearings (2013-2015) against Social Security Department decisions (see my previous post directly above dated 12th August 2015). The main page link is here:

http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=1596


Link to the PDF document containing the full Tribunal statistics:

http://www.gov.je/Freedom%20of%20Information%20library/ID%20FOI%20attachment%20to%20request%20relating%20to%20SSD%20LH250815.pdf


2) After searching the States FOI Disclosure Log page constantly for many months, I've also just managed to find a link to my controversial request about the Social Security Department intentionally misleading jobseekers into disclosing their 'sensitive personal data' (reported on this thread on 24th April 2014). Whether deliberate or not, the response was eventually published on the Disclosure Log page with the misleading date of 24th March 2014 - 3 days before I actually made the request - whereas the normal practice is to publish it with the date when the response was issued (in this case, 24th April 2014). I therefore can't be sure exactly when they published it, but I reckon it was not for several months at least. Something tells me they really aren't keen for jobseekers to come across this information because it contradicts what their Mentors/Advisers are telling them behind closed doors at Eagle House and what the wording of their Jobseeker's Agreement implies. Link here:

http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=1307

 
I have two more FOI requests awaiting responses and I'm in the process of drafting a third, so plenty to look forward to...

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #51 on: September 02, 2015, 05:33:20 AM »
As from today, the Freedom of Information Law now covers the 12 parishes  ;D - a significant milestone for the island that the Establishment media has mostly chosen to ignore.

However, here are some startling statistics about St. Clement's income from speeding fines that I managed to uncover without having to go to the lengths of making a FOI Law request:

In the year ending 30th April 2009, the parish of St. Clement collected just £1,005 in speeding fines.

It then began providing additional training to its honorary police officers with the intention of specifically targetting more speeding motorists. As a result, by the year ending 30th April 2010, income from fines had tripled to £3,255, a fact not overlooked by Constable Len Norman in his report to parishioners that year.

Then in November 2010, the parish persuaded the TTS Minister to use his ministerial powers to reclassify about 20 roads in St. Clement (including the Inner Road and the Coast Road) as 30 mph speed zones, whereas previously they had been 40 mph zones. The cash quickly began rolling in for the parish, followed within 3 months of the law change by a fatal accident on the new 30 mph Coast Road, which unfortunately only encouraged St. Clement's hobby bobbies to target motorists even more vociferously than they were already doing.

By the year ending 30 April 2013, St. Clement's income from speeding fines had risen to £26,458:o

After an awful lot of fiddling about with my calculator, I reckon that this represents a rise of about 2,533% in income from speeding fines in just 4 years - quite astonishing!

And is there any proof that all these roads in St. Clement have become safer since the speed limit was reduced to 30 mph in 2010? Well if such evidence exists then I guess someone will have to make an FOI request for it because I can't find any!
« Last Edit: September 02, 2015, 05:44:29 AM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline Fritz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2674
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #52 on: September 03, 2015, 01:19:09 AM »
Jersey is just catching up to UK methods of making money by criminalising honest citizens.
Speed traps have never been about making roads safer. They are all about making money.

Offline Little Bob

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2015, 04:41:09 PM »
I have to disagree with you there Fritz.

Speed traps are not about making money. How could they be? If people didn’t break the law, then no money would be collected! If citizens were honest, then they wouldn’t speed and wouldn’t get caught and wouldn’t pay the fine. Its not “criminalising honest citizens” its “punishing dishonest citizens”

We complain that the police (or Honoraries!) don’t do their job of catching criminals, and yet when it comes to road traffic offences, people complain that they are ACTUALLY doing their job.

Well over a decade ago, the States bought an expensive Laztec speed camera, Quite accurate, it takes a photo and records the number plate.  They placed it in the underpass, a well known, well signposted 30 mph zone. They set it to capture anyone doing over 55mph. That’s more than ten miles per hour over the island wide speed limit, (plus 10% variance) not even the actual speed limit of the road.
They ran it for two evenings, only an hour each evening and got over 120 people breaking the law each time, doing more than 50 in a 30 zone. (Criminalising honest citizens if you prefer).
What happened? A deputy complained in the states that pensioners who had never done anything wrong in their life were being treated like criminals because they had received a letter in the post pointing out that they were speeding more than 60% over the posted limit. The ensuing debate decided that the expensive speed camera generated too much paperwork to chase people who break the law, so its been mothballed. Only to come out occasionally to record speeds , but not to fulfil its function to actually record number plates and fine the car owners.

Simply put, if a driver cannot follow the stated road signs, then they are driving dangerously, no matter what anyone’s personal opinion of what the road sign should say.
If the St. Clement honorary police officers are able to record a rise of 2,533% in the number of people CAUGHT breaking the law, then this can only be a good thing. The police are actually doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Honest citizens do not break the law, and honest citizens don’t speed, only criminals break the law.

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #54 on: September 03, 2015, 05:41:19 PM »
Speed traps are not about making money. How could they be? If people didn’t break the law, then no money would be collected! If citizens were honest, then they wouldn’t speed and wouldn’t get caught and wouldn’t pay the fine.

It's simply not fair to imply that anyone who breaks the speed limit is not "honest". I know a couple who are very honest and run a popular small business. They had lived in one of the northern parishes for decades and never received any sort of speeding fine. Then two or three years ago, they moved to St. Clement. Within a couple of months, the husband had been nicked by hobby bobbies on St. Clement's Coast Road for driving at 34 mph in a 30 mph zone. They told me how much he was fined. I can't remember the exact amount but I remember gasping when they told me, particularly considering that this road was always a 40 mph zone for as long as anyone can remember until Len Norman decided he needed to find new ways of balancing the parish books.

Your implication is that the law is always fair and right and the people who are caught breaking it aren't. You ignore the evidence that parishes are deliberately setting artificially low speed limits to try to catch drivers out. An example in St. Helier would be the ridiculous 15 mph zone on Vallee des Vaux, a road almost as wide as Victoria Avenue in places, which includes Waitrose supermarket. Only when you get near the very top of the valley is it advisable to slow down for the geese. The lower part is suitable for driving at 25-30 mph but if you get caught driving at that speed by hobby bobbies, you're a criminal!

There is also deliberate trickery in the setting of speed limits to try to catch drivers out. For example, in St. Clement, there is a lane which runs around the back of Samares Manor called Rue de la Blinerie. If you enter La Blinerie from the Inner Road side adjacent to Rue de Samares, it is a 30 mph limit. However, less than half way along its length, the lane reaches a left turn and a downward hill. At the bottom of the hill is a turning to the right called Rue du Coin, or you can continue straight on as far as the Jersey Recreation Grounds and Plat Douet Road. I only found out recently that once Rue du Coin is passed and you continue straight onwards, the official speed limit inexplicably halves to just 15 mph. I would love to know how often the hobbies catch drivers just after they've come down that hill. I wonder which landowners allow them to hide in their drives waiting to pounce. Knowing the area, I don't think they could police that lane without the assistance of some private landowners, which then makes me wonder what might be in it for those landowners, ahem!   

Returning to the inclusion of the parishes in the FOI Law - the Constables persuaded Gorst to include a clause in the FOI Regulations which could well result in many requests to parishes being refused on the grounds of cost. Whereas the States can refuse a request if the estimated cost exceeds £500, the parishes can refuse a request if the estimated cost exceeds £200 - less than half the States maximum.  Extract from P.155/2014, passed on a standing vote in the House on 25th November 2014:

Quote
Cost limit for Parishes

The Parishes indicated that when they become a scheduled public authority, the cost limit will be adjusted to take into consideration their resource limitations. A number of Parishes employ only one Parish secretary on a part-time basis, which would make a cost limit of £500 for each FOI request overly burdensome. Much of the information handled by the Parishes is already in the public domain, as their business is debated in public forum at Parish assemblies, so it is not anticipated that voluminous requests will be made. The cost limit has been reduced for Parishes to £200, calculated at a rate of £40 per hour which equates to 5 hours.

So they have resource limitations, but as I have pointed out, this doesn't prevent the geographically smallest parish (St. Clement) from finding the necessary resources to trap multiple hundreds of motorists per year driving just above 30 mph in a 30 mph zone.

The advice is therefore to be particularly careful to keep FOI requests to the parish as brief as possible.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/09/02/1494081/


« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 05:49:02 PM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline Little Bob

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #55 on: September 04, 2015, 01:30:34 AM »
Quote
Within a couple of months, the husband had been nicked by hobby bobbies on St. Clement's Coast Road for driving at 34 mph in a 30 mph zone.

Are you sure it was only 34? Something so low is frequently dismissed due to variances in speedometers, or would just have a caution at the Parish Hall Enquiries. At something less than five mph  over the limit, it would fall into the usual “not in the public interest to to prosecute”
There must be more to that story if a fine was imposed.
Nevertheless, Your friends husband DID break the law, driving in excess of the LIMIT, which might have been a maximum of 100 pounds fine, but for such a small amount, I would question the truth of the story, the details just dont add up.

Besides, I never implied that the law is always fair and right, but when in control of a massive killing machine, one has the responsibility to pay attention to its controls.
If you don’t know what speed your doing, you are not driving safely.
If you’re not aware of the speed limits on the road, you’re not paying attention to the road, and you are not driving safely.

No matter when the speed limit was changed, (providing its signposted) there really is no excuse for breaking it, only evidence of bad driving.

Personal opinions of "artificially low speed limits" are just that, personal opinions, but the fact is that the speed limit is just that, a limit, and anyone not paying attention to the speed is someone who shouldn’t be driving.
You may feel that the 15 mph zone on Vallee des Vaux is ridiculous, and should be a 30 mph, but if you or anyone decides to ignore the stated limit, then you're a criminal. That is how speed limits work, we don’t decide what they should be on a personal basis, they are decided (like them or not) and people are required to comply with them. If you don’t like it, campaign to have it changed.

There is no trickery in changing speed limits on a road (unless it is not signposted!) it happens often, especially on our island roads. Drivers are expected to be able to pay attention to sign posts and obey them. Drivers that don’t are breaking the law.

The lesson to learn, is that if you don’t drive safely and refuse to drive within the law, you should expect to be caught and fined. Complaining because the police catch people BREAKING the law is rather bizarre.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 01:40:27 AM by Little Bob »

Offline Fritz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2674
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2015, 03:34:45 AM »
Take it your a ,"Hobby-bobby", little Bob?

Offline Little Bob

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2015, 03:51:40 AM »
Nope, Fritz, I just don't like claims that do not bare any relationship with reality. If people didn't break the law by speeding, no money would be "raised" by catching the people who break the law. As such, claiming that speed traps/checks/cameras are a method to make money is false.

The Parish of St. Clement's are simply getting money from foolish people who should know otherwise (they did take a test, ya know). When people stop breaking the law, the hobby bobbies will soon get bored and do something else.

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2015, 04:00:33 AM »
Sorry little Bob, speeding and most parking fines are just two ways to rip money off motorists.

I am in the older club and regularly drive at forty miles an hour in the summer months through the underpass. Have you noticed some half wit has put a 30 mile an hour speed limit there.

Of course it would never do to take money of unsuspecting tourists who assume it is a dual carriage way. However in the winter it is a different story when speed traps appear.

Many of the green lanes are perfectly safe to drive through at 30mph when one can see way ahead into the distance. But some tw*t decides we are to thick to use common sense so imposes a 15mph.

If you drive at this speed you stand a good chance of being overtaken by a bicycle breaking the law. Bloody criminals.

The speed limits in many parts of Jersey are meant to confuse the honest motorist and take money off them, which they do aggressively.

In a democratic civalised society if the law gets broken by a hell of a lot of people it's is called a bad law and is usually scrapped ( many speeding cameras have been removed in areas of the UK ) after it was found they were of no benefit except to the treasury, which was never supposed to be the purpose.

BB

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Jersey Freedom of Information Requests and Responses
« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2015, 03:48:03 PM »
Sorry to tell you but it has always been 30MPH from the Grand Hotel right through to La Rue des Pres trading estate. The police did used to check for speeding in the underpass but there is years since they have done that.