final and complete loss of faith

So should we just bend over and quietly take it without protest?

If you have actually broken the law then that would be the sensible thing to do, yes.
A bit of remorse wouldn't go down too badly either.
Would have saved £95 and 3 hours in this case.

Originally Posted by lisyloo

But going to court when you've broken the law is not the way to acheive that is it?

Name a better way of changing the law? You have heard of legal precedents?

Admittedly I agree it is probably futile but I don't think anyone can be criticised for arguing against a law in court.

... EDIT: You changed your post Lisyloo...

Name a better way of changing the law?

Join a group that has a chance of being taken seriously and actively contribute to it.
MAG is one that springs to mind that has a good success record of getting things changed although I can't comment on their specific policy on speed.

You have heard of legal precedents?

Yes of course and in some cases it would be worthwhile.
For example a test case that had the backing and legal representation of a large group with policy & research.
Someone that's p**sed off cos they got caught acting alone has ZERO chance.

Admittedly I agree it is probably futile but I don't think anyone can be criticised for arguing against a law in court.

I agree that the sentiment of challenging the law should not be criticised.
Our democratic rights should be treasured.
The method of doing so can be criticised.
A massive change of speeding policy would need the backing of a large respected group (like MAG or the IAM) to put forward research and have the legal backing. An individual might be required for a test case once this large amount of money backing, policy and research is in place.

I did not see a coherent policy put in the first post or a sensible methd of challenging to the law jsut someone wasting their time and money p**sing in the wind.

I am not saying we should bend over and take anything, but a methodical approach and some backing would be needed to change the law.

[Capo]

Originally Posted by lisyloo

I am not saying we should bend over and take anything, but a methodical approach and some backing would be needed to change the law.

I believe the IRA was successful in changing a few laws

Originally Posted by lisyloo

An individual might be required for a test case once this large amount of money backing, policy and research is in place.

There's a common misunderstanding about the nature of English law here. Judges can't alter statutes; they can only interpret what parliament give them. There's no test case to be run until there's an Act passed by the MPs and H of L, which could be passed as a result of political pressure or any other reason. That could, like it or not, be a result of a violent campaign or a peaceful one. I am sure that no-one on this site advocates terrorism, so please let's not lose the plot.

[Nickj]

Originally Posted by Gamsa

I am sure that no-one on this site advocates terrorism, so please let's not lose the plot.

It seems to me that the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" are steeped in negative connotations and that the terms are most often applied as political labels for political ends.
If you identify with the victim of the act then the act is terrorism. If, however, you identify with the perpetrator, then you will regard the act in a more sympathetic way possibly even positive or, at the worst, an ambivalent light; and then it is not terrorism but justified resistance. It does rather depend if you are the 'side' being threatened or coerced, or the side resisting threats and coercion. Both are eminently flexible by circumstance.
Leaving the rather charged term of 'terrorism' to one side it is perhaps unfortunate that past acts of civil disobedience would seem to bear results, but as to it being justified it again rather depends on your standpoint. If for example you find yourself on the 'side' that has found that rational requests or requests for rationality are ignored, and attempts to foster political or legal change through the existing channels have likewise been dismissed by the side resisting the change then it becomes obvious that your options are limited to 'other methods'.
Here we can cite two examples of civil disobedience from the UK which did achieve their ends, the Poll Tax riots are one example, the Right to Roam acts are another, both featured mass civil disobedience. Both were dealt with by a blend of conventional legislation and elements of the anti-terrorism act 2000 and it's subsequent amendments; indicating an official feeling that some of those involved were indeed committing acts that could be construed as domestic terrorism, despite it's use no prosecutions based on it were bought.

Note: I'm not condoning or supporting terrorism nor civil disobedience, just pointing out that it depends which foot the boot is on and who is doing the kicking.

As to the speeding element of this strand, it happens, it's judged solely on the instant you pass the point being monitored. There is no element of context as to how unsafe or safe the act may have been, solely that it was committed. Simplest just to pay up and be on your way.