Call police bluff over charges

As the day wore on the absurd and illegitimate nature of this suggestion became clear and the Chief Constable spokesperson seemed to back away from it.

A road safety expert said the idea that police could determine those "unjustly acquitted" is as absurd as it is abhorrent. We have courts to determine guilt or innocence according to law. But now, apparently, if we are acquitted in court we can expect to be followed round by police who arrogantly believe they know better than the courts.

It's policing, but not as we know it.

Secondly there is the promise of a two-man team comprising "a lawyer and a former police officer to help prosecute speed camera cases". It looks like they will have their work cut out:

There were 127,100 speed camera cases in court in 2004 (latest Home Office figures)

There are around 250 court days in a year, implying more than 500 cases a day.

And that's before you consider around 150,000 cases each year under "Section 172" where someone has "failed to identify the driver" at the time of an alleged offence.

It's policing, but not as we know it. It's bluff and intimidation. It seeks to deny our right to justice. It might even be "attempting to pervert the course of justice". Beyond that it isn't even going to work.

Surely they have noticed by now that speed cameras aren't making the roads safer? Surely the easy solution, even for the Chief Constables, is to back out of the failed speed camera programme?

I urge all drivers who may have a legitimate defence to their speeding ticket to demand their day in court. Call their bluff. Do not be intimidated.

John Mellor, Birches Barn Road, Wolverhampton.

Popular stories:

• Video - Elmo hits the streets

• £10 million council tax cheats

• Find bargains with StarBidz

• Video - Jobs, Career and Training Fair

• All the fun of the jobs fair