Excuse me - I'm the resident pedant! That's just poor reporting from the Sun. What they meant to say was that the pictures were not stored in the box but at the base, so fooling this dim-witted individual. Was posted yesterday from the BBC website.
I read it differently. I get the impression that whilst the camera does record cctv footage it isn't actually a speed camera and doesn't take stills of cars and their number plates whilst monitoring excessive speeds. So there. Still not very well written though.
Agreed - the comment from Plod clearly says the pictures it takes can't be used in traffic prosecutions.
What's badly written about it? It was a dummy camera insomuch as it was not a proper speed camera.</p> Seemed fairly clear. The point wasn't owt to do with the writing of the report, simply that we have here a young man who,</p> Speeds when he shouldn't</p> Then takes a decision to destroy a roadside installation in an explosion</p> Taking no account of injuries that might occur to other passing motorists</p> Using explosives that he has access to, and presumably entrusted with to maintain equipment that millions of us or our relatives might travel on every year.</p> Doesn't that strike you as a dickheadly dangerous scenario?</p> Four months - should have been four years.</p> AND he's from Donny!</p>
the 'dummy' part Is that that model of camera hasn't got an official licence yet so if you get caught speeding by one you can't be prosecuted. so whilst it is an actual camera and does record speeds and take photos you wont get fined for flying past one at 90mph. </p>
