Police appeal for information after Dartford speed camera set on fire

Police appeal for information after Dartford speed camera set on fire

Police appeal for information after Dartford speed camera set on fire

First published in News News Shopper: Photograph of the Author by , deputy news editor

Kent Police is appealing for information after a speed camera was found alight in Dartford.

Officers are investigating an alleged arson which is reported to have taken place on A226 Dartford Road just before 3am on Saturday (APRIL 26). 

PC Martin Taylor, investigating the incident, said: "Kent Police is investigating after a fixed speed camera was found alight in Dartford.

"I would urge witnesses to the incident or anyone who might have seen something suspicious in the area at the time of the incident to contact police."

Witnesses or anyone with information about this incident is asked to contact PC Martin Taylor at Kent Police by calling 01474 366236 and quoting XY/014710/14.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:32am Thu 1 May 14

white rabbit9 says...

OMG, Will someone please think of the shareholders, they are gonna have to shop in sainsbury's now.
OMG, Will someone please think of the shareholders, they are gonna have to shop in sainsbury's now. white rabbit9
  • Score: -7

1:10pm Thu 1 May 14

Crayman says...

Even if I'd seen someone do it I wouldn't report that. Good on them
Even if I'd seen someone do it I wouldn't report that. Good on them Crayman
  • Score: -15

2:50pm Thu 1 May 14

ElsieH says...

If they put cameras in positions where they would genuinely make the roads safer, and not just provide an extra income, then people wouldn't become so annoyed.
If they put cameras in positions where they would genuinely make the roads safer, and not just provide an extra income, then people wouldn't become so annoyed. ElsieH
  • Score: 52

3:16pm Thu 1 May 14

sarfflondonbird says...

One down - 50,0000 or so to go. Good on the culprit.
One down - 50,0000 or so to go. Good on the culprit. sarfflondonbird
  • Score: -36

3:27pm Thu 1 May 14

HearTheFacts says...

Maybe it was working overtime and exploded?. To much flashing is the problem here. At least it give the police something to do, must get boring looking out for car tax!.
Maybe it was working overtime and exploded?. To much flashing is the problem here. At least it give the police something to do, must get boring looking out for car tax!. HearTheFacts
  • Score: 33

4:17pm Thu 1 May 14

the wall says...

sarfflondonbird wrote:
One down - 50,0000 or so to go. Good on the culprit.
Try about 6000.
[quote][p][bold]sarfflondonbird[/bold] wrote: One down - 50,0000 or so to go. Good on the culprit.[/p][/quote]Try about 6000. the wall
  • Score: -15

4:20pm Thu 1 May 14

The Fozziest of Bears says...

Just a money-making excuse for local councils.
These things have nothing to do with safety or speeding - they just want your money.
Just a money-making excuse for local councils. These things have nothing to do with safety or speeding - they just want your money. The Fozziest of Bears
  • Score: 37

5:20pm Thu 1 May 14

cherithporter says...

People will do anything nowadays to destruct and destroy.
People will do anything nowadays to destruct and destroy. cherithporter
  • Score: -52

8:26pm Thu 1 May 14

white rabbit9 says...

the wall wrote:
sarfflondonbird wrote:
One down - 50,0000 or so to go. Good on the culprit.
Try about 6000.
As of April 2012, there are approximately 6,000 speed cameras

Agreed
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfflondonbird[/bold] wrote: One down - 50,0000 or so to go. Good on the culprit.[/p][/quote]Try about 6000.[/p][/quote]As of April 2012, there are approximately 6,000 speed cameras Agreed white rabbit9
  • Score: -30

8:51pm Thu 1 May 14

sarfflondonbird says...

white rabbit9 wrote:
the wall wrote:
sarfflondonbird wrote:
One down - 50,0000 or so to go. Good on the culprit.
Try about 6000.
As of April 2012, there are approximately 6,000 speed cameras

Agreed
Is that in London alone though? What about the rest of the uk? Ok slight exaggeration on the figure but you get my drift?
[quote][p][bold]white rabbit9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfflondonbird[/bold] wrote: One down - 50,0000 or so to go. Good on the culprit.[/p][/quote]Try about 6000.[/p][/quote]As of April 2012, there are approximately 6,000 speed cameras Agreed[/p][/quote]Is that in London alone though? What about the rest of the uk? Ok slight exaggeration on the figure but you get my drift? sarfflondonbird
  • Score: -30

9:29pm Thu 1 May 14

white rabbit9 says...

How 10 speed cameras raked in £12million in just three years by catching 200,000 motorists

Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2402629/How-10-speed
-cameras-raked-12mil
lion-just-years-catc
hing-200-000-motoris
ts.html#ixzz30Uur7od
6

Very lucrative for a corporation. In black laws dictionary 4th edition a human being is only described as a "artifical person" in law you have to consent to being a fictional person in the game of life. So If you get a ticket you are not breaking the law by not paying it, you just have to stand up to these bullies and say NO as you are a human being standing in common law jurisdiction. This is the information they are hiding from the population that they have been hiding for a very long time. You have rights and power, use it.
How 10 speed cameras raked in £12million in just three years by catching 200,000 motorists Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2402629/How-10-speed -cameras-raked-12mil lion-just-years-catc hing-200-000-motoris ts.html#ixzz30Uur7od 6 Very lucrative for a corporation. In black laws dictionary 4th edition a human being is only described as a "artifical person" in law you have to consent to being a fictional person in the game of life. So If you get a ticket you are not breaking the law by not paying it, you just have to stand up to these bullies and say NO as you are a human being standing in common law jurisdiction. This is the information they are hiding from the population that they have been hiding for a very long time. You have rights and power, use it. white rabbit9
  • Score: -35

11:01am Fri 2 May 14

Invicta58 says...

Perhaps they need a CCTV to check on the Traffic Camera. Then a second CCTV to check that the first one isnt damaged. Then a third one to check on the second ......

All good business for someone, but never the taxpayer or motorist.
Perhaps they need a CCTV to check on the Traffic Camera. Then a second CCTV to check that the first one isnt damaged. Then a third one to check on the second ...... All good business for someone, but never the taxpayer or motorist. Invicta58
  • Score: 18

11:12am Fri 2 May 14

the wall says...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who watches the watchers?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers? the wall
  • Score: 73

1:37pm Fri 2 May 14

PaulErith says...

white rabbit9 wrote:
How 10 speed cameras raked in £12million in just three years by catching 200,000 motorists

Read more: http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2402629/How-10-speed

-cameras-raked-12mil

lion-just-years-catc

hing-200-000-motoris

ts.html#ixzz30Uur7od

6

Very lucrative for a corporation. In black laws dictionary 4th edition a human being is only described as a "artifical person" in law you have to consent to being a fictional person in the game of life. So If you get a ticket you are not breaking the law by not paying it, you just have to stand up to these bullies and say NO as you are a human being standing in common law jurisdiction. This is the information they are hiding from the population that they have been hiding for a very long time. You have rights and power, use it.
So, you think it's acceptable to speed then? They only rake in that much money because people break the speed limit.

Also, I have to ask why you're so against laws and on any crime suggest that people should not pay or not be arrested, etc. Do you want a lawless society then? Do you not understand that there need to be laws, such as speeding laws, to prevent people from just doing what they like? And, if we agree that there need to be laws, you need someone to enforce them and a punishment system, otherwise the laws are worthless.
[quote][p][bold]white rabbit9[/bold] wrote: How 10 speed cameras raked in £12million in just three years by catching 200,000 motorists Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2402629/How-10-speed -cameras-raked-12mil lion-just-years-catc hing-200-000-motoris ts.html#ixzz30Uur7od 6 Very lucrative for a corporation. In black laws dictionary 4th edition a human being is only described as a "artifical person" in law you have to consent to being a fictional person in the game of life. So If you get a ticket you are not breaking the law by not paying it, you just have to stand up to these bullies and say NO as you are a human being standing in common law jurisdiction. This is the information they are hiding from the population that they have been hiding for a very long time. You have rights and power, use it.[/p][/quote]So, you think it's acceptable to speed then? They only rake in that much money because people break the speed limit. Also, I have to ask why you're so against laws and on any crime suggest that people should not pay or not be arrested, etc. Do you want a lawless society then? Do you not understand that there need to be laws, such as speeding laws, to prevent people from just doing what they like? And, if we agree that there need to be laws, you need someone to enforce them and a punishment system, otherwise the laws are worthless. PaulErith
  • Score: -37

3:21pm Fri 2 May 14

Spurious1974 says...

PaulErith says...
So, you think it's acceptable to speed then? They only rake in that much money because people break the speed limit.

Also, I have to ask why you're so against laws and on any crime suggest that people should not pay or not be arrested, etc. Do you want a lawless society then? Do you not understand that there need to be laws, such as speeding laws, to prevent people from just doing what they like? And, if we agree that there need to be laws, you need someone to enforce them and a punishment system, otherwise the laws are worthless.

This isn't about being against laws and living in a lawless society. This goes to the heart of the underhand methods used by the authorities to cover for shortfalls in funding from Central Government. If the speed cameras did contribute to reducing road deaths as a result of speeding, than people would not be so against their use. The sad state of affairs is that road deaths as a result of speeding are not declining as much as the Government likes to think they are because of one simple fact. Where an individual sees a speed camera (assuming that it isn't concealed by an overgrowing tree), that individual will brake (sometimes suddenly, thereby increasing the chance of skidding and losing control of their car), and will then resume the speed they were going before they saw the camera.

Authorities should admit that the revenue from the cameras in their areas are being used to supplement shortfalls in funding as a result of Central Government cuts and stop trying to fool people into thinking that their only use is crime prevention i.e. catching villainous speeders terrorising the road network..... (nothing could be further from the truth). There is no sense in damaging a speed camera simply because the taxpayer ends up funding the replacement speed camera and putting up with the inconvenience that comes with closing a road so that the overpriced, underworked engineers can fit the replacement speed camera into place........

The authorities should stop treating people as idiots.... no one believes you when you say 'crime prevention'....... crime is down because people have stopped reporting crime, police forces have stopped recording incidents of crime, and people have no faith in a criminal justice system that is on the side of the criminal (in most cases..... Max Clifford being the notable exception)..... I wonder which publicist will speak up for the dirty old git........
PaulErith says... So, you think it's acceptable to speed then? They only rake in that much money because people break the speed limit. Also, I have to ask why you're so against laws and on any crime suggest that people should not pay or not be arrested, etc. Do you want a lawless society then? Do you not understand that there need to be laws, such as speeding laws, to prevent people from just doing what they like? And, if we agree that there need to be laws, you need someone to enforce them and a punishment system, otherwise the laws are worthless. This isn't about being against laws and living in a lawless society. This goes to the heart of the underhand methods used by the authorities to cover for shortfalls in funding from Central Government. If the speed cameras did contribute to reducing road deaths as a result of speeding, than people would not be so against their use. The sad state of affairs is that road deaths as a result of speeding are not declining as much as the Government likes to think they are because of one simple fact. Where an individual sees a speed camera (assuming that it isn't concealed by an overgrowing tree), that individual will brake (sometimes suddenly, thereby increasing the chance of skidding and losing control of their car), and will then resume the speed they were going before they saw the camera. Authorities should admit that the revenue from the cameras in their areas are being used to supplement shortfalls in funding as a result of Central Government cuts and stop trying to fool people into thinking that their only use is crime prevention i.e. catching villainous speeders terrorising the road network..... (nothing could be further from the truth). There is no sense in damaging a speed camera simply because the taxpayer ends up funding the replacement speed camera and putting up with the inconvenience that comes with closing a road so that the overpriced, underworked engineers can fit the replacement speed camera into place........ The authorities should stop treating people as idiots.... no one believes you when you say 'crime prevention'....... crime is down because people have stopped reporting crime, police forces have stopped recording incidents of crime, and people have no faith in a criminal justice system that is on the side of the criminal (in most cases..... Max Clifford being the notable exception)..... I wonder which publicist will speak up for the dirty old git........ Spurious1974
  • Score: 56

4:27pm Fri 2 May 14

PaulErith says...

I don't dispute that they haven't deaths from speeding. I've not done the research myself so I'll trust what you've said. My point still remains that nobody can complain about being fined by a speed camera. It's your own fault if you're going above the speed limit and get caught. It's like people that complain about traffic wardens. Don't park on yellow lines or go over your tie on the ticket, and you won't get fined.
I don't dispute that they haven't deaths from speeding. I've not done the research myself so I'll trust what you've said. My point still remains that nobody can complain about being fined by a speed camera. It's your own fault if you're going above the speed limit and get caught. It's like people that complain about traffic wardens. Don't park on yellow lines or go over your tie on the ticket, and you won't get fined. PaulErith
  • Score: 52

6:34pm Mon 5 May 14

Harold_Monk says...

The Dutch do this every week. Hope it catches on here
The Dutch do this every week. Hope it catches on here Harold_Monk
  • Score: 43

8:38pm Mon 5 May 14

Simon bald says...

Wish someone had done the one in down birchwood road, I'm gonna have to do another speed awareness course
Wish someone had done the one in down birchwood road, I'm gonna have to do another speed awareness course Simon bald
  • Score: 20

3:03pm Tue 6 May 14

JoeBlobbs says...

I wonder how those who are against speed cameras would feel if a family member was hit by a speeding driver with the excess being the difference between injury and fatality.

Wouldn't be setting them on fire then I bet, most likely campaigning for more.
I wonder how those who are against speed cameras would feel if a family member was hit by a speeding driver with the excess being the difference between injury and fatality. Wouldn't be setting them on fire then I bet, most likely campaigning for more. JoeBlobbs
  • Score: 26

4:39pm Tue 6 May 14

JoeBlobbs says...

JoeBlobbs wrote:
I wonder how those who are against speed cameras would feel if a family member was hit by a speeding driver with the excess being the difference between injury and fatality.

Wouldn't be setting them on fire then I bet, most likely campaigning for more.
Why cant people write something instead of disliking a perfectly reasonable comment? Some people are just too stupid for words.
[quote][p][bold]JoeBlobbs[/bold] wrote: I wonder how those who are against speed cameras would feel if a family member was hit by a speeding driver with the excess being the difference between injury and fatality. Wouldn't be setting them on fire then I bet, most likely campaigning for more.[/p][/quote]Why cant people write something instead of disliking a perfectly reasonable comment? Some people are just too stupid for words. JoeBlobbs
  • Score: 57

7:39pm Tue 6 May 14

Simon bald says...

JoeBlobbs wrote:
I wonder how those who are against speed cameras would feel if a family member was hit by a speeding driver with the excess being the difference between injury and fatality.

Wouldn't be setting them on fire then I bet, most likely campaigning for more.
shut up fatty
[quote][p][bold]JoeBlobbs[/bold] wrote: I wonder how those who are against speed cameras would feel if a family member was hit by a speeding driver with the excess being the difference between injury and fatality. Wouldn't be setting them on fire then I bet, most likely campaigning for more.[/p][/quote]shut up fatty Simon bald
  • Score: -20

9:16pm Tue 6 May 14

JoeBlobbs says...

Simon bald wrote:
JoeBlobbs wrote:
I wonder how those who are against speed cameras would feel if a family member was hit by a speeding driver with the excess being the difference between injury and fatality.

Wouldn't be setting them on fire then I bet, most likely campaigning for more.
shut up fatty
took you a while to think of that one eh?

but then you must be one of the brighter NS readers because at least you can type 3 words
[quote][p][bold]Simon bald[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JoeBlobbs[/bold] wrote: I wonder how those who are against speed cameras would feel if a family member was hit by a speeding driver with the excess being the difference between injury and fatality. Wouldn't be setting them on fire then I bet, most likely campaigning for more.[/p][/quote]shut up fatty[/p][/quote]took you a while to think of that one eh? but then you must be one of the brighter NS readers because at least you can type 3 words JoeBlobbs
  • Score: 95

9:19pm Tue 6 May 14

JoeBlobbs says...

Simon bald wrote:
Wish someone had done the one in down birchwood road, I'm gonna have to do another speed awareness course
yeah with all the other Gary Boy chav racers, enjoy

PS does your car have some stripes baldy?
[quote][p][bold]Simon bald[/bold] wrote: Wish someone had done the one in down birchwood road, I'm gonna have to do another speed awareness course[/p][/quote]yeah with all the other Gary Boy chav racers, enjoy PS does your car have some stripes baldy? JoeBlobbs
  • Score: 20

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree