AT first, 82-year-old pensioner, retired maths teacher James Clegg, took it on the chin when he was nabbed doing 36 mph by a now-notorious speed camera on a road where the limit had been lowered from 40 mph to 30 mph.

All the same, he reckoned it was unfair as, on his approach to the camera on Whalley Road at Great Harwood, not far from his home, there was no sign saying what the limit was. But rather than have his wife upset, he paid the £60 fine and suffered three penalty points on his licence -- one that was previously unblemished in 64 years of driving.

But when his insurance premium went up as a result by £50, he got angry and decided to challenge the case. Now, it turns out that others -- around a dozen -- who disputed the fixed-penalty fine were not prosecuted. As a result, Mr Clegg wants the police to wipe the slate for those like him who have paid their fines after being caught by this camera.

His case is being backed by Hyndburn MP Greg Pope who says it's unfair -- when the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety, responsible for the installation of the camera, has admitted mistakes had been made.

That admission is clearly somewhat reluctant when the Partnership's project manager Ian Bell says: "The speed limit on this stretch of road changed last October and received considerable publicity. We have installed additional signs and done everything possible to advertise the fact."

Even so, Mr Bell must concede that neither the publicity nor the signs were sufficient -- when other drivers have been let off as a result.

Poor old Mr Clegg's paying his fine may, in law, be taken as an admission of guilt. But what are the moral grounds for fining some motorists and letting off others when each was caught by a camera that was 'flawed.' Where's the justice in that, Chief Constable?