Visit to Police Station. Advice please...

[Sheepshanks]

HotJambalaya said:

What exactly is a S59 and how does it come into play if a similar incident happens again?

It's a warning and, within 12 months, the next time either the car it was issued against or any other car the person it was issued against is driving in a manner considered contrary to Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, the car gets impounded. It can be immediately got back - on payment of the recovery fee.

HotJambalaya said:

If you can't refuse one and can't appeal on, can plod just go throwing them out at everyone that even looks at them funnily?

Yes. (As long as they did so from behind the wheel of a car).

HotJambalaya said:

What do you do he's blatantly lied in the paperwork serving you with one?

You can beg a more senior police officer (up to the CC) to cancel it, but the only formal process is a judicial review.

[oceanview]

So what proof did the police have, then?

Anyone could go to the police and make up something that didnt happen or vastly exaggerate, so surely proof of any offence would be needed before the police could even begin to think about approaching you??

[Funk]

This type of thing is also why I now have a dashcam fitted. Can't argue video footage with GPS, speed logs and time stamps.

[carinaman]

I am not sure where 'Innocent until proved guilty' sits with police officers being judge, jury and executioner? 'Great British values......

Even without pointing to the Great British Paedophile cover up that involved state agencies including the police, you'd think some checks and balances would be in place?

Edited by carinaman on Saturday 27th December 12:53

[allergictocheese]

oceanview said:

So what proof did the police have, then?

Anyone could go to the police and make up something that didnt happen or vastly exaggerate, so surely proof of any offence would be needed before the police could even begin to think about approaching you??

An officer only needs reasonable grounds to believe the vehicle was being driven contrary to s3 or 34 and caused or likely to cause distress etc.

Whether a single report from a MoP with nothing else constitutes those reasonable grounds, I imagine it'll depend on the circumstances.

For what it's worth my opinion is that s59 is a poor piece of legislation open to abuse by the lazy or malicious.

[Anonamoose]

I don't mean to be funny but from reading your side if the incident you drove through the middle of a rememberence day parade?

I'm not surprised someone complained, they obviously thought you were incredibly disrespectful for doing so (even if you didn't mean to) they just saw some idiot in a car that couldn't wait.

I wouldn't take it that someone has it 'in for you or your car' just that someone or some people thought you were a disrespectful tt and therefore made a complaint, obviously a bit of embellishment to try and make sure you were taught a lesson.

The policeman probably agreed with them hence the S59.

[Zoobeef]

Anonamoose said:

I don't mean to be funny but from reading your side if the incident you drove through the middle of a rememberence day parade?

I'm not surprised someone complained, they obviously thought you were incredibly disrespectful for doing so (even if you didn't mean to) they just saw some idiot in a car that couldn't wait.

I wouldn't take it that someone has it 'in for you or your car' just that someone or some people thought you were a disrespectful tt and therefore made a complaint, obviously a bit of embellishment to try and make sure you were taught a lesson.

The policeman probably agreed with them hence the S59.

On the other hand, if the road isn't officially closed then it's still open.

Also I doubt a dash cam would have helped as the data probably would have been overwritten after a few days.

[Centurion07]

Quinny said:

Sheepshanks said:

Would it have made any difference if the cop had already decided that's what he was going to do? You can't refuse an S59 and you can't appeal it either.

The reason I asked was that pretty much all of the advice on here, including from serving officers was to attend interview with representation......
I don't know, but It appears that maybe the advice was ignored

benm3evo said:

Went down to the station, when I got there the PC I'd been talking to said he'd decided to deal with it in a different way (i.e. no interview) & I've been given an S59(?) the driving ASBO as I understand it.

AFAIK if an officer is going to dish out an S59, then it wouldn't have mattered whether he had representation or not.

As mentioned above, you can't refuse them and good luck appealing one!

[Centurion07]

Zoobeef said:

Anonamoose said:

I don't mean to be funny but from reading your side if the incident you drove through the middle of a rememberence day parade?

I'm not surprised someone complained, they obviously thought you were incredibly disrespectful for doing so (even if you didn't mean to) they just saw some idiot in a car that couldn't wait.

I wouldn't take it that someone has it 'in for you or your car' just that someone or some people thought you were a disrespectful tt and therefore made a complaint, obviously a bit of embellishment to try and make sure you were taught a lesson.

The policeman probably agreed with them hence the S59.

On the other hand, if the road isn't officially closed then it's still open.

Also I doubt a dash cam would have helped as the data probably would have been overwritten after a few days.

Very much that^.

OP says he was travelling at walking pace and that no complaint was made about his speed, so if they didn't want cars going past, even at a pace barely faster than they were walking, they should have got the road closed.

You can argue the rights and wrongs and manners and morals of it, but how was OP to know how where the parade was going or how long he'd be stuck behind it?

ONE single (false) complaint in the next year could be enough to see OP lose his car FFS! fking ridiculous.

[benm3evo]

Apparently there was an off duty Police Officer present. I'm not saying this is or isn't the person who reported me.

The PC I spoke to also said he had or could contact another witness to back up the allegation (over taking the car with hazards on). As I said, that made no sense either as the invisible car then turned into a person slowing traffic down.

I haven't got enough experience of stuff like this to know whether I should have done something different, i.e. gone through the official interview, but as soon as the off duty officer was mentioned I knew I was screwed.

I'm damn sure had this been in my Insignia not an eye lid would have been batted.

I also asked if this could all be down to me upsetting someone in the Pub etc (which I haven't) or a jealousy thing & them looking for an excuse to drop me in it, & I was told it does happen apparently.

I'm not getting in a stress about it, I know I've done nothing wrong. There are always going to be some sad loser(s) that have nothing better to do. The Officer I spoke to said he thought I was a decent chap & he could tell I'm not the type of person to do anything daft intentionally (small consolation).

I suggested that if any feedback is given, they might want to suggest the road is closed in future or warning signs are put up or there are 'official looking' people in high-viz vests at the back possibly? All of which I would think is common sense if you're going to walk down one lane of a main road, which has large pathways on either side I might add.....I'm sure this suggestion will go no further.

First reaction was to take the M3 off the road for a year but I'm almost admitting some guilt by doing that so I'm just going to be extra careful & try not to upset anyone....for a year anyway!

Cheers.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Once again, we assuming the OP's account is the complete truth. I am not saying it's not, but if the OP was perhaps a little more aggressive than we are made to believe, he is unlikely to say so on here. If he dropped it down a couple of gears and floored it through the middle of the parade, it would put a different spin on things. Once again OP, I'm not saying your account isn't spot on, but this is another example where we could debate how much of a farce the police actions were all day, but without being there, or at least being privy to all the facts, we can't really judge either way.

[benm3evo]

Anonamoose said:

I don't mean to be funny but from reading your side if the incident you drove through the middle of a rememberence day parade?

I'm not surprised someone complained, they obviously thought you were incredibly disrespectful for doing so (even if you didn't mean to) they just saw some idiot in a car that couldn't wait.

I wouldn't take it that someone has it 'in for you or your car' just that someone or some people thought you were a disrespectful tt and therefore made a complaint, obviously a bit of embellishment to try and make sure you were taught a lesson.

The policeman probably agreed with them hence the S59.

You may be right, but...

Without anyone knowing the road this was on it was impossible to tell there was any type of parade going on. There was an initial small group of people in the road, I couldn't see around them before I was level with them...& even then I could only see a few more people walking up the road, nothing offical looking.

Obviously with hind sight (or a bloody sign!!) I would have simply turned around but I got to the 'point of no return' so had to wait for the next turning a few yards on before I could escape.

Cheers.

The business end of the Parade was another 100M down the road & I got nowhere near that.

[benm3evo]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Once again, we assuming the OP's account is the complete truth. I am not saying it's not, but if the OP was perhaps a little more aggressive than we are made to believe, he is unlikely to say so on here. If he dropped it down a couple of gears and floored it through the middle of the parade, it would put a different spin on things. Once again OP, I'm not saying your account isn't spot on, but this is another example where we could debate how much of a farce the police actions were all day, but without being there, or at least being privy to all the facts, we can't really judge either way.

Yes, I'm not naive (spelling!?) This is a Public forum so not everything on here is gospel.

All I can say is I know I did nothing wrong in my view. Others might have seen it differently. I've tried to put across my version of events as accurately as possible. Perhaps a key thing is this wasn't on a dual track or whatever with good visibility so you can't see miles ahead. What angered me most is the James Bond style invisible car as the allegation was based around me over-taking it!

I also understand the car sounds louder than average so just from sound it might appear to be going faster....but not sure that really applies at 20mph & then down to walking pace.

Anyway, live & learn! Cheers

[mikerons88]

You think someone might be jealous of your car???

[benm3evo]

mikerons88 said:

You think someone might be jealous of your car???

That's probably not likely to be honest. It is only an M3 so nothing exotic but all kinds of things having been going through my head when you can get reported for something like this

[Clivey]

allergictocheese said:

For what it's worth my opinion is that s59 is a poor piece of legislation open to abuse by the lazy or malicious.

When I was a kid, I used to believe that the Police were the "good guys". By the time I'd left secondary school, I'd realised that some are incompetent, some are lazy and some are downright corrupt - just the same as pretty much any other job out there. It sounds as if the OP had the unfortunate experience of meeting a lazy one.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Clivey said:

When I was a kid, I used to believe that the Police were the "good guys". By the time I'd left secondary school, I'd realised that some are incompetent, some are lazy and some are downright corrupt - just the same as pretty much any other job out there. It sounds as if the OP had the unfortunate experience of meeting a lazy one.

No. He hasn't. A lazy one would have done nothing. Maybe a couple of phone calls, and maybe even a letter. A lazy cop wouldn't have gone to the effort of all the correspondence and arranged for and dealt with the OP at the police station, issuing and submitting paperwork. I'd say he was actually quite thorough. But hey ho. Even when we're good, we're bad.

[Tribal Chestnut]

Mk3Spitfire said:

No. He hasn't. A lazy one would have done nothing. Maybe a couple of phone calls, and maybe even a letter. A lazy cop wouldn't have gone to the effort of all the correspondence and arranged for and dealt with the OP at the police station, issuing and submitting paperwork. I'd say he was actually quite thorough. But hey ho. Even when we're good, we're bad.

The policeman chose to issue the S59 without listening to the OPs version of events and considering all the info. God help us if you consider that thorough.

[Nigel Worc's]

Mk3Spitfire said:

No. He hasn't. A lazy one would have done nothing. Maybe a couple of phone calls, and maybe even a letter. A lazy cop wouldn't have gone to the effort of all the correspondence and arranged for and dealt with the OP at the police station, issuing and submitting paperwork. I'd say he was actually quite thorough. But hey ho. Even when we're good, we're bad.

Through several pieces of modern legislation you have been turned into judge and jury.

That is never going to go down well with the public, would you expect people to feel any different ?

If a Constable thinks a member of the public is guilty of an offence, prove it, not that unreasonable of a request is it ?

[mikerons88]

Nigel Worc's said:

Through several pieces of modern legislation you have been turned into judge and jury.

That is never going to go down well with the public, would you expect people to feel any different ?

If a Constable thinks a member of the public is guilty of an offence, prove it, not that unreasonable of a request is it ?

Exactly. I also bet that whatever the response is, it will be defending the police force.