Pulled over by Police but what could he actually do?
Discussion
vonhosen said:
The speedo not needing to be calibrated (where the alleged margin over the limit is not small i.e. 10mph) is the case law. It's long standing (1950), just as speedo readings not being a matter of opinion but material evidential fact is long standing.
The testimony of the accused is evidence too & it is up to the court to listen to all the evidence & consider it in reaching their verdict.
People can & do get convicted on the evidence of one officer & his/her speedo reading. People do of course get acquitted in cases too. The court listen to the evidence & then reach a verdict, each case is dealt with on the merits of the evidence presented.
The main point is that one officer & a non calibrated speedo is not a bar to conviction.
Precisely. Not black and white as some on here would have you assume. He'd have little chance of making this stick and he knew it. In my 39 years of life, I've witnessed many a bobby willy waving at almost every opportunity, robots. The testimony of the accused is evidence too & it is up to the court to listen to all the evidence & consider it in reaching their verdict.
People can & do get convicted on the evidence of one officer & his/her speedo reading. People do of course get acquitted in cases too. The court listen to the evidence & then reach a verdict, each case is dealt with on the merits of the evidence presented.
The main point is that one officer & a non calibrated speedo is not a bar to conviction.
I'm off for dinner now, mummies made me bangers and mash with alphabet spaghetti. Bye.
VonSenger said:
Precisely. Not black and white as some on here would have you assume. He'd have little chance of making this stick and he knew it. In my 39 years of life, I've witnessed many a bobby willy waving at almost every opportunity, robots.
No one said it was black and white. Nice strawman. If he knew "he had little chance of making it stick" don't you think he had realised that prior to the stop? If so, a verbal warning would have been decided for the excess speed prior to the stop so you make little sense.
VonSenger said:
vonhosen said:
The speedo not needing to be calibrated (where the alleged margin over the limit is not small i.e. 10mph) is the case law. It's long standing (1950), just as speedo readings not being a matter of opinion but material evidential fact is long standing.
The testimony of the accused is evidence too & it is up to the court to listen to all the evidence & consider it in reaching their verdict.
People can & do get convicted on the evidence of one officer & his/her speedo reading. People do of course get acquitted in cases too. The court listen to the evidence & then reach a verdict, each case is dealt with on the merits of the evidence presented.
The main point is that one officer & a non calibrated speedo is not a bar to conviction.
Precisely. Not black and white as some on here would have you assume. He'd have little chance of making this stick and he knew it. In my 39 years of life, I've witnessed many a bobby willy waving at almost every opportunity, robots. The testimony of the accused is evidence too & it is up to the court to listen to all the evidence & consider it in reaching their verdict.
People can & do get convicted on the evidence of one officer & his/her speedo reading. People do of course get acquitted in cases too. The court listen to the evidence & then reach a verdict, each case is dealt with on the merits of the evidence presented.
The main point is that one officer & a non calibrated speedo is not a bar to conviction.
I'm off for dinner now, mummies made me bangers and mash with alphabet spaghetti. Bye.
It's how convinced the court would be, not you.
OP said:
He said he'd pulled me because he was doing 70 and I must have been doing three figures when I caught him (he'd seen me in his mirror).
Not a small margin & not the circumstances you were talking about in your 'creep past' statement.It's academic because it didn't get tested in court, but you aren't arguing about fundamentals from a position of knowledge/strength/experience.
Mk3Spitfire said:
I quite often stop people for minor offences. It often leads to something bigger. I don't always prosecute them...words of advice are often more effective that fines and/or points. So there's nothing strange about the officer's decision not to take any further action.
You must be a good one :-) "There are more people stopped re speed & not reported for FPN/Summons for it, than stopped re speed & reported for it, by a large margin."
I am somewhat surprised and relieved by this. My limited experience on the other hand suggests otherwise. I think we have answered the OP's question and before this thread descends into a slanging match its time for me to move on.
My spaghetti was delicious, I managed to spell NOUGHTEA BOUY so mummy gave me ice cream.
Now back on track. La Liga, take a step back from your rhetoric and absorb the vista that bestows you. Your attitude and approach serves nothing but to enforce the view that you are all abusers of power. I try to refrain from slipping in to an emotive argument but on this occasion, you've pushed the right buttons. Do you think what the OP did was dangerous, enforceable in court without selling the family silver or in our case the gold reserves, ignorant other than ignoring Mr angry in the L200?
I think if you stepped out of the weeds you'll appreciate that nothing is black and white and there are better ways to spend police time. Now Im not going to spout the Peado line, but surely this is a complete waste of time and some things are worth pursuing and some not? Take a look at your previous posts, complete robotised output from an institutionalised individual detached from what we experience everyday, real life.
As an example, what good do you think a Section 59 does when issued?
A. Irritate the "offender" as you are using it as an abuse of power and a catch all
B. Serving a purpose and protecting society
Of course this maybe difficult to answer given the lack of scenario, however can you see my point? (I suspect not based on your level of view)
Go and live a little instead of spouting your institutionalised rhetoric. You'll soon see life isn't black and white and is not just a candidate for case law. Then see this scenario from the perspective of a law abiding citizen who has never been arrested or charged.
Now back on track. La Liga, take a step back from your rhetoric and absorb the vista that bestows you. Your attitude and approach serves nothing but to enforce the view that you are all abusers of power. I try to refrain from slipping in to an emotive argument but on this occasion, you've pushed the right buttons. Do you think what the OP did was dangerous, enforceable in court without selling the family silver or in our case the gold reserves, ignorant other than ignoring Mr angry in the L200?
I think if you stepped out of the weeds you'll appreciate that nothing is black and white and there are better ways to spend police time. Now Im not going to spout the Peado line, but surely this is a complete waste of time and some things are worth pursuing and some not? Take a look at your previous posts, complete robotised output from an institutionalised individual detached from what we experience everyday, real life.
As an example, what good do you think a Section 59 does when issued?
A. Irritate the "offender" as you are using it as an abuse of power and a catch all
B. Serving a purpose and protecting society
Of course this maybe difficult to answer given the lack of scenario, however can you see my point? (I suspect not based on your level of view)
Go and live a little instead of spouting your institutionalised rhetoric. You'll soon see life isn't black and white and is not just a candidate for case law. Then see this scenario from the perspective of a law abiding citizen who has never been arrested or charged.
jimbop1 said:
Elroy Blue said:
jimbop1 said:
I didn't say 'has' to drive. I'm sure they are taught/told to try and stay at 60ish or 80ish to help with the flow of traffic. Common sense really.
No they're not. They drive at speeds that are required at the time. I find PHs the wrong place to criticize the plod. It seems to be full of the boys in blue. Or people in someway linked on to them. I have no love for them. I dont think all are bad, just the majority. I think i may have been unlucky in my dealings with them. Wont go into too much detail, only that they have overstepped the mark twice with me. I have received a visit from some guy with a fancy hat to "smooth it over and sort the mess out". Total pals club IMHO. I could never be one of those Youtube bandits, posting clips about how they give the police a hard time or get away without giving there details. I do understand there frustrations with the plod.
One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given was "never argue with policemen, bouncers, referees or women. No matter how right you think you are, you're wrong; accept it".
I'm not sure who said "There are more people stopped re speed & not reported for FPN/summons for it, than stopped re speed & reported for it, by a large margin" (put your hand up if you like), but in my experience that is the absolute truth. On the numerous occasions I've been pulled over, for everything from "driving like a d
head" (I was driving like a dhead) to "just wondering why you're out at this time" (work call out), and only once has it resulted in a FPN (80 on m/way, harsh, but.....).
I'm not sure who said "There are more people stopped re speed & not reported for FPN/summons for it, than stopped re speed & reported for it, by a large margin" (put your hand up if you like), but in my experience that is the absolute truth. On the numerous occasions I've been pulled over, for everything from "driving like a d
head" (I was driving like a dhead) to "just wondering why you're out at this time" (work call out), and only once has it resulted in a FPN (80 on m/way, harsh, but.....).
Im off to bed. This really has brought them out. La Liga, good night, I hope Ive got my point across (probably not), my intention was definitely not for this to spiral into a bobby bashing theme just to highlight that sometimes, you guys just don't get it because you get caught in the weeds and have other agendas. Just be human, we don't all swallow the statute book.
VonSenger said:
There's a reason he didn't issue a FPN, it's weak and a waste of time and money and he knew it. He'd have waved his willy if he had the opportunity.
Yet he didn't issue a practically unchallengeable, ultimately bendable, 2 minutes of paperwork S.59 warning. What's your explanation for that? What a nice consistent argument you have. What's a S.59 got to do with this case?
Elroy Blue said:
jimbop1 said:
Elroy Blue said:
jimbop1 said:
I didn't say 'has' to drive. I'm sure they are taught/told to try and stay at 60ish or 80ish to help with the flow of traffic. Common sense really.
No they're not. They drive at speeds that are required at the time. Edited by jimbop1 on Monday 21st July 22:54
VonSenger said:
Im off to bed. This really has brought them out. La Liga, good night, I hope Ive got my point across (probably not), my intention was definitely not for this to spiral into a bobby bashing theme just to highlight that sometimes, you guys just don't get it because you get caught in the weeds and have other agendas. Just be human, we don't all swallow the statute book.
Jesus is this really the standard of poster in here. What a cock. Lovely quotes though, I haven't read the case law, but I am sure it's wrong.
VonSenger said:
Now back on track. La Liga, take a step back from your rhetoric
What rhetoric? VonSenger said:
I try to refrain from slipping in to an emotive argument but on this occasion, you've pushed the right buttons. Do you think what the OP did was dangerous, enforceable in court without selling the family silver or in our case the gold reserves, ignorant other than ignoring Mr angry in the L200?
I can't say whether it was dangerous or enforceable since I don't have enough information to judge. On the face of it, it appears a VW was appropriate. You've actually missed my point spectacularly. It was pretty clear:
La Liga said:
VonSenger said:
I say, bully victim at school getting his own back.
He did none of the above (FPN, S.59, docs) that he could have easily have done if he wanted to 'be a bully', as you conclude.The premise of your first post was that the officer was a dick, bullied and on a power trip. The point I was making with the S.59, the FPN, the producing documents was that the absence of such indicates the opposite of your conclusion. Surely a dick, bully and someone on a power trip would actually do something other than issue a VW?
Even more concisely: I wasn't saying they should have been issued, I was saying the bully you've envisaged would likely have done.
VonSenger said:
I think if you stepped out of the weeds you'll appreciate that nothing is black and white and there are better ways to spend police time.
A minuscule amount of time is spent policing the motorway network. You'll find I'm well aware of the bigger picture in terms of risk and subsequent policing strategies that dictate where most of it goes. VonSenger said:
but surely this is a complete waste of time and some things are worth pursuing and some not?
See the bold sentence. VonSenger said:
As an example, what good do you think a Section 59 does when issued?
See the bold sentence.VonSenger said:
Go and live a little instead of spouting your institutionalised rhetoric. You'll soon see life isn't black and white and is not just a candidate for case law.
You know practically nothing about me. You may be happy to draw 'solid' conclusions from limited information about people and events (causal causality), but this isn't what intelligent people do.
VonSenger said:
I hope Ive got my point across (probably not)
You've based your point entirely on a totally wrong interpretation of what I wrote. Good work. Gargamel said:
I haven't read the case law, but I am sure it's wrong.
It was classic same-sentence idiocy. BigsimonY said:
I dont think all are bad, just the majority.
So around 65,000 or more are bad? The problem is, criminal law and events attract a wide-range of interest as they are interesting. Everyone has an opinion about them. That's fine, but there's a difference between having an opinion and leaping a million miles from your area of competence and knowledge. For example, reading a couple of paragraphs and saying that "it wouldn't stand up in court". Even after people in that area of competence have said why the circumstances described may stand up in court and link show the relevant reference points (case law, in this case). The opportunity at this point exists to re-evaluate your views and consider that you may not have known as much as you thought. If you're foolish, you'll then go on to state the same again, and that you've not actually read the reference points. Genius.
It's like me going into the TVR forum (I know little about them) and giving advice I really don't have the knowledge or experience to actually give. Not only that, when one of the knowledgeable TVR folk shows me via an objective, established means I am wrong, I continue with my original incorrect position. It would be overtly stupid in that context, no?
La Liga said:
It's like me going into the TVR forum (I know little about them) and giving advice I really don't have the knowledge or experience to actually give. Not only that, when one of the knowledgeable TVR folk shows me via an objective, established means I am wrong, I continue with my original incorrect position. It would be overtly stupid in that context, no?
Sadly it seems this is one of the pillars on which SP+L is built. Giving poor advice and arguing belligerently with those who have actual real world experience is the norm. Some more obvious than others, as evidenced in this thread. In other words, you can tell it's the school holidays.
Elroy Blue said:
jimbop1 said:
I didn't say 'has' to drive. I'm sure they are taught/told to try and stay at 60ish or 80ish to help with the flow of traffic. Common sense really.
No they're not. They drive at speeds that are required at the time. http://www.suffolk.police.uk/aboutus/yourrighttoin...
Page 11 (Section 8.7)
When patrolling multi carriageways Roads Policing or Tactical Firearms Unit officers will drive at the safest speed given the prevailing conditions. This will allow vehicles to overtake within the speed limits and encourage good traffic flow;
Edited by XDA on Tuesday 22 July 00:41
Edited by XDA on Tuesday 22 July 00:44
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff