Visit to Police Station. Advice please...
Discussion
Back to the OP, if indeed he did pass a car that was rolling along at the back of the parade with it's hazzards going I hope he asked the officer if that driver had also been prosecuted. I'm guessing it was a single carriageway by the description.
"116
Hazard warning lights. These may be used when your vehicle is stationary, to warn that it is temporarily obstructing traffic. Never use them as an excuse for dangerous or illegal parking. You MUST NOT use hazard warning lights while driving or being towed unless you are on a motorway or unrestricted dual carriageway and you need to warn drivers behind you of a hazard or obstruction ahead. Only use them for long enough to ensure that your warning has been observed.
Law RVLR reg 27"
"116
Hazard warning lights. These may be used when your vehicle is stationary, to warn that it is temporarily obstructing traffic. Never use them as an excuse for dangerous or illegal parking. You MUST NOT use hazard warning lights while driving or being towed unless you are on a motorway or unrestricted dual carriageway and you need to warn drivers behind you of a hazard or obstruction ahead. Only use them for long enough to ensure that your warning has been observed.
Law RVLR reg 27"
Nick Grant said:
Back to the OP, if indeed he did pass a car that was rolling along at the back of the parade with it's hazzards going I hope he asked the officer if that driver had also been prosecuted. I'm guessing it was a single carriageway by the description.
"116
Hazard warning lights. These may be used when your vehicle is stationary, to warn that it is temporarily obstructing traffic. Never use them as an excuse for dangerous or illegal parking. You MUST NOT use hazard warning lights while driving or being towed unless you are on a motorway or unrestricted dual carriageway and you need to warn drivers behind you of a hazard or obstruction ahead. Only use them for long enough to ensure that your warning has been observed.
Law RVLR reg 27"
Bugger, my lack of knowledge letting me down again!"116
Hazard warning lights. These may be used when your vehicle is stationary, to warn that it is temporarily obstructing traffic. Never use them as an excuse for dangerous or illegal parking. You MUST NOT use hazard warning lights while driving or being towed unless you are on a motorway or unrestricted dual carriageway and you need to warn drivers behind you of a hazard or obstruction ahead. Only use them for long enough to ensure that your warning has been observed.
Law RVLR reg 27"
The more I read the more I wish I'd politely declined the S59 & had the formal interview.
Cheers, Ben
That's the problem- you can't decline a s59 warning. It's issued whether you accept it or not. You can challenge by complaint to the force or higher up the food chain, ultimately to court in a civil action (which isn't really worth it for such a trifling thing, despite the frustration).
allergictocheese said:
That's the problem- you can't decline a s59 warning. It's issued whether you accept it or not. You can challenge by complaint to the force or higher up the food chain, ultimately to court in a civil action (which isn't really worth it for such a trifling thing, despite the frustration).
...but the complaint step is worth doing, I'm sure, along with the polite enquiry about why this power was (ab)used in this way.Edited by Bonefish Blues on Tuesday 6th January 13:28
king tzarjaz1991 said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
Do you work for the police? The courts? Probation? Or another department who might have a genuine insight into this profound allegation?
I am a serving police officer. Corruption is rare in the police force and officers are scrutinised massively. I know this because I've worked in different forces and in different departments and with many didferent officers.
So, if you're going to be throwing these assumptions around, I'd be interested in seeing you're reasoning and justification because personally it's very insulting.
They re scrutinised by fellow police officers. Complaints against them are scrutinised by other police officers, or sometimes former police officers.I am a serving police officer. Corruption is rare in the police force and officers are scrutinised massively. I know this because I've worked in different forces and in different departments and with many didferent officers.
So, if you're going to be throwing these assumptions around, I'd be interested in seeing you're reasoning and justification because personally it's very insulting.
While not all police are corrupt, a great any are, and certainly the police, as a body, should NOT be automatically trusted by ordinary people. The events documented in this thread are a good testimony as to why.
How are the events as being discussed in this thread good testimony of anything?
This entire thread is based on a completely unverified event as described by one side. Anonymous anecdotes posted on the internet with no other supporting evidence are not good sources of information. Anyone who thinks that they know the OP was stitched up or that he was obviously doing more than he says is completely wrong. We don't know anything other than what we have been told and without any other information we cannot be certain of anything. Anyone picking a side is doing so based on personal bias and nothing else i.e. someone says something that backs up pre-exisiting view must be telling the truth and vice versa.
Devil2575 said:
How do you know that "A great many are"? Do you have experience with a large number of different police officers to enable you to make such a statement?
How are the events as being discussed in this thread good testimony of anything?
This entire thread is based on a completely unverified event as described by one side. Anonymous anecdotes posted on the internet with no other supporting evidence are not good sources of information. Anyone who thinks that they know the OP was stitched up or that he was obviously doing more than he says is completely wrong. We don't know anything other than what we have been told and without any other information we cannot be certain of anything.
Absolutely true.How are the events as being discussed in this thread good testimony of anything?
This entire thread is based on a completely unverified event as described by one side. Anonymous anecdotes posted on the internet with no other supporting evidence are not good sources of information. Anyone who thinks that they know the OP was stitched up or that he was obviously doing more than he says is completely wrong. We don't know anything other than what we have been told and without any other information we cannot be certain of anything.
My only point earlier in the thread is that such unverified events as described by one side are, thanks to laws such as S59, sufficient for warnings to be given and sanctions imposed, without any right to have the other side heard)
If it's not acceptable in an internet discussion then how on earth have we allowed it to become acceptable in law?
Devil2575 said:
How do you know that "A great many are"? Do you have experience with a large number of different police officers to enable you to make such a statement?
How are the events as being discussed in this thread good testimony of anything?
This entire thread is based on a completely unverified event as described by one side. Anonymous anecdotes posted on the internet with no other supporting evidence are not good sources of information. Anyone who thinks that they know the OP was stitched up or that he was obviously doing more than he says is completely wrong. We don't know anything other than what we have been told and without any other information we cannot be certain of anything.
Absolutely true.How are the events as being discussed in this thread good testimony of anything?
This entire thread is based on a completely unverified event as described by one side. Anonymous anecdotes posted on the internet with no other supporting evidence are not good sources of information. Anyone who thinks that they know the OP was stitched up or that he was obviously doing more than he says is completely wrong. We don't know anything other than what we have been told and without any other information we cannot be certain of anything.
My only point earlier in the thread is that such unverified events as described by one side are, thanks to laws such as S59, sufficient for warnings to be given and sanctions imposed, without any right to have the other side heard)
If it's not acceptable in an internet discussion then how on earth have we allowed it to become acceptable in law?
Variomatic said:
My only point earlier in the thread is that such unverified events as described by one side are, thanks to laws such as S59, sufficient for warnings to be given and sanctions imposed, without any right to have the other side heard)
If it's not acceptable in an internet discussion then how on earth have we allowed it to become acceptable in law?
Because enough people voted for Teflon Tony and only found out too late that it wasn't such a good idea?If it's not acceptable in an internet discussion then how on earth have we allowed it to become acceptable in law?
More knee-jerk legislation was put on the Statute Book by New Labour than any other UK government in history.
The problem when you give such sweeping powers is that some will (ab)use them to deal with matters which are beyond the specific mischief which they were created to prevent. Classic mission creep. Other powers have been reined in/repealed (e.g. Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000). It's time for S.59 to be given the same degree of scrutiny. More than a decade after it became law, it is not beyond the wit of man to devise something more appropriate.
carinaman said:
The officer said he'd changed his mind about how he was going to deal with it. Unless of course the OP was going to be ambushed with the S.59 when he attended and that was the plan all along.
He probably changed his mind when he realised he'd forgotten about the NIP hence the inappropriately issued S59Bad luck OP!
But relating to the S.59 may I ask a slightly off topic Q to the informed on this thread please?
Whilst out walking at the weekend I saw 2 instances of antisocial driving on a BOAT over the moors:
A) a group of ne'er do wells in a 4x4 and unregistered MX bike taking turns to rip up the byway on the unregistered bike
B) 3 off road cars driving off piste from the track into the moor for a bit more 'gnarrl'
Group A were almost certainly using an unregistered and presumably untaxed bike but the 4x4 looked legit with plates
Group B were driving were they absolutely shouldnt and causing pretty significant destruction to the countryside with registered vehicles
If Id have dialed the non emergency number on my own would either of these groups be in with a shout of a S.59 as the OP was or does there need to be multiple complaints? If so do the complainants need to log their details or can they remain anonymous?
Cheers!
numtumfutunch said:
Whilst out walking at the weekend I saw 2 instances of antisocial driving on a BOAT over the moors:
A) a group of ne'er do wells in a 4x4 and unregistered MX bike taking turns to rip up the byway on the unregistered bike
B) 3 off road cars driving off piste from the track into the moor for a bit more 'gnarrl'
Group A were almost certainly using an unregistered and presumably untaxed bike but the 4x4 looked legit with plates
Group B were driving were they absolutely shouldnt and causing pretty significant destruction to the countryside with registered vehicles
Group AA) a group of ne'er do wells in a 4x4 and unregistered MX bike taking turns to rip up the byway on the unregistered bike
B) 3 off road cars driving off piste from the track into the moor for a bit more 'gnarrl'
Group A were almost certainly using an unregistered and presumably untaxed bike but the 4x4 looked legit with plates
Group B were driving were they absolutely shouldnt and causing pretty significant destruction to the countryside with registered vehicles
Byways Open To All Traffic (BOAT) - i.e. not restricted. These byways are normally marked "byways" and are open to motorists, bicyclists, horseriders, motorcyclists and pedestrians. As with public tarmac road networks, motorists must ensure that they are legally authorised to use BOATs (i.e. registered, taxed, insured and MoT’d).
Bike rider committing RTA Section 143 offence plus registration and taxation offences. Were you alarmed and distressed? If the group were committing a RTA Section 3 offence (Section 34 can't apply to a BOAT which has the same status as a tarmac road) then a S.59 might be justified.
Group B
Definitely all committing a RTA Section 34 offfence. Again if you were alarmed and distressed, then S.59 would come into play. That was what it was designed for.
That said, personally I would prefer that those who deliberately go onto a fragile moorland habitat/ecosystem and wreak havoc are prosecuted and fined to the maximum amount allowable by law. There is no justification whatsoever for going off piste and ripping up the countryside for their selfish amusement.
numtumfutunch said:
If Id have dialed the non emergency number on my own would either of these groups be in with a shout of a S.59 as the OP was or does there need to be multiple complaints? If so do the complainants need to log their details or can they remain anonymous?
Cheers!
No idea on the level of complaints tbh, but the issue I have is that complaints alone should be the starting point. People who do this tend to be serial offenders and catching them in the act is needed. Otherwise we get into the problem of those who make malicious reports against those who they don't approve of when all that is happening is legitimate peaceful pursuit of off roading. Unfortunately with police resources so stretched deploying officers to 'them thar hills' isn't going to happen. Cheers!
Variomatic said:
Devil2575 said:
How do you know that "A great many are"? Do you have experience with a large number of different police officers to enable you to make such a statement?
How are the events as being discussed in this thread good testimony of anything?
This entire thread is based on a completely unverified event as described by one side. Anonymous anecdotes posted on the internet with no other supporting evidence are not good sources of information. Anyone who thinks that they know the OP was stitched up or that he was obviously doing more than he says is completely wrong. We don't know anything other than what we have been told and without any other information we cannot be certain of anything.
Absolutely true.How are the events as being discussed in this thread good testimony of anything?
This entire thread is based on a completely unverified event as described by one side. Anonymous anecdotes posted on the internet with no other supporting evidence are not good sources of information. Anyone who thinks that they know the OP was stitched up or that he was obviously doing more than he says is completely wrong. We don't know anything other than what we have been told and without any other information we cannot be certain of anything.
My only point earlier in the thread is that such unverified events as described by one side are, thanks to laws such as S59, sufficient for warnings to be given and sanctions imposed, without any right to have the other side heard)
If it's not acceptable in an internet discussion then how on earth have we allowed it to become acceptable in law?
Devil2575 said:
I struggle with a system that can give one side no right to be heard. I actually think the issue runs deaper than S59 though. There is enough evidence now about how unreliable the human memory is to cast doubt over any eye witness statements. I think the Police/legal/justice system gives far too much credence to what people say they saw.
Witness evidence in a case that is being prosecuted (as opposed to dished out as with s59) will face far greater scrutiny. Courts can only convict beyond reasonable doubt, a considerably higher bar than simply creating a belief, as required by s59.Evidence will be assessed by the Police or CPS and have to pass the evidential threshold (effectively greater chance of conviction than not) before being prosecuted. Witness evidence can be tested by adversarial examination and cross examination in court at trial. Only if the court is convinced in the evidence beyond reasonable doubt can there be a conviction. A trial gives plenty of scope to introduce reasonable doubt.
allergictocheese said:
Devil2575 said:
I struggle with a system that can give one side no right to be heard. I actually think the issue runs deaper than S59 though. There is enough evidence now about how unreliable the human memory is to cast doubt over any eye witness statements. I think the Police/legal/justice system gives far too much credence to what people say they saw.
Witness evidence in a case that is being prosecuted (as opposed to dished out as with s59) will face far greater scrutiny. Courts can only convict beyond reasonable doubt, a considerably higher bar than simply creating a belief, as required by s59.Evidence will be assessed by the Police or CPS and have to pass the evidential threshold (effectively greater chance of conviction than not) before being prosecuted. Witness evidence can be tested by adversarial examination and cross examination in court at trial. Only if the court is convinced in the evidence beyond reasonable doubt can there be a conviction. A trial gives plenty of scope to introduce reasonable doubt.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff