Visit to Police Station. Advice please...

[Nigel Worc's]

mikerons88 said:

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.

I disagree, I actually think he is a "good chap", the rules seem different when you are on the other side.

I may have thought the OP was a tt if I'd been present, or I may not, it doesn't alter the fact that he has had sanctions placed against him/his car without any trial or chance to defend himself.

I believe that is wrong.

[mikerons88]

Fair play. My assumption based on recent posts.

[Greendubber]

I'd imagine that a few of this 'outraged' group could have potentially clubbed together to give their account more clout. The OP has only his version of events and no other people to corroborate it. Who are the police to believe? You have say 3 people saying he was driving badly and the OP saying he wasn't.

If his account is accurate its not the police that have 'stitched him up' its the people making the complaint. He could have been reported for the matter and sent to court and then even if he says he wasn't doing anythihg wrong and you have the other 3 people saying he was then you can see how that would end for him.

Edited by Greendubber on Saturday 27th December 15:41

[Nigel Worc's]

Greendubber said:

I'd imagine that a few of this 'outraged' group could have potentially clubbed together to give their account more clout. The OP has only his version of events and no other people to corroborate it. Who are the police to believe? You have say 3 people saying he was driving badly and the OP saying he wasn't.

If his account is accurate its not the police that have 'stitched him up' its the people making the complaint. He could have been reported for the matter and sent to court and then even if he says he wasn't doing anythihg wrong and you have the other 3 people saying he was then you can see how that would end for him.

Edited by Greendubber on Saturday 27th December 15:41

He'd have had the benefit of the accusation needing to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[turbobloke]

Nigel Worc's said:

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 ?

It's a pity there wasn't a dash cam and a speedier accusation so the driver's evidence could be presented to police. This S59 has arisen essentially from the idea that two or three people in a parade (not known to each other, for sure) saying the same thing means it's gospel. That's not so, any more than what a driver said should be taken as gospel. If there were no signs warning of the parade and the OP arrived in it inadvertently the S59 was unwarranted. Just as some people suggest the OP may have dropped a cog at some point, it's equally likely that some self-righteous huftytufties got the wrong end of the stick and colluded to make an example of somebody who had no intention of disrupting or disrespecting the event and those attending. It would be disrespectful to drive through such a parade if you knew what it was - but around here you couldn't possibly do that as there are signs up days in advance, and the relevant roads are closed as well!

[Greendubber]

Nigel Worc's said:

He'd have had the benefit of the accusation needing to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Yep and more than one witness turning up would do just that. Who's the magistrate going to believe, one person V more than one?

I'm not a massive fan of Sec 59 and have only used it on retards using quads and mini motos etc, I'd rather write someone up for the full offence.

[Mk3Spitfire]

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 ?

I have to be honest, I have never given out a S59. I wouldn't even know where the paperwork is, or what it looks like! This is because I do, essentially agree with you. From what I can work out, it's very much an opinion based piece of legislation. One that could be worked or moulded to fit a constables needs, and I don't particularly agree with that. I've been to dozens of "boy racers" calls in car parks. It usually ends up with me chatting to them, telling them not to be knobs, and moving them on. They normally respond very well to this. Like GD says above, if I think something is worthy of a proper job, it'll be for the full offence.

[anonymous-user]

I'd never use S.59 in these circumstances. Especially given the "belief" threshold.

[Bigends]

Mk3Spitfire said:

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.

No statements to get - no file to submit. No dealing at the station - just issue the form.
Submit S59 copies to admin and notify PNC -couldnt be easier really could it?
Certainly taken the easiest route dont you agree?

[Wolfer]

The trouble with our cars, (M3's in this case) is that they somehow distort people's perception.

For me, when I go to the local supermarket in my Mondeo, and go around the outside at 20mph, no one bats an eyelid. If I do exactly the same speed in the M3, people stare, old giffer's do the old "slow down" arm movements while scowling and shaking their heads.

But, I have done nothing different, except be in a different car, one that is meatier, louder, lower, has a menacing?? stance, has four exhausts, and a mad colour!

I would suggest in this case, being a party of possibly mainly older people, they presumed he was going quicker than he was, presumed he was a thug, and decided to complain, especially as there was an off duty to listen to them. Then said off duty wanted to show they could do something about it.

[turbobloke]

Greendubber said:

Nigel Worc's said:

He'd have had the benefit of the accusation needing to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Yep and more than one witness turning up would do just that. Who's the magistrate going to believe, one person V more than one?

Almost certainly they will believe the 'offended witnesses' which is why a dashcam might have been critical in this case. If that had revealed no signs were in place by way of notice, and it had also 'shown' the invisible car with hazards on (!) as well as the fact that the OP drove v slowly and relatively quietly using only one cog, slowing to at snail's pace at times and escaping asap, this would mean the accusation was based on collusion and lies - what odds AtPtCoJ? None, sadly.

Greendubber said:

I'm not a massive fan of Sec 59 and have only used it on retards using quads and mini motos etc, I'd rather write someone up for the full offence.

It sure seems to be the better option. As pointed out earlier, expedient but weak legislation setting the police up as judge and jury as well as accuser is in itself a miscarriage of justice - one of the principles of natural justive is that anyone sitting in judgement should be independent of the cases they decide on - and will lead to more of the same.

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

No statements to get - no file to submit. No dealing at the station - just issue the form.
Submit S59 copies to admin and notify PNC -couldnt be easier really could it?
Certainly taken the easiest route dont you agree?

Easiest route would have been doing nothing.

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

No statements to get - no file to submit. No dealing at the station - just issue the form.
Submit S59 copies to admin and notify PNC -couldnt be easier really could it?
Certainly taken the easiest route dont you agree?

Easiest route would have been doing nothing.

How would the original complaint have been squared up then.
S59's were introduced for persistent nuisance drivers - to keep yobs on the straight and narrow or risk losing their wheels - not specific one off allegations like this one

[benm3evo]

Just to add, I had no problem with the Police Officer who I saw (& gave me the S59!) He was a nice bloke & was also into his cars so had a decent chat with him. He also seemed to be on my side but had been advised to deal with it this way. Whatever, no hard feelings to him. I didn't really know whether to try & argue the S59 or not as I don't have enough experience, never even heard of it before.

I suppose I feel hard done by by the System as a complaint (with in-accurate details) has been lodged by someone because, in their opinion, I've driven inconsiderately & that was that.

I just hope my next new Thread is not "Car seized under S59"!

Cheers.

[mikerons88]

Exactly. Follow up was completely OTT from info we have.

[turbobloke]

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

No statements to get - no file to submit. No dealing at the station - just issue the form.
Submit S59 copies to admin and notify PNC -couldnt be easier really could it?
Certainly taken the easiest route dont you agree?

Easiest route would have been doing nothing.

In isolation and administratively speaking perhaps, but it seems as though there were offended persons present, poking the off duty police officer (figuratively speaking) to 'do something' because they play golf with the CC and will be letting them know what happened. Or similar. This may not be in writing anywhere but communications aren't limited to the written word. In which case a S59 may well have been the route of least grief for the poor sod who had to deal with this case. Clearly, like the driver dropping a cog and drifting through the parade, this is just could have but it's not beyond belief.

[Funk]

Zoobeef said:

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

Not if you save it to your PC it isn't...

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

How would the original complaint have been squared up then.
S59's were introduced for persistent nuisance drivers - to keep yobs on the straight and narrow or risk losing their wheels - not specific one off allegations like this one

You don't need to tell me what it is....

Square the complaint off by saying some line such as 'we don't have enough for a conviction for dangerous or DWDCA so we'll be filing it'.

Simple as that.

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

You don't need to tell me what it is....

Square the complaint off by saying some line such as 'we don't have enough for a conviction for dangerous or DWDCA so we'll be filing it'.

Simple as that.

If there wasnt enough then why not do that ? Do you agree with the issue of a S59 in this case?

[Mk3Spitfire]

Greendubber said:

You don't need to tell me what it is....

Square the complaint off by saying some line such as 'we don't have enough for a conviction for dangerous or DWDCA so we'll be filing it'.

Simple as that.

Bigends was a frontline officer, would you believe?