Oh goody, I've got myself a section 59.
Discussion
rypt said:
saaby93 said:
What I dont like about this is that you get one numpty officer and everyone thinks all officers are the same, and all officers think that everyone's implying they're the same, none of which is good.
Abuse of power (which what issuing an S59 when no offence has occurred) is still a criminal act afaik, as such perhaps if the other BiB cared about their collective reputation they should go and arrest and build a case against their fellow abusing officers.Oh and welcome back.
Quinny said:
^Slider^ said:
rypt said:
saaby93 said:
What I dont like about this is that you get one numpty officer and everyone thinks all officers are the same, and all officers think that everyone's implying they're the same, none of which is good.
Abuse of power (which what issuing an S59 when no offence has occurred) is still a criminal act afaik, as such perhaps if the other BiB cared about their collective reputation they should go and arrest and build a case against their fellow abusing officers.Oh and welcome back.
As a copper I must not abuse my authority & position of POWER.... & I must be nice to folk I meet...& not act like a dick, just cos I have a uniform on....
It appears a lot of newer coppers aren't aware of this act
t and whinge like a bh on websites when i get stuck on because i pay their wages act?" 
Edited by ^Slider^ on Wednesday 10th February 11:23
ZOLLAR said:
T89 Callan said:
More illegal and unjust abuse and punishment aimed at innocent members of the public under the banner of section 59
I hope all the PH police are proud of yourselves and your colleagues, well done to all involved.
Talk about "Tarring with the same brush" I hope all the PH police are proud of yourselves and your colleagues, well done to all involved.
Not all the Bib use their power incorrectly!t"They lead by example. We follow their example.
(Actually i have alot of respect for the police (most anyway) but just play devils advocate)
Edited by whichonespink on Wednesday 10th February 12:40
Ross1988 said:
I've not read the thread in its entirety, but was it traffic police who pulled you?
Good lord! Do you mean there are still such things?
Seriously, I drive around Swansea on a daily basis and are lucky to see any police presence. My other half has been driving from Swansea to Carmarthen and back (50ish mile round trip) for nearly three years and has only ever seen trafpol at accidents.
The particular officer in question was a local in a focus panda car.
Perhaps on the plus side, I was talking to a couple of the local lads at uni this morning and they said they'd heard about a number of people being stopped for no apparent reason and cautioned/s59'd/etc. Obviously I can't say what circumstances these where given out in but it could lend weight to my appeal if on particular pc decided to go on a power trip.
Having read the actual piece of legislation I'm really baffled at to why the pc chose s59. I'd only just got in the car and driven no more than 100 yards. Surely if the noise was an issue then it should have been breach of the peace or whatever similar applies to cars, no that I'm going to suggest that to them you understand
Thanks for all the positive comments. Its nice to know I'm not on my own in this.
gopher44 said:
Ross1988 said:
I've not read the thread in its entirety, but was it traffic police who pulled you?
Good lord! Do you mean there are still such things?
Seriously, I drive around Swansea on a daily basis and are lucky to see any police presence. My other half has been driving from Swansea to Carmarthen and back (50ish mile round trip) for nearly three years and has only ever seen trafpol at accidents.
The particular officer in question was a local in a focus panda car.
Perhaps on the plus side, I was talking to a couple of the local lads at uni this morning and they said they'd heard about a number of people being stopped for no apparent reason and cautioned/s59'd/etc. Obviously I can't say what circumstances these where given out in but it could lend weight to my appeal if on particular pc decided to go on a power trip.
Having read the actual piece of legislation I'm really baffled at to why the pc chose s59. I'd only just got in the car and driven no more than 100 yards. Surely if the noise was an issue then it should have been breach of the peace or whatever similar applies to cars, no that I'm going to suggest that to them you understand
Thanks for all the positive comments. Its nice to know I'm not on my own in this.
GC8 said:
A very good friend of mine joined when we were younger: and became the biggest prick that I have come across.
It is all horses for courses though. One of my best mates is BIB, and he has not changed at all. I know a lot of his workmates and MOST are decent normal people. Some are cocks, but you get that in every job.Also I would say every side of the road conversation to date I have had with BIB, has been reasonable and I have been treated well.
However if what the OP states is true, it sounds like this was not one of them!
not an excuse by any means, but sometimes you just happen to be the next person that plod pulls on a real crap night after dealing with true menaces on the roads.
in my only incident of this, i was treated pretty heavy handidly by 'bad cop' and his colleague, 'bigger bad cop'.
as someone, shall we say, whom enjoys a good debate without getting wound up or resorting to swearing, i went far enough in my discussion to be warned that if i continued in my view, the conversation would continue at our cities HQ; code for 'keep it up smart arse, 'cos we have the trump card!'
self-preservation kicked in, however, i mentally noted one the officers numbers on his lapels, and upon arriving home, immediately phoned afforementioned plod HQ and requested to speak to the 'duty officer for traffic'.... a bit of perseverance was required here as i was really getting fobbed off with different 'buffers', however, once again not losing the tattie, i finally got to speak to him.
i explained exactly what had happened, and made it clear that i wanted a good reason for why his officers were acting so heavy handidly on a clear situation where they had pulled the wrong guy in a similar car. the officer was very good to deal with on the phone, and said he could only offer an explination after speaking to both officers at the end of their shift ( although he did ask if i was that upset about it he would pull them in with immediate effect for an explination, but i declined that offer).
the result was a home visit from the 'duty officer' ( i cannot recall his rank now ) on his next rota days that suited me and an apology saying the officers have a 'training need' that had been highlighted; jargon? i don't know.. but he was a nice guy, and i was happy that he had taken my complaint seriously and followed it through to having a cuppy in my kitchen; i doubt i would of got this respnce if i had wasted my time writing to the chief officer, more likely responce would be a 'thank you for your letter' blah blah blah!
however, i did state with my wife present though that if i felt in anyway that i was going to be singled out for 'special treatment' for my complaint, i would feel pretty dissapointed. i was assured that would not be the case and have never had any trouble since.
felt a hollow victory for something that never should of happened in the first place; such a waste of everyones time.
my problem is though i cannot let something lie if i think it is really unjust.....and neither should anyone else.
in my only incident of this, i was treated pretty heavy handidly by 'bad cop' and his colleague, 'bigger bad cop'.
as someone, shall we say, whom enjoys a good debate without getting wound up or resorting to swearing, i went far enough in my discussion to be warned that if i continued in my view, the conversation would continue at our cities HQ; code for 'keep it up smart arse, 'cos we have the trump card!'
self-preservation kicked in, however, i mentally noted one the officers numbers on his lapels, and upon arriving home, immediately phoned afforementioned plod HQ and requested to speak to the 'duty officer for traffic'.... a bit of perseverance was required here as i was really getting fobbed off with different 'buffers', however, once again not losing the tattie, i finally got to speak to him.
i explained exactly what had happened, and made it clear that i wanted a good reason for why his officers were acting so heavy handidly on a clear situation where they had pulled the wrong guy in a similar car. the officer was very good to deal with on the phone, and said he could only offer an explination after speaking to both officers at the end of their shift ( although he did ask if i was that upset about it he would pull them in with immediate effect for an explination, but i declined that offer).
the result was a home visit from the 'duty officer' ( i cannot recall his rank now ) on his next rota days that suited me and an apology saying the officers have a 'training need' that had been highlighted; jargon? i don't know.. but he was a nice guy, and i was happy that he had taken my complaint seriously and followed it through to having a cuppy in my kitchen; i doubt i would of got this respnce if i had wasted my time writing to the chief officer, more likely responce would be a 'thank you for your letter' blah blah blah!
however, i did state with my wife present though that if i felt in anyway that i was going to be singled out for 'special treatment' for my complaint, i would feel pretty dissapointed. i was assured that would not be the case and have never had any trouble since.
felt a hollow victory for something that never should of happened in the first place; such a waste of everyones time.
my problem is though i cannot let something lie if i think it is really unjust.....and neither should anyone else.
Edited by 355spiderguy on Wednesday 10th February 14:23
GC8 said:
In your position Id be inclined to make a formal complaint about the PC in question. Id also let it be known that Id accept an informal resolution (or even let it drop) if the mistake was corrected. Id be extremely surprised if everything didnt sort itself out.
Push for prosecution for abuse of power; the police need to understand that the S59 is not acceptable.355spiderguy said:
felt a hollow victory for something that never should of happened in the first place; such a waste of everyones time.
I beg to differ. It wasn't a waste of time if said officer got a shot across his bows. It should be no different from any other job. If you upset work colleagues or, worse, customers by boorish/overbearing behaviour you can expect to be taken to one side and have it explained to you where your deficiencies lie - aka retraining. Failure to take it on board can have further consequences. I used to work with a guy who got his P45 for continued inability/refusal to shape up.fluffnik said:
GC8 said:
In your position Id be inclined to make a formal complaint about the PC in question. Id also let it be known that Id accept an informal resolution (or even let it drop) if the mistake was corrected. Id be extremely surprised if everything didnt sort itself out.
Push for prosecution for abuse of power; the police need to understand that the S59 is not acceptable.Im at a loss why people think you can be prosecuted for abuse of power.
^Slider^ said:
fluffnik said:
GC8 said:
In your position Id be inclined to make a formal complaint about the PC in question. Id also let it be known that Id accept an informal resolution (or even let it drop) if the mistake was corrected. Id be extremely surprised if everything didnt sort itself out.
Push for prosecution for abuse of power; the police need to understand that the S59 is not acceptable.Im at a loss why people think you can be prosecuted for abuse of power.
oldsoak said:
^Slider^ said:
fluffnik said:
GC8 said:
In your position Id be inclined to make a formal complaint about the PC in question. Id also let it be known that Id accept an informal resolution (or even let it drop) if the mistake was corrected. Id be extremely surprised if everything didnt sort itself out.
Push for prosecution for abuse of power; the police need to understand that the S59 is not acceptable.Im at a loss why people think you can be prosecuted for abuse of power.
This in no way falls into misconduct in a public office.
People need to get a grip.
^Slider^ said:
oldsoak said:
^Slider^ said:
fluffnik said:
GC8 said:
In your position Id be inclined to make a formal complaint about the PC in question. Id also let it be known that Id accept an informal resolution (or even let it drop) if the mistake was corrected. Id be extremely surprised if everything didnt sort itself out.
Push for prosecution for abuse of power; the police need to understand that the S59 is not acceptable.Im at a loss why people think you can be prosecuted for abuse of power.
This in no way falls into misconduct in a public office.
Just the 'wilfully' and Reasonable bits to determine and it's in tomorrows Daily Wail....
CPS guidelines said:
1. A public officer acting as such.
2. Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
3. To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.[4]
4. Without reasonable excuse or justification.
2. Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
3. To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.[4]
4. Without reasonable excuse or justification.
^Slider^ said:
People need to get a grip.
I agreeoldsoak said:
^Slider^ said:
oldsoak said:
^Slider^ said:
fluffnik said:
GC8 said:
In your position Id be inclined to make a formal complaint about the PC in question. Id also let it be known that Id accept an informal resolution (or even let it drop) if the mistake was corrected. Id be extremely surprised if everything didnt sort itself out.
Push for prosecution for abuse of power; the police need to understand that the S59 is not acceptable.Im at a loss why people think you can be prosecuted for abuse of power.
This in no way falls into misconduct in a public office.
Just the 'wilfully' and Reasonable bits to determine and it's in tomorrows Daily Wail....
CPS guidelines said:
1. A public officer acting as such.
2. Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
3. To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.[4]
4. Without reasonable excuse or justification.
2. Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
3. To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.[4]
4. Without reasonable excuse or justification.
^Slider^ said:
People need to get a grip.
I agreeAt the end of the day a word with the duty inspector to review what evidence there is will resolve the issue. And then suitable re-education of the officer concerned.
Sadly S59 is seen as the anti social use of motor vehicles legislation, and there are officers that see it as such and forget the Careless driving aspect.
All the training or information we had was a A4 poster on the briefing room walls IIRC.
^Slider^ said:
People need to get a grip.
I agree with that totally. I'm really not looking to start a war with the BIB here. I just want my record cleared and the officer responsible reprimanded in a suitable fashion, both are requested in my letter.I can see how, with really squinted eyes, my appearance and the vehicle I drive maybe/might/sort of fall into the boy racer stereotype.
Such a stereotype exists in great numbers in this area......maybe I was just unlucky.
Either way I'll be putting the standard exhaust back on the car later so I can drive it without having to worry so much. I know thats a victory for injustice at the moment but I don't think anyone has had the last laugh yet...
all wrong that! feeling prssured by plod to remove the exhuast so you dont get more hassle.
next time you get stopped, ask the office what 'too loud' is... not in a cheecky manner, mind.... just to educate you in the actual legal max db level is..... and if he quotes some 'makeyupper' figure, ask him to get his recently calibrated decible meter out to check yours becuase you really don't want to fall foul of the law.
my sporty car currently puts out about 106db, but i get almost a nod of approval from BiB, and they overlook my squished up numberplate also!
next time you get stopped, ask the office what 'too loud' is... not in a cheecky manner, mind.... just to educate you in the actual legal max db level is..... and if he quotes some 'makeyupper' figure, ask him to get his recently calibrated decible meter out to check yours becuase you really don't want to fall foul of the law.
my sporty car currently puts out about 106db, but i get almost a nod of approval from BiB, and they overlook my squished up numberplate also!
355spiderguy said:
all wrong that! feeling prssured by plod to remove the exhuast so you dont get more hassle.
next time you get stopped, ask the office what 'too loud' is... not in a cheecky manner, mind.... just to educate you in the actual legal max db level is..... and if he quotes some 'makeyupper' figure, ask him to get his recently calibrated decible meter out to check yours becuase you really don't want to fall foul of the law.
my sporty car currently puts out about 106db, but i get almost a nod of approval from BiB, and they overlook my squished up numberplate also!
If its kitemarked its legal, remove the cats or anything else and if they really wanted to then possible exhaust not conforming.next time you get stopped, ask the office what 'too loud' is... not in a cheecky manner, mind.... just to educate you in the actual legal max db level is..... and if he quotes some 'makeyupper' figure, ask him to get his recently calibrated decible meter out to check yours becuase you really don't want to fall foul of the law.
my sporty car currently puts out about 106db, but i get almost a nod of approval from BiB, and they overlook my squished up numberplate also!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff