Two fingered salute, help needed.
Discussion
Apologies if this is old ground but I don’t normally encroach on this part of the site.
My company had the normal thing through the post from Norfolk constabulary for an alleged offence on the A11 although no reference to what the alleged offence was or specifically where it was other than to request driver information is forwarded for the alleged offence.
Anyway my company secretary has written back stating that there were two people in the car and as there is no specific reference as to where the offence occurred they stopped for petrol and changed driver so do not want to perjure themselves.
Now though the crux of this. There was one of those f
g vans with the camera in it which they saw and promptly both gave the two fingered salute to although at that time were adamant that they were not speeding so it must have been somewhere else. Or has the swine in the van caught them on camera giving him the old digit and thus committed an offence?
Your assistance is as ever much appreciated.
My company had the normal thing through the post from Norfolk constabulary for an alleged offence on the A11 although no reference to what the alleged offence was or specifically where it was other than to request driver information is forwarded for the alleged offence.
Anyway my company secretary has written back stating that there were two people in the car and as there is no specific reference as to where the offence occurred they stopped for petrol and changed driver so do not want to perjure themselves.
Now though the crux of this. There was one of those f
g vans with the camera in it which they saw and promptly both gave the two fingered salute to although at that time were adamant that they were not speeding so it must have been somewhere else. Or has the swine in the van caught them on camera giving him the old digit and thus committed an offence? Your assistance is as ever much appreciated.
Pity these petty pricks wont persue the bastards who create problems for everyone else isnt it?
Oh no, theyre more than happy to sit there and give you a "crime number" (999??) but instead would rather try to make an example outa someone giving them the "victory" sign (churchill)....its not your fault they misinterpreted it for something entirely different...
Oh no, theyre more than happy to sit there and give you a "crime number" (999??) but instead would rather try to make an example outa someone giving them the "victory" sign (churchill)....its not your fault they misinterpreted it for something entirely different...
vario-rob said:Ooops. Hope nobody familar with the case is reading because you've kind of dropped them in it. If it is an offence then you've just implicated both of them rather than leaving it ambiguous by saying "one of them".
...which they saw and promptly both gave the two fingered salute to
(If you modify your post I'll delete mine.
)JonRB said:
...which they saw and promptly both gave the two fingered salute to
Ooops. Hope nobody familar with the case is reading because you've kind of dropped them in it. If it is an offence then you've just implicated both of them rather than leaving it ambiguous by saying "one of them".
(If you modify your post I'll delete mine.
Not quite!
If it is the "salute" that is the problem, then the offence would presumably be failing to keep proper control of the vehicle. In other words it is only the driver they are after, so what the passenger was doing at the time has no effect on anything. Indeed, the fact that they both did it would perhaps make it even more difficult to bring to mind which one was driving - as it can't now simply be "the one that saluted", can it?
We had a similar case here which made the front page of the local rag - I'll see if I can post a link!
Here we are...
www.thisisthelakedistrict.co.uk/search/display.var.501435.0.patriotic_hand_signal_costs_pensioner_100.php
Shame the photo was only on the print edition - it was a classic!
www.thisisthelakedistrict.co.uk/search/display.var.501435.0.patriotic_hand_signal_costs_pensioner_100.php
Shame the photo was only on the print edition - it was a classic!
The other possibility is s5 of the Public Order Act 1986:
www.police-law.co.uk/law/policelaw.nsf/0/72a2059b83f7f74280256baa0058b007?OpenDocument
[quote]
A person is guilty of an offence if he
* uses threatening, abusive, insulting words or disorderly behaviour
OR
* displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress
[/quote]
HOWEVER if they were considering this then using s172 is pretty dirty way of proving it and frankly if it were me I would fight it all the way. ALSO it has been upheld that police officers are UNLIKELY to be affected by swearing etc. and for s5 to apply there must be other people present that could be affected. Therefore a driving offence is much easier to stick on somebody.
Since they have no way of knowing who the passenger is they can rest easy, although technically they could throw an incitement offence if they could prove who it was.
Gareth
www.police-law.co.uk/law/policelaw.nsf/0/72a2059b83f7f74280256baa0058b007?OpenDocument
[quote]
A person is guilty of an offence if he
* uses threatening, abusive, insulting words or disorderly behaviour
OR
* displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress
[/quote]
HOWEVER if they were considering this then using s172 is pretty dirty way of proving it and frankly if it were me I would fight it all the way. ALSO it has been upheld that police officers are UNLIKELY to be affected by swearing etc. and for s5 to apply there must be other people present that could be affected. Therefore a driving offence is much easier to stick on somebody.
Since they have no way of knowing who the passenger is they can rest easy, although technically they could throw an incitement offence if they could prove who it was.
Gareth
BlackStuff said:
If it is the "salute" that is the problem, then the offence would presumably be failing to keep proper control of the vehicle. In other words it is only the driver they are after, so what the passenger was doing at the time has no effect on anything. Indeed, the fact that they both did it would perhaps make it even more difficult to bring to mind which one was driving - as it can't now simply be "the one that saluted", can it?
I like the way you're thinking there. 
Im not expressng my like or dislike
BUT
its actually section 4a POA
Its an arrestable offence
visisble sign etc etc
Now Ill express my feelings - Why do it? Make you feel good?
Now youve a court case perhaps where as when you went past the van under the limit you were fine!
We have no van or cameras in North Yorks and feel fine about that, but stick two fingers up and we'll do ya!
Im ok about that - we police for you and expect to be treated as law enforcers - stick two fingers up and you break the law
Yes we catch the murderers , the rapists etc!
But dont excuse yourself for being rude, arogant and dam right obscene
>> Edited by gemini on Thursday 18th November 23:26
BUT
its actually section 4a POA
Its an arrestable offence
visisble sign etc etc
Now Ill express my feelings - Why do it? Make you feel good?
Now youve a court case perhaps where as when you went past the van under the limit you were fine!
We have no van or cameras in North Yorks and feel fine about that, but stick two fingers up and we'll do ya!
Im ok about that - we police for you and expect to be treated as law enforcers - stick two fingers up and you break the law
Yes we catch the murderers , the rapists etc!
But dont excuse yourself for being rude, arogant and dam right obscene
>> Edited by gemini on Thursday 18th November 23:26
gemini said:
Im not expressng my like or dislike
BUT
its actually section 4a POA
Its an arrestable offence
visisble sign etc etc
Now Ill express my feelings - Why do it? Make you feel good?
Now youve a court case perhaps where as when you went past the van under the limit you were fine!
We have no van or cameras in North Yorks and feel fine about that, but stick two fingers up and we'll do ya!
Im ok about that - we police for you and expect to be treated as law enforcers - stick two fingers up and you break the law
Yes we catch the murderers , the rapists etc!
But dont excuse yourself for being rude, arogant and dam right obscene
>> Edited by gemini on Thursday 18th November 23:26
It's the van though isn't it, and what it represents, rather than the Police inside it, that attract such hatred. The industrialisation of law enforcement.
yertis said:
It's the van though isn't it, and what it represents, rather than the Police inside it, that attract such hatred. The industrialisation of law enforcement.
I'd agree with that. Most people I know see the Police Force as upholders of the law, but hate the talivans with a passion, as sneaking underhand revenue collectors.
gemini said:
Im not expressng my like or dislike
BUT
its actually section 4a POA
Its an arrestable offence
visisble sign etc etc
Now Ill express my feelings - Why do it? Make you feel good?
Now youve a court case perhaps where as when you went past the van under the limit you were fine!
We have no van or cameras in North Yorks and feel fine about that, but stick two fingers up and we'll do ya!
Im ok about that - we police for you and expect to be treated as law enforcers - stick two fingers up and you break the law
Yes we catch the murderers , the rapists etc!
But dont excuse yourself for being rude, arogant and dam right obscene
>> Edited by gemini on Thursday 18th November 23:26
By the way Rob, it's not an offence at all if it was civilians operating the equipment in the van, and it also gives you another tack at a defence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff