speed cameras

[dieseluser07]

If a police car is parked on the road are they allowed to send fines in the post or do they have to chase after you and tell you there and then?

I ask because as one slip road merges onto the main a road near where i live they sometimes park a police car there and i dont know if its just to see who speeds past or if they issue fines, i thought they have to point a radar gun at your car? i cant see how they would do this through the back window.

[Durzel]

Not only can they not send you fines if they're parked on the road, but they have to be wearing their hat as well otherwise the evidence is inadmissible in court.

[rs1952]

dieseluser07 said:

If a police car is parked on the road are they allowed to send fines in the post or do they have to chase after you and tell you there and then?

I ask because as one slip road merges onto the main a road near where i live they sometimes park a police car there and i dont know if its just to see who speeds past or if they issue fines, i thought they have to point a radar gun at your car? i cant see how they would do this through the back window.

I think that Durzel might be extracting the Michael

A police car parked anywhere is not necessarily there to "see who speeds" or to "issue fines." They might be involved in an ANPR exercise; they might be having their doughnuts; one might have popped behind a bush, if you get my drift. There are all sorts of reasons why Plod might park up somewhere, and in this day and age very few of them have the time or the inclination to do anything about speeding unless somebody is really taking the piss.

To coin a phrase "Calm down dear..."

[dieseluser07]

rs1952 said:

I think that Durzel might be extracting the Michael

A police car parked anywhere is not necessarily there to "see who speeds" or to "issue fines." They might be involved in an ANPR exercise; they might be having their doughnuts; one might have popped behind a bush, if you get my drift. There are all sorts of reasons why Plod might park up somewhere, and in this day and age very few of them have the time or the inclination to do anything about speeding unless somebody is really taking the piss.

To coin a phrase "Calm down dear..."

if thier not doing speeding its a weird place to just pull up haha

[Osinjak]

Haha indeed.

[dieseluser07]

Durzel said:

Not only can they not send you fines if they're parked on the road, but they have to be wearing their hat as well otherwise the evidence is inadmissible in court.

is this true

[photosnob]

dieseluser07 said:

is this true

Yes. Without a hat a traffic officer is not deemed to be on duty. This is because it's part of his uniform, and not wearing the correct uniform is deemed to be disrespectful to the Queen (since the Police uniform falls under something called Queens Regulations), they are therefore unable to give evidence in a court as courts and prosecutions are actually Regina the queen.

It used to be the same for normal Police officer, but the Police Reform act changed this. Up until quite recent a CID or undercover police officer would have to ask special permission of the court to give evidence. Quite a few trials were thrown out when this was refused.

This is why officers always wear their uniform to Court. Even now Judges will turn officers away if they are not in full uniform.

A little known but previously successful defence for speeding was requiring the officer to prove he was wearing his hat. If the officer cannot tell the court which hat he was wearing (they have more than one) the case cannot go ahead.

Edited by photosnob on Sunday 28th September 09:04

[anonymous-user]

dieseluser07 said:

Durzel said:

Not only can they not send you fines if they're parked on the road, but they have to be wearing their hat as well otherwise the evidence is inadmissible in court.

is this true

You can buy some of these if you like:-

[don'tbesilly]

Breadvan72 said:

You can buy some of these if you like:-

They're no longer available for sale.

The sale of any form of 'magic bean' was outlawed as too many motorists were using the magical powers to escape speeding charges.

Get with the programme

Edited by don'tbesilly on Sunday 28th September 09:56

[anonymous-user]

OK, I'll stick to selling him London Bridge.

[agtlaw]

photosnob said:

Yes. Without a hat a traffic officer is not deemed to be on duty. This is because it's part of his uniform, and not wearing the correct uniform is deemed to be disrespectful to the Queen (since the Police uniform falls under something called Queens Regulations), they are therefore unable to give evidence in a court as courts and prosecutions are actually Regina the queen.

It used to be the same for normal Police officer, but the Police Reform act changed this. Up until quite recent a CID or undercover police officer would have to ask special permission of the court to give evidence. Quite a few trials were thrown out when this was refused.

This is why officers always wear their uniform to Court. Even now Judges will turn officers away if they are not in full uniform.

A little known but previously successful defence for speeding was requiring the officer to prove he was wearing his hat. If the officer cannot tell the court which hat he was wearing (they have more than one) the case cannot go ahead.

Edited by photosnob on Sunday 28th September 09:04

[Cliftonite]

.
I am so confused now, I have no idea where to send the bloomin' parrot!

[littleredrooster]

Cliftonite said:

.
I am so confused now, I have no idea where to send the bloomin' parrot!

Best ask for a discount for a flock of them...

[dieseluser07]

photosnob said:

Yes. Without a hat a traffic officer is not deemed to be on duty. This is because it's part of his uniform, and not wearing the correct uniform is deemed to be disrespectful to the Queen (since the Police uniform falls under something called Queens Regulations), they are therefore unable to give evidence in a court as courts and prosecutions are actually Regina the queen.

It used to be the same for normal Police officer, but the Police Reform act changed this. Up until quite recent a CID or undercover police officer would have to ask special permission of the court to give evidence. Quite a few trials were thrown out when this was refused.

This is why officers always wear their uniform to Court. Even now Judges will turn officers away if they are not in full uniform.

A little known but previously successful defence for speeding was requiring the officer to prove he was wearing his hat. If the officer cannot tell the court which hat he was wearing (they have more than one) the case cannot go ahead.

Edited by photosnob on Sunday 28th September 09:04

but if he is sat in his car how would you know??

[anonymous-user]

The law requires that a police officer not wearing a hat display a parrot in the window. No parrot, and you're busted.

[FurtiveFreddy]

That is correct, but it also a little known fact that if he has taken off his hat and stowed it somewhere it can't be retrieved quickly, he is permitted to put the parrot on his head in order to comply with regulations.

Also, don't think the parrot requirement is going to make it easy for you to see what they're up to. The clued-up traffic officer uses a budgie hidden under a false toupee, making it very difficult to spot if they're dressed correctly from a distance.

Even if you are caught by an officer with a parrot, there could be hope. In one case, the defendant successfully proved that the policeman was wearing a cockatiel, which is actually a member of the cockatoo family and hence could not be considered a parrot. The case was thrown out of court.

[Cliftonite]

Breadvan72 said:

The law requires that a police officer not wearing a hat display a parrot in the window. No parrot, and you're busted.

.
For clarification, a copper relying on this clause is shown in the subsequent Court papers as a Pollyceman.

[anonymous-user]

FurtiveFreddy said:

That is correct, but it also a little known fact that if he has taken off his hat and stowed it somewhere it can't be retrieved quickly, he is permitted to put the parrot on his head in order to comply with regulations.

Also, don't think the parrot requirement is going to make it easy for you to see what they're up to. The clued-up traffic officer uses a budgie hidden under a false toupee, making it very difficult to spot if they're dressed correctly from a distance.

Even if you are caught by an officer with a parrot, there could be hope. In one case, the defendant successfully proved that the policeman was wearing a cockatiel, which is actually a member of the cockatoo family and hence could not be considered a parrot. The case was thrown out of court.

False toupee? In my day, the toupees were real. Standards are slipping!

[XJ Flyer]

FurtiveFreddy said:

That is correct, but it also a little known fact that if he has taken off his hat and stowed it somewhere it can't be retrieved quickly, he is permitted to put the parrot on his head in order to comply with regulations.

Also, don't think the parrot requirement is going to make it easy for you to see what they're up to. The clued-up traffic officer uses a budgie hidden under a false toupee, making it very difficult to spot if they're dressed correctly from a distance.

Even if you are caught by an officer with a parrot, there could be hope. In one case, the defendant successfully proved that the policeman was wearing a cockatiel, which is actually a member of the cockatoo family and hence could not be considered a parrot. The case was thrown out of court.

EU regulations have since stopped that tactic on the grounds of animal welfare.Although the law challenged the ruling in the European Court on the grounds that there can be no animal welfare issues in the case of it being a dead stuffed parrot.The European Court then ruled that there's no way of knowing wether the parrot in question had died of natural causes or was murdered by the law for the law's selfish purposes of nicking motorists by stealth.The case is ongoing with the government seeking further clarification as to wether sufficient guarantees can be provided by the law that no parrots would be or have been murdered in the course of police law enforcement.Which if successful would remove the possibility of any defence on the grounds of animal welfare.

[Who me ?]

Breadvan72 said:

False toupee? In my day, the toupees were real. Standards are slipping!

Possibly also the toupees if they're not using polycell to stick them down.