Cautioned by telephone
Discussion
My son-in-law related this tale to me this evening.
One of his colleagues in the local Royal Mail sorting office received a telephone call ostensibly from a policeman who accused him of driving his post van through a red traffic signal at 5 o'clock one morning - claiming to have observed this. He had the registration and RM identification numbers of the van and the sorting office manager confirmed that he had received a telephone enquiry as to the name of the driver of the vehicle. The manager had been out at the time the enquiry was made but had returned the call and the number was that of the local cop-shop (from experience).
The policeman cautioned the driver over the telephone and informed him that he would be reported for the offence.
(1) He is convinced hat he did not drive through any traffic signal on red.
(2) He cannot remember seeing a police vehicle that morning (or any morning recently, come to that) ... of course it could have been an unmarked vehicle.
(3) It is not a wind-up (the sorting office manager is incapable of keeping a straight face when any joke is being pulled).
(4) He is having continual bowel movements as a consequence.
My (lay) opinion is that the PC is having the gentleman on and that a caution cannot be issued over the telephone. I have advised (via my son-in-law) that he toddle down to the cop shop and have it out with the officer under threat of lodging a complaint.
s / 
s - your opinions gratefully sought.
Streaky
One of his colleagues in the local Royal Mail sorting office received a telephone call ostensibly from a policeman who accused him of driving his post van through a red traffic signal at 5 o'clock one morning - claiming to have observed this. He had the registration and RM identification numbers of the van and the sorting office manager confirmed that he had received a telephone enquiry as to the name of the driver of the vehicle. The manager had been out at the time the enquiry was made but had returned the call and the number was that of the local cop-shop (from experience).
The policeman cautioned the driver over the telephone and informed him that he would be reported for the offence.
(1) He is convinced hat he did not drive through any traffic signal on red.
(2) He cannot remember seeing a police vehicle that morning (or any morning recently, come to that) ... of course it could have been an unmarked vehicle.
(3) It is not a wind-up (the sorting office manager is incapable of keeping a straight face when any joke is being pulled).
(4) He is having continual bowel movements as a consequence.
My (lay) opinion is that the PC is having the gentleman on and that a caution cannot be issued over the telephone. I have advised (via my son-in-law) that he toddle down to the cop shop and have it out with the officer under threat of lodging a complaint.
s / s - your opinions gratefully sought. Streaky
Royal mail cannot pass through red lights as far as im aware, (prepares to be corrected!)
As for the caution, I thought it had to be done in person. Anyway, if he contravined a red traffic signal - all he has to do is send a NIP within the 14 days, then go from there.
Like has been said how could the officer be sure that it was him he was cautioning??
As for the caution, I thought it had to be done in person. Anyway, if he contravined a red traffic signal - all he has to do is send a NIP within the 14 days, then go from there.
Like has been said how could the officer be sure that it was him he was cautioning??
Its tits up by BiB.
Red light is an offence requiring a written NOIP within 14 days of the date of the offence ( offence date not included). But a verbal warning GIVEN AT THE TIME THE OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED releases the requirement for a written NOIP to be send.
Having not stopped the offender at the time, time taken to make enquiries of employer for drivers details, time to phone offender means that verbal warning its out of the window.
Should be 172 to GPO and then either same with Cond Offer or personal interview of offender and reported.
Caution by telephone is out IMHO for reasons given above.
DVD.
Red light is an offence requiring a written NOIP within 14 days of the date of the offence ( offence date not included). But a verbal warning GIVEN AT THE TIME THE OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED releases the requirement for a written NOIP to be send.
Having not stopped the offender at the time, time taken to make enquiries of employer for drivers details, time to phone offender means that verbal warning its out of the window.
Should be 172 to GPO and then either same with Cond Offer or personal interview of offender and reported.
Caution by telephone is out IMHO for reasons given above.
DVD.
Sorry - I should have made it clear that this all happened on the same day.
I take (and indeed had already taken) the point about how did the police officer confirm the identity of the person being cautioned. I thought that was likely to invalidate the caution (albeit that there is a trail of potential witnesses to verify the person involved in the telephone call in the sorting office). I checked and learned a few minutes ago that the officer made no attempt - other than asking: "Is that Fred Bloggs?" - to positively confirm the identify of the person he was cautioning. The name had been supplied earlier by the sorting office manager ... who had not checked that 'Fred' was actually the driver at the time (albeit that he was booked out to that vehicle). Indeed, the sorting office manager remembered that the police officer had only referred to 'this morning' and had given him neither a specific time nor a location for the alleged offence.
I learned also that the policeman was apparently on foot and claimed to be off duty (I wonder what he was doing there at 5am?). I also learned that it was a pelican crossing at which the offence is alleged to have taken place. Now why anyone (even an off-duty policeman) would operate the push-button on a crossing at 5 o'clock in the morning - when the only traffic was a post van - is anyone's guess ... but it gives the appearance of being a disgruntled person trying to over-exercise their authority. The rounds in the area concerned have recently been revamped, leading to some areas have no, delayed and/or later-in-the-day deliveries.
Streaky
I take (and indeed had already taken) the point about how did the police officer confirm the identity of the person being cautioned. I thought that was likely to invalidate the caution (albeit that there is a trail of potential witnesses to verify the person involved in the telephone call in the sorting office). I checked and learned a few minutes ago that the officer made no attempt - other than asking: "Is that Fred Bloggs?" - to positively confirm the identify of the person he was cautioning. The name had been supplied earlier by the sorting office manager ... who had not checked that 'Fred' was actually the driver at the time (albeit that he was booked out to that vehicle). Indeed, the sorting office manager remembered that the police officer had only referred to 'this morning' and had given him neither a specific time nor a location for the alleged offence.
I learned also that the policeman was apparently on foot and claimed to be off duty (I wonder what he was doing there at 5am?). I also learned that it was a pelican crossing at which the offence is alleged to have taken place. Now why anyone (even an off-duty policeman) would operate the push-button on a crossing at 5 o'clock in the morning - when the only traffic was a post van - is anyone's guess ... but it gives the appearance of being a disgruntled person trying to over-exercise their authority. The rounds in the area concerned have recently been revamped, leading to some areas have no, delayed and/or later-in-the-day deliveries.
Streaky
^Slider^ said:
Royal mail cannot pass through red lights as far as im aware, (prepares to be corrected!)
As for the caution, I thought it had to be done in person. Anyway, if he contravined a red traffic signal - all he has to do is send a NIP within the 14 days, then go from there.
Like has been said how could the officer be sure that it was him he was cautioning??
Isn't there some ancient statute that says a mail van can run a red light if it has a letter for the Queen on board?
Und how do we know this was a (on way to work?)
It could just as easily be a civvy who works at the cop shop. There ist no proof that it was a on the phone und no proof that he was cautioning the driver who allegedly ran a red pelican at 5 a.m.
Was this the chap perhaps who allegedly issued a £30 fine to a chap who stopped at traffic lights, placed his car in neutral und applied handbrake und then played his air guitar to a "darkness" CD?
(Story ist in Paulie's General Chat forum und poster nicked it from C+ 
) He removed both hands from wheel to give his air guitar a bit of gusto! 
Have no idea if this ist true stroy as have not seen it in the StUN!
(on way to work?) It could just as easily be a civvy who works at the cop shop. There ist no proof that it was a
on the phone und no proof that he was cautioning the driver who allegedly ran a red pelican at 5 a.m. Was this the chap perhaps who allegedly issued a £30 fine to a chap who stopped at traffic lights, placed his car in neutral und applied handbrake und then played his air guitar to a "darkness" CD?
(Story ist in Paulie's General Chat forum und poster nicked it from C+ ) He removed both hands from wheel to give his air guitar a bit of gusto! Have no idea if this ist true stroy as have not seen it in the StUN!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff