ANPR Tax cameras
Discussion
Considering the base premise that these devices claim to be an attempt to stop the 10% (estimated) of vehicles being driven which are unregistered, untaxed, uninsured, cloned, driver/keeper wanted in connection other offences.
What is the point of operating one without the attendant stop squad comprising cars/bikes and, as Dibble so eloquently describes, a van load of chimps.
Maybe the cops are getting hacked off at the constant barracking they are getting in the press. I am always reminded of the picture and the article in one of the the red tops which showed the said stopper crews parked at the side of the road waiting for things to happen. The article was written in such a manner that they were picking on the poor unsuspecting law abiding motorist. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear IMHO.
I am firmly of the opinion that the British Police are not perfect but they are some of the best in the world and if anyone can do it better then more power to them. Anyone want to join them
I am firmly of the opinion that the British Police are not perfect but they are some of the best in the world and if anyone can do it better then more power to them. Anyone want to join them
Dwight VanDriver said:
Why bother to stop for an Excise Offence FiF?
DVD
Well someone who deliberately sets out to drive illegally can buy a car that's taxed for a year, give a false name/address and they are untraceable.
I was hoping APNR might be used to get this type of offender off the roads, not just to go after more easy targets / easy money.
Dwight VanDriver said:
It should do Deen if it is a Police operated ANPR.
DVLA have their own enforcement branch that goes out and about and I thought this was what FiF was referring to. They don't have power to go into documention other than Excise.
DVD
Spotted DVD! (memo to self: Stop being so obtuse!)
It was made very very clear on a retina searing sign propped against front bumper that this was a TAX CAMERA. Their foot high capitals not mine.
I remember a similar discussion elsewhere when a serving bib (iirc me owd mate FullChat) asked for views on the proposed policy in Humberside that pursuits would not be made simply for documentation offences.
Seems to me that this practice, i.e. the lone tax camera, like so many other things we see today, will mostly affect the people who in general, register their vehicles in their own name and address etc., and for whatever reason, good or bad, slip up on the continuous taxation issue.
Meanwhile the real scrotes carry on flicking the V's at the rest of us, until one day, hopefully, there is a bullet with their name on it.
Then we turn to the issue of DVLA enforcement unit with limited powers. Thought we were supposed to be into integrated enforcement and getting rid of jurisdiction disputes. Do they have to have thir hands held while out and about in scrote land?
FiF
Just wonder FiF if a bit of kidology is involved.
They have their monthly non licence cull and send out 80 note fines if found transgressing and no SORN.
Bit like TV Detector vans. They come into our town and float around and in minutes queue at Post Office for a Licence?
Wonder what TOTH would make of all this?
DVD
They have their monthly non licence cull and send out 80 note fines if found transgressing and no SORN.
Bit like TV Detector vans. They come into our town and float around and in minutes queue at Post Office for a Licence?
Wonder what TOTH would make of all this?
DVD
Well lads,
some of you may have noticed in the past that this is a sore point with me, and unlike most of you I do not subscribe to the notion that someone driving without road tax, is a villain, has no MOT or insurance, deserves to have his 200 grand classic Ferrari crushed coz his disc is three days out, etc, etc.
The following copy letter is the reason why; it is from myself by way of complaint to the inspector in charge of police motorcycles in Glasgow and raises some highly interesting and very pertinent points about the powers of the DVLA.
Let me hear your comments, then I'll tell you the outcome of the case.
Attn of Inspector Jim Igoe.
Motor Cycle Inspector.
Road Policing Complex.
433 Helen St.
Glasgow G51 3HH. 19th. of June, 2003.
Dear Sir,
I have been advised by Inspector Corrish of Dumbarton Police that you are the appropriate contact regarding an incident on the A82 Dumbarton Boulevard that I brought to his attention.
This incident occurred at 8-35 AM on the morning of the 5th of November last year, and involved two motorcycle officers whom, I am assured by Inspector Corrish, are stationed at your office.
Before I reveal the details of the incident I should inform you that I am a motor engineer with over thirty years experience that encompasses all aspects of vehicle design, safety and modifications. I am also involved in the long-term study and research into road safety, driving techniques and the cause and effect of enforcement procedures. I am a highly experienced advanced driver and have driven and worked in most western countries.
With particular relevance to the events of the incident, I will state that I am totally opposed to the current and escalating brutal enforcement of speed limits for various reasons, the main being that it can be shown historically that it simply does not work and completely fails to address the real and pertinent issues of road safety.
However, like all things dynamic, speed is relevant; relevant to vehicle design and construction, driver training and capability and, most importantly, the manner in which it is applied. i.e. it is perfectly acceptable for a highly experienced, trained driver such as one of your traffic officers to travel at 120mph in a Volvo T5 on say, the southern stretch of the M74 in perfect, dry weather conditions in the early hours of the morning, but it is an entirely different matter to attempt even 60mph on the lochside section of the A82 on a wet evening in heavy traffic.
On the morning in question I was travelling to Paisley from Dumbarton and passed through the Dumbuck junction travelling south when I observed a number of police vehicles in what appeared to be a disused entrance. At a quick glance there were several Volvos, a minibus and at least two motor cycles. The riders had dismounted but were still wearing helmets and their machines were on stands.
The traffic at this location at that time every morning is intense, and as I passed the petrol station I pulled out to overtake slow moving vehicles in the inside lane.
I accelerated hard past two or three vehicles up to within approximately four hundred yards of the roundabout at Bowling when I noticed in my rear view mirror a motor cycle making up on me at extreme high speed in the outside lane. As I had just overtaken another vehicle I stayed in the outside lane, changed gear and checked my mirror as I entered the roundabout. The motor cycle had disappeared from view, but reappeared a split second later literally a couple of feet to my nearside on the roundabout and only then did it become clear that he was a police officer. His hand was off the throttle and waving in the air, and it was only at the very last second I realised that he intended pulling across to the right in front of my vehicle on the left hand lane of the roundabout.
He did this with no signal, no lights, sirens or previous warnings. I was forced to swerve to the right and into the Bowling exit. The oncoming traffic from the northbound carriageway was forced to brake violently to a standstill at the unexpected swerve to the right across the roundabout of two vehicles.
It is crystal clear to me that this individual is fortunate indeed that he survived this encounter; fortunate that I reacted appropriately, that the car I was driving though old, was extremely capable, and that I am blessed with fast reactions. His manoeuvre can only be described as an act of sheer madness, and one that if committed by an ordinary motorist in the presence of a traffic officer would have resulted in instant prosecution.
I was out of my vehicle before he managed to dismount, my thirst for a first class explanation of his behaviour tempered only by the not unreasonable assumption that he must have mistaken me for a bank robber or other villain.
I was quite literally speechless when he stated that he wanted to check my tax disc. When I asked him if this was the sole purpose of the pursuit he stated that he considered this to be a very serious matter.
By this time another officer on a motorcycle arrived who had obviously been driving in a more sedate manner. He appeared to be slightly older and of a more pleasant disposition.
I requested that the first officer justify his remarks about the “serious matter” and he informed me that in his experience most people who have no road tax also have no insurance or MOT certificate.
As part of the investigation into my complaint I would ask you to send to me either copy statistics substantiating these facts or the publication that contains them and I will research it myself. My professional response is that it is patent nonsense ; not only did I express this view to the officer but stated that amongst the assembled task force sitting on the boulevard there would doubtless be a Traffic Inspector and, as I was now late for my morning appointment anyway, and as this officer clearly had deep concerns about road safety issues, I would have no objection to having my vehicle thoroughly inspected, and made the point that despite the fact that it was fourteen years old it was mechanically flawless. Needless to say he declined the offer and instead issued me with a HORT 1 form, which I duly presented complete with fully legal documentation.
I explained to both officers that I was staying with my daughter in Dumbarton due to a relationship split some several months earlier and that all my personal documentation was on its way from my previous partner who had been rather slow to locate and post the documentation. Amongst these items were the necessary documents to enable me to road tax this vehicle and I assured them that I would do so immediately they arrived. I also explained that I had only put the vehicle back on the road the previous day as I had been away on business, and as it was now the fifth of the month I would be paying duty from the first, i.e. previous to this occasion.
The officer made a strange response, the reasoning behind which I still do not understand, he said, “so you wouldn’t consider a caution then?” to which I replied that of course I would, why on earth not.
The officers seemed satisfied with that and I left the location. At no time was I charged with an offence, at no time did they show the slightest interest in the condition or roadworthiness of my vehicle, not even as much as a cursory glance at the tyres.
I was prepared to let the matter rest until I received a demand for payment of fifty pounds from the DVLA. It was described as an “out of court settlement” and stemmed from a report they had received from your office.
On taking up my complaint with Inspector Corrish, he informed me that not only did he have no control over your officers but in actual fact there is no obligation on the part of the Glasgow Traffic Department to even inform him that they are carrying out operations in his division, a fact I find absolutely astonishing.
Further research has suggested that the task force present that morning contained a vehicle equipped with a NPR camera linked to the DVLA computer, and that was the main, and indeed only purpose of this task force.
Although I caught only a glance at the assembled officers and vehicles, I took in enough to appreciate that this was a substantial force ; at least three Volvo T5s, two motorcycles, a minibus or van, some senior officers and, as we now know a NPR camera possibly operated by a civilian under the employ of the DVLA.
I require you to confirm or deny that this force was assembled only to check tax discs and, if so, the name of the senior officer who sanctioned this operation. It will be interesting in the extreme to peruse his attempted justification of the use of tens of thousands of pounds worth of highly specialised vehicles and equipment, and over a dozen highly trained and highly paid officers to check tax discs. But most importantly I require you to investigate the behaviour of the police motorcyclist who pursued me.
This officer from memory was riding a BMW ; this is a bike with absolutely phenomenal acceleration, the problem being that this rate of acceleration results in extremely high terminal velocity at the end of a measured run. Using simple time and distance calculations as in VASCAR, it can be easily shown that this officer’s speed had to be way in excess of one hundred miles per hour to catch me in the distance that he did. On top of that we have the fact that he swerved in front of another vehicle in the inside lane, overtook me on that lane and then swerved in front of myself and other oncoming vehicles to quite literally force me off the road, and all without lights or signals.
Approximately three hundred yards from this roundabout on the same carriageway is a substantial lay-by. Roughly half a mile on is yet another ; why on earth was I not signalled to pull into either of these lay-bys in a correct, ordered and safe manner.
I will not be treated like a car thief by an officer who is driving like a hooligan.
The standard of driving in this country is absolutely appalling ; I would expect your department and others with the same ability to attempt to enhance road safety by way of education, not operate as a collector on behalf of the Revenue.
It would appear that your officer’s so-called caution extended to a report to the Fiscal as I am now summoned to appear on the 25th of this month. As I am now based abroad I will have to respond by letter, but I will enclose a copy of this letter to the Court by way of explanation.
I await your reply.
Yours Faithfully,
James Lundy
some of you may have noticed in the past that this is a sore point with me, and unlike most of you I do not subscribe to the notion that someone driving without road tax, is a villain, has no MOT or insurance, deserves to have his 200 grand classic Ferrari crushed coz his disc is three days out, etc, etc.
The following copy letter is the reason why; it is from myself by way of complaint to the inspector in charge of police motorcycles in Glasgow and raises some highly interesting and very pertinent points about the powers of the DVLA.
Let me hear your comments, then I'll tell you the outcome of the case.
Attn of Inspector Jim Igoe.
Motor Cycle Inspector.
Road Policing Complex.
433 Helen St.
Glasgow G51 3HH. 19th. of June, 2003.
Dear Sir,
I have been advised by Inspector Corrish of Dumbarton Police that you are the appropriate contact regarding an incident on the A82 Dumbarton Boulevard that I brought to his attention.
This incident occurred at 8-35 AM on the morning of the 5th of November last year, and involved two motorcycle officers whom, I am assured by Inspector Corrish, are stationed at your office.
Before I reveal the details of the incident I should inform you that I am a motor engineer with over thirty years experience that encompasses all aspects of vehicle design, safety and modifications. I am also involved in the long-term study and research into road safety, driving techniques and the cause and effect of enforcement procedures. I am a highly experienced advanced driver and have driven and worked in most western countries.
With particular relevance to the events of the incident, I will state that I am totally opposed to the current and escalating brutal enforcement of speed limits for various reasons, the main being that it can be shown historically that it simply does not work and completely fails to address the real and pertinent issues of road safety.
However, like all things dynamic, speed is relevant; relevant to vehicle design and construction, driver training and capability and, most importantly, the manner in which it is applied. i.e. it is perfectly acceptable for a highly experienced, trained driver such as one of your traffic officers to travel at 120mph in a Volvo T5 on say, the southern stretch of the M74 in perfect, dry weather conditions in the early hours of the morning, but it is an entirely different matter to attempt even 60mph on the lochside section of the A82 on a wet evening in heavy traffic.
On the morning in question I was travelling to Paisley from Dumbarton and passed through the Dumbuck junction travelling south when I observed a number of police vehicles in what appeared to be a disused entrance. At a quick glance there were several Volvos, a minibus and at least two motor cycles. The riders had dismounted but were still wearing helmets and their machines were on stands.
The traffic at this location at that time every morning is intense, and as I passed the petrol station I pulled out to overtake slow moving vehicles in the inside lane.
I accelerated hard past two or three vehicles up to within approximately four hundred yards of the roundabout at Bowling when I noticed in my rear view mirror a motor cycle making up on me at extreme high speed in the outside lane. As I had just overtaken another vehicle I stayed in the outside lane, changed gear and checked my mirror as I entered the roundabout. The motor cycle had disappeared from view, but reappeared a split second later literally a couple of feet to my nearside on the roundabout and only then did it become clear that he was a police officer. His hand was off the throttle and waving in the air, and it was only at the very last second I realised that he intended pulling across to the right in front of my vehicle on the left hand lane of the roundabout.
He did this with no signal, no lights, sirens or previous warnings. I was forced to swerve to the right and into the Bowling exit. The oncoming traffic from the northbound carriageway was forced to brake violently to a standstill at the unexpected swerve to the right across the roundabout of two vehicles.
It is crystal clear to me that this individual is fortunate indeed that he survived this encounter; fortunate that I reacted appropriately, that the car I was driving though old, was extremely capable, and that I am blessed with fast reactions. His manoeuvre can only be described as an act of sheer madness, and one that if committed by an ordinary motorist in the presence of a traffic officer would have resulted in instant prosecution.
I was out of my vehicle before he managed to dismount, my thirst for a first class explanation of his behaviour tempered only by the not unreasonable assumption that he must have mistaken me for a bank robber or other villain.
I was quite literally speechless when he stated that he wanted to check my tax disc. When I asked him if this was the sole purpose of the pursuit he stated that he considered this to be a very serious matter.
By this time another officer on a motorcycle arrived who had obviously been driving in a more sedate manner. He appeared to be slightly older and of a more pleasant disposition.
I requested that the first officer justify his remarks about the “serious matter” and he informed me that in his experience most people who have no road tax also have no insurance or MOT certificate.
As part of the investigation into my complaint I would ask you to send to me either copy statistics substantiating these facts or the publication that contains them and I will research it myself. My professional response is that it is patent nonsense ; not only did I express this view to the officer but stated that amongst the assembled task force sitting on the boulevard there would doubtless be a Traffic Inspector and, as I was now late for my morning appointment anyway, and as this officer clearly had deep concerns about road safety issues, I would have no objection to having my vehicle thoroughly inspected, and made the point that despite the fact that it was fourteen years old it was mechanically flawless. Needless to say he declined the offer and instead issued me with a HORT 1 form, which I duly presented complete with fully legal documentation.
I explained to both officers that I was staying with my daughter in Dumbarton due to a relationship split some several months earlier and that all my personal documentation was on its way from my previous partner who had been rather slow to locate and post the documentation. Amongst these items were the necessary documents to enable me to road tax this vehicle and I assured them that I would do so immediately they arrived. I also explained that I had only put the vehicle back on the road the previous day as I had been away on business, and as it was now the fifth of the month I would be paying duty from the first, i.e. previous to this occasion.
The officer made a strange response, the reasoning behind which I still do not understand, he said, “so you wouldn’t consider a caution then?” to which I replied that of course I would, why on earth not.
The officers seemed satisfied with that and I left the location. At no time was I charged with an offence, at no time did they show the slightest interest in the condition or roadworthiness of my vehicle, not even as much as a cursory glance at the tyres.
I was prepared to let the matter rest until I received a demand for payment of fifty pounds from the DVLA. It was described as an “out of court settlement” and stemmed from a report they had received from your office.
On taking up my complaint with Inspector Corrish, he informed me that not only did he have no control over your officers but in actual fact there is no obligation on the part of the Glasgow Traffic Department to even inform him that they are carrying out operations in his division, a fact I find absolutely astonishing.
Further research has suggested that the task force present that morning contained a vehicle equipped with a NPR camera linked to the DVLA computer, and that was the main, and indeed only purpose of this task force.
Although I caught only a glance at the assembled officers and vehicles, I took in enough to appreciate that this was a substantial force ; at least three Volvo T5s, two motorcycles, a minibus or van, some senior officers and, as we now know a NPR camera possibly operated by a civilian under the employ of the DVLA.
I require you to confirm or deny that this force was assembled only to check tax discs and, if so, the name of the senior officer who sanctioned this operation. It will be interesting in the extreme to peruse his attempted justification of the use of tens of thousands of pounds worth of highly specialised vehicles and equipment, and over a dozen highly trained and highly paid officers to check tax discs. But most importantly I require you to investigate the behaviour of the police motorcyclist who pursued me.
This officer from memory was riding a BMW ; this is a bike with absolutely phenomenal acceleration, the problem being that this rate of acceleration results in extremely high terminal velocity at the end of a measured run. Using simple time and distance calculations as in VASCAR, it can be easily shown that this officer’s speed had to be way in excess of one hundred miles per hour to catch me in the distance that he did. On top of that we have the fact that he swerved in front of another vehicle in the inside lane, overtook me on that lane and then swerved in front of myself and other oncoming vehicles to quite literally force me off the road, and all without lights or signals.
Approximately three hundred yards from this roundabout on the same carriageway is a substantial lay-by. Roughly half a mile on is yet another ; why on earth was I not signalled to pull into either of these lay-bys in a correct, ordered and safe manner.
I will not be treated like a car thief by an officer who is driving like a hooligan.
The standard of driving in this country is absolutely appalling ; I would expect your department and others with the same ability to attempt to enhance road safety by way of education, not operate as a collector on behalf of the Revenue.
It would appear that your officer’s so-called caution extended to a report to the Fiscal as I am now summoned to appear on the 25th of this month. As I am now based abroad I will have to respond by letter, but I will enclose a copy of this letter to the Court by way of explanation.
I await your reply.
Yours Faithfully,
James Lundy
Excellent letter Iolaire, it's surely time that these people who seem to "get their kicks" from ruling over us are brought down to the same law that WE are asked to observe. In fact more so, a Policeman is trained to know and uphold the law, therefore if HE breaks it, the penalty should be higher. Unfair?......No!
I'm an electrical engineer, if I do anything which is not to the electrical regulations and causes injury, I can be summoned to court for anything up to 20 yrs after my actions.
Good Luck Iolaire, take it to 'em! 8Pack
I'm an electrical engineer, if I do anything which is not to the electrical regulations and causes injury, I can be summoned to court for anything up to 20 yrs after my actions.
Good Luck Iolaire, take it to 'em! 8Pack
"Approximately three hundred yards from this roundabout on the same carriageway is a substantial lay-by. Roughly half a mile on is yet another ; why on earth was I not signalled to pull into either of these lay-bys in a correct, ordered and safe manner."
Quite possibly because - as you indicate - they were operating outside their dvision and didn't know the road.
I have anecdotal evidence (from local BiB) that they have no concept of many of the lanes, bridalpaths, etc. that abound here. Most have never even seen them, let alone walked down them.
Streaky
Quite possibly because - as you indicate - they were operating outside their dvision and didn't know the road.
I have anecdotal evidence (from local BiB) that they have no concept of many of the lanes, bridalpaths, etc. that abound here. Most have never even seen them, let alone walked down them.
Streaky
deeen said:
Why bother to stop for an Excise Offence FiF?
DVD
Well someone who deliberately sets out to drive illegally can buy a car that's taxed for a year, give a false name/address and they are untraceable.
I was hoping APNR might be used to get this type of offender off the roads, not just to go after more easy targets / easy money.
ANPR does just that!
Police ANPR operation is not about revenue collection. It is about exactly what everyone on this site appears to actually want.
Vehicles which are uninsured are flagged in the database. Disqualified drivers cars, stolen cars, vehicles suspect of use in crime of all sorts, vehicles subject of bad driving information reports, vehicles subject of use by known criminals etc.
The fact that the ANPR also pings no tax is a bonus from the PNC database. Anything that goes through ANPR without tax is stopped and investigated if there is an available 'Jaffa' or car to stop it.
ANPR operation last week in my area claimed 3 stolen cars, 2 disqual drivers, 2 making off without payments, 3 wanted persons and a whole host of other minor stuff and good intelligence that will be fed back into the system. It was only running for two days one check in the day, the other in the evening.
ANPR when used by Police is not about revenue. It is about keeping you safe in your houses and whilst you are on the road from those who do not give a sh*t!
gone said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
Why bother to stop for an Excise Offence FiF?
DVD
Well someone who deliberately sets out to drive illegally can buy a car that's taxed for a year, give a false name/address and they are untraceable.
I was hoping APNR might be used to get this type of offender off the roads, not just to go after more easy targets / easy money.
ANPR does just that!
Police ANPR operation is not about revenue collection. It is about exactly what everyone on this site appears to actually want.
Vehicles which are uninsured are flagged in the database. Disqualified drivers cars, stolen cars, vehicles suspect of use in crime of all sorts, vehicles subject of bad driving information reports, vehicles subject of use by known criminals etc.
The fact that the ANPR also pings no tax is a bonus from the PNC database. Anything that goes through ANPR without tax is stopped and investigated if there is an available 'Jaffa' or car to stop it.
ANPR operation last week in my area claimed 3 stolen cars, 2 disqual drivers, 2 making off without payments, 3 wanted persons and a whole host of other minor stuff and good intelligence that will be fed back into the system. It was only running for two days one check in the day, the other in the evening.
ANPR when used by Police is not about revenue. It is about keeping you safe in your houses and whilst you are on the road from those who do not give a sh*t!
Well all I can say to that Gone is that your force quite clearly operates different parameters from Strathclyde; because the contents of my letter were endorsed by a senior investigating officer at a later date and he admitted that the task force was purely to check road tax, no other purpose.
Now it may be that things have moved on since then, but that incident to me highlights PRECISELY what is wrong with the political aspects of the police force.
Just two miles from that location we have an area of notorious crime and daylight drug dealing.
I have NEVER seen a task force assembled there to tackle this, and the local bobby in that area has admitted to me that it's now out of control.
I'll bring the forum up to speed with what eventually transpired with this later on, I'm very busy today.
gone, with respect you are missing the point. This was not repeat NOT a police ANPR.
At no point during the operation was there a stop squad. Actually the location is a good one for that as 1/2 mile up the road is one layby and in another 1/2 mile a second and further on a third.
The location of the van, parked illegally but that is another discussion, was ideally placed so that traffic would be travelling slowly. Extreme prominence was given to the sign declaring it was solely a vehicle tax camera.
The operator was a civilian, sat outside on a folding chair, ciggy on go engrossed in a copy of OK or similar.
I report what I saw and wondered what would follow.
Maybe DVD has got a point. Scare folks off to the Post Office queue.
At no point during the operation was there a stop squad. Actually the location is a good one for that as 1/2 mile up the road is one layby and in another 1/2 mile a second and further on a third.
The location of the van, parked illegally but that is another discussion, was ideally placed so that traffic would be travelling slowly. Extreme prominence was given to the sign declaring it was solely a vehicle tax camera.
The operator was a civilian, sat outside on a folding chair, ciggy on go engrossed in a copy of OK or similar.
I report what I saw and wondered what would follow.
Maybe DVD has got a point. Scare folks off to the Post Office queue.
This is the sort of letter that is passed to me to deal with after the Superintendant has read it and decided that it needs further investigation.
My opinion is this having read it.
This letter is written by a Mechanic of 30 years experience with a reference to the fact that he has undertaken a civilian driving qualification based on either ROSPA or IAM. He is in his mid 50's with another reference that he has driving experience in other countries which is irrelevant to the complaint made. There is no mention of formal qualifications to back up his allegations as an expert witness and the offence of driving without VEL is irrelevant to those qualifications and experience he has listed.
This letter is a blatent attempt to cloud the issues around the fact that the author was seen to be driving a vehicle on a road wihtout a current V.E.L. attached and that having been caught and a penalty issued, seeks to rebut the penalty by throwing as much innuendo and allegation as he possibly can.
My response to the Superintendant would be that I would attempt to find the two motorcyclists involved who were responsible for the stop on the author and get an explanation from them.
Note the complaint about use of the particular units employed on this opertaion. This issue does not fall within the remit of the system of complaints against police because it is in relation to policy and procedure. Policy and procedure are not covered by the complaints procedure. I will offer the author an explanation which does not compromise further opertations of this sort.
1. The complaint is about the driving actions of one unidentified motorcylist who may have a case to answer if I can find a relevant witness to corroborate the evidence in the letter. There would appear to be no complaint about his behaviour being unprofessional or unacceptable in relation to the verbal encounter with the author. I will attempt to find this officer by interviewing the author about where and when he produced his HORT1 so that I can find who issued it. If I am satisfied with the explanation of the officer concerned, I will report to you those facts. If I am not, I will forward the evidence to professional standards dept for further investigation.
2. There is no justification for any further action into the complaint about the numbers or uses of operational units on this check.
3. I will suggest that the author seeks to find re-dress through the appropriate use of the courts system to finalise his complaint about the penalty incurred for driving his car without a valid VEL either displayed or in force in relation to that vehicle.
4. There was no requirement for either officer to examine his vehicle if they were happy that the vehicle appeared in a road worthy condition and there were no obvious offences visble as stated by the author who writes that the car was in fact in perfect condition.
5. I will report back to you in two weeks with my findings.
Police Sergeant 'Gone'.
This structure and content of this letter is obvious to anyone who regulary deals with complaints about Police! It is not particularly good and much of it is irrelevant to the substance of the complaints which are made!
In other words it is a badly disguised whinge about getting a penalty with attendant 'red herrings' of allegations against officers to help get the penalty dropped.
My opinion is this having read it.
This letter is written by a Mechanic of 30 years experience with a reference to the fact that he has undertaken a civilian driving qualification based on either ROSPA or IAM. He is in his mid 50's with another reference that he has driving experience in other countries which is irrelevant to the complaint made. There is no mention of formal qualifications to back up his allegations as an expert witness and the offence of driving without VEL is irrelevant to those qualifications and experience he has listed.
This letter is a blatent attempt to cloud the issues around the fact that the author was seen to be driving a vehicle on a road wihtout a current V.E.L. attached and that having been caught and a penalty issued, seeks to rebut the penalty by throwing as much innuendo and allegation as he possibly can.
My response to the Superintendant would be that I would attempt to find the two motorcyclists involved who were responsible for the stop on the author and get an explanation from them.
Note the complaint about use of the particular units employed on this opertaion. This issue does not fall within the remit of the system of complaints against police because it is in relation to policy and procedure. Policy and procedure are not covered by the complaints procedure. I will offer the author an explanation which does not compromise further opertations of this sort.
1. The complaint is about the driving actions of one unidentified motorcylist who may have a case to answer if I can find a relevant witness to corroborate the evidence in the letter. There would appear to be no complaint about his behaviour being unprofessional or unacceptable in relation to the verbal encounter with the author. I will attempt to find this officer by interviewing the author about where and when he produced his HORT1 so that I can find who issued it. If I am satisfied with the explanation of the officer concerned, I will report to you those facts. If I am not, I will forward the evidence to professional standards dept for further investigation.
2. There is no justification for any further action into the complaint about the numbers or uses of operational units on this check.
3. I will suggest that the author seeks to find re-dress through the appropriate use of the courts system to finalise his complaint about the penalty incurred for driving his car without a valid VEL either displayed or in force in relation to that vehicle.
4. There was no requirement for either officer to examine his vehicle if they were happy that the vehicle appeared in a road worthy condition and there were no obvious offences visble as stated by the author who writes that the car was in fact in perfect condition.
5. I will report back to you in two weeks with my findings.
Police Sergeant 'Gone'.
This structure and content of this letter is obvious to anyone who regulary deals with complaints about Police! It is not particularly good and much of it is irrelevant to the substance of the complaints which are made!
In other words it is a badly disguised whinge about getting a penalty with attendant 'red herrings' of allegations against officers to help get the penalty dropped.
IOLAIRE said:
Just two miles from that location we have an area of notorious crime and daylight drug dealing.
I have NEVER seen a task force assembled there to tackle this, and the local bobby in that area has admitted to me that it's now out of control.
Now James!
Think about it
A large visble task force to stop drug dealing and intimdation is sure to achieve the objectives you are seeking!!!!
As soon as a uniform appears in the area, the crime and dealing stops with the aid of the jungle communication system and mobile phones.
The fact that you cannot see any task force operating is because if you can see them, then so can the purpetrators of such acts
That is why there are operations run by CID and various plain clothes squads which you would not see for that very reason!
The Community beat officer would not be party to that sort of information because 'walls have ears'
and loose tongues cost lives. The CBO jurisdiction is to gain intelligence about what is happening and then feed that into the system so that others can be proactive. The rest of his job is to talk to people and smile a lot
IOLAIRE said:
I'll bring the forum up to speed with what eventually transpired with this later on, I'm very busy today.
I will be interested to find out!
I'm just having a lunch break and intend posting the remainder of what happened in this sorry incident.
This thread is simply to say that I can't and won't be dealing with you any further Gone.
Of all the individuals I have had to deal with on this site, none can compare to you in high quality insults.
You excell at blatantly insulting the intelligence of not only myself, but the whole forum; but you do it in a manner that is so insidious and sly that it is at first not obvious.
Everyone that has a dialogue with me on this site knows full well that I am not just a "mechanic".
All five people whom I have defended in court in the past three months highly successfully knows I am not just a "mechanic".
The Lord Advocate whom I beat in an appeal in the Court of Session knows I am not just a "mechanic".
Why would you, for the third time on a post, attempt to imply that I am, and therefore deeply insult me?
As FiF pointed out, yet again you miss the whole issue here; the government have given the DVLA totally outrageous powers to use whoever they wish to collect revenue, it doesn't matter what you call it. Road tax, VAT, fuel duty, etc.
It's all about money! And the police fall for it every time!
On this occasion they used a task force of police officers who carried out a stupidly dangerous high speed pursuit to check a tax disc!!!
I mean are you totally stupid Gone??
Do you not see the idiocy in that?
It is overkill in the extreme, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be justified.
You and your colleagues are NOT tax collectors, you are police officers, and you are here to protect us when we need protecting.
You are FAILING us Gone, do you understand that!!!
My son's car was burnt to a cinder by a drug dealer; the police didn't catch him!
My other son has had virtually every car he has owned marked, damaged or smashed in a failed attempt at theft.
The police have never caught anyone, not ONCE!!
I will not go into Glasgow now on a Friday or Saturday night; I don't know if my car will be outside when I return.
Get yourself into the real world Gone and waken up to reality.
This thread is simply to say that I can't and won't be dealing with you any further Gone.
Of all the individuals I have had to deal with on this site, none can compare to you in high quality insults.
You excell at blatantly insulting the intelligence of not only myself, but the whole forum; but you do it in a manner that is so insidious and sly that it is at first not obvious.
Everyone that has a dialogue with me on this site knows full well that I am not just a "mechanic".
All five people whom I have defended in court in the past three months highly successfully knows I am not just a "mechanic".
The Lord Advocate whom I beat in an appeal in the Court of Session knows I am not just a "mechanic".
Why would you, for the third time on a post, attempt to imply that I am, and therefore deeply insult me?
As FiF pointed out, yet again you miss the whole issue here; the government have given the DVLA totally outrageous powers to use whoever they wish to collect revenue, it doesn't matter what you call it. Road tax, VAT, fuel duty, etc.
It's all about money! And the police fall for it every time!
On this occasion they used a task force of police officers who carried out a stupidly dangerous high speed pursuit to check a tax disc!!!
I mean are you totally stupid Gone??
Do you not see the idiocy in that?
It is overkill in the extreme, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be justified.
You and your colleagues are NOT tax collectors, you are police officers, and you are here to protect us when we need protecting.
You are FAILING us Gone, do you understand that!!!
My son's car was burnt to a cinder by a drug dealer; the police didn't catch him!
My other son has had virtually every car he has owned marked, damaged or smashed in a failed attempt at theft.
The police have never caught anyone, not ONCE!!
I will not go into Glasgow now on a Friday or Saturday night; I don't know if my car will be outside when I return.
Get yourself into the real world Gone and waken up to reality.
IOLAIRE said:
Get yourself into the real world Gone and waken up to reality.
Strange your letter of complaint was received by the Police AFTER you received the penalty for driving with no excise licence
If it was so important to you, why not pen your complaint immediately you arrived at your destination on that stressfull morning instead of leaving it until the penalty arrived and to complain about the penalty by introducing other issues not relevant to that penalty?
Mechanic? Motor engineer? whatever!
You have not stated any qaulification other than 30 years experience mending and modifying cars!
Insidious insult? Where? You are in fact a mechanic are you not?
Bit touchy as well aren't you?
All right for others to use colourful and coloquial language to describe my colleagues and myself though isn't it
? Don't be so prissy! Or have I touched a nerve
>> Edited by gone on Saturday 7th May 20:12
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff