S59 - instant seizure proposed

[kiethton]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lk4ywdn2o

Just reading through the news and seen that they're now proposing to be able to seize vehicles accused of ASB immediately.

I assume that this would be through a small tweak to S59 legislation. Given the police like to give them out like confetti (I got one myself to accompany a speeding report!?! Some years ago) I struggle to see how this could work unless they remove any form of judgement:

We don't like your attitude (despite giving police often giving it and motorists responding in kind), car seized.

Your car looks like one that's been causing trouble, without any evidence, seized

Your exhaust passes MoT's, track day noise limits but is too loud for Maybel at #2, seized.

I don't like you as you caught us out lieing/refused to give information your not obliged to, car seized.

I fail to see how this can even work, especially as there is no right/ability to appeal....like they'd pay you back your costs when proven wrong either.

What is this country coming to - more authoritarian by the day!

1. MakeOrwellFictionAgain

[otolith]

S59 was introduced to tackle kids on mini-motos, but mostly seems to have been used on motorists. They are suggesting that the changes will deal with kids on scooters and e-bikes, but I think we can infer from what happened last time who they will be used against.

[turbobloke]

otolith said:

S59 was introduced to tackle kids on mini-motos, but mostly seems to have been used on motorists. They are suggesting that the changes will deal with kids on scooters and e-bikes, but I think we can infer from what happened last time who they will be used against.

As plain as day.

[2020vision]

kiethton said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lk4ywdn2o

Just reading through the news and seen that they're now proposing to be able to seize vehicles accused of ASB immediately.

I assume that this would be through a small tweak to S59 legislation. Given the police like to give them out like confetti (I got one myself to accompany a speeding report!?! Some years ago) I struggle to see how this could work unless they remove any form of judgement:

We don't like your attitude (despite giving police often giving it and motorists responding in kind), car seized.

Your car looks like one that's been causing trouble, without any evidence, seized

Your exhaust passes MoT's, track day noise limits but is too loud for Maybel at #2, seized.

I don't like you as you caught us out lieing/refused to give information your not obliged to, car seized.

I fail to see how this can even work, especially as there is no right/ability to appeal....like they'd pay you back your costs when proven wrong either.

What is this country coming to - more authoritarian by the day!

1. MakeOrwellFictionAgain

Seems to be clear though:
"...The Home Office said police would also get stronger powers to deal with "the scourge of off-road bikes in public parks and dangerous e-scooters on pavements, street racing and cruising".

Under the plans, officers would no longer have to issue a warning before seizing vehicles involved in anti-social behaviour..."

Don't engage in these activities in a way that is anti-social and you will have no issues. People have been suggesting for years that the police should deal with matters swiftly. Hallelujah!!!

[LosingGrip]

Whilst I like the idea of instant seizures. Why should someone be warned not to drive like a dick when we all know anyway...

However, it needs to be for the correct reasons. The OP shouldn't have got one for the speed, as there needs to be a Section 3 RTA offence as well as the alarm, distress and annoyance (unless there is more to it).

Me revving my bike as I go through a tunnel might meet the second bit. But it doesn't meet the careless bit.

Loads of colleagues I know give them out incorrectly. No matter how much we (as a department) tell them.

[Hugo Stiglitz v2]

If you've ever been to a organised street cruise you'll realise just how every moment is close to a serious collision.

In my area we had this issue every Fri. It was resource intensive and existing powers weren't immediate so they could just chose to rock up somewhere new one week. There were some nasty injuries. Really preventable. All because people watched a Hollywood film thinking they were in LA/Tokyo in a decent car with fawning people round them when in reality it was a tired old car across from a McDonald's in Stevenage.

I don't see what PHers are worried about unless you boot it on purpose sideways around public roads?

[119]

Excellent idea.

The other extra tweak they could do is to crush them.

[CHLEMCBC]

LosingGrip said:

However, it needs to be for the correct reasons. The OP shouldn't have got one for the speed, as there needs to be a Section 3 RTA offence as well as the alarm, distress and annoyance (unless there is more to it).

of course there's no more to it...

[119]

CHLEMCBC said:

LosingGrip said:

However, it needs to be for the correct reasons. The OP shouldn't have got one for the speed, as there needs to be a Section 3 RTA offence as well as the alarm, distress and annoyance (unless there is more to it).

of course there's no more to it...

Go on?

[Dingu]

LosingGrip said:

Whilst I like the idea of instant seizures. Why should someone be warned not to drive like a dick when we all know anyway...

However, it needs to be for the correct reasons. The OP shouldn't have got one for the speed, as there needs to be a Section 3 RTA offence as well as the alarm, distress and annoyance (unless there is more to it).

Me revving my bike as I go through a tunnel might meet the second bit. But it doesn't meet the careless bit.

Loads of colleagues I know give them out incorrectly. No matter how much we (as a department) tell them.

Assuming the OP is right….

[Tony1963]

Good news.

Behave yourself and be a considerate citizen, no issues.

Treat the public roads, car parks and pavements like a playground… bye bye, I’ve no time for you.

[Silvanus]

2020vision said:

Seems to be clear though:
"...The Home Office said police would also get stronger powers to deal with "the scourge of off-road bikes in public parks and dangerous e-scooters on pavements, street racing and cruising".

Under the plans, officers would no longer have to issue a warning before seizing vehicles involved in anti-social behaviour..."

Don't engage in these activities in a way that is anti-social and you will have no issues. People have been suggesting for years that the police should deal with matters swiftly. Hallelujah!!!

'Bloody police aren't doing enough to tackle anti social behaviour'. Police get new powers to tackle things more quickly and effectively. 'bloody police are too heavy handed, we live in a police state'. People in this country are bunch of miserable bd's that like nothing more than to complain about stuff, then complain some more.

[CHLEMCBC]

119 said:

CHLEMCBC said:

LosingGrip said:

However, it needs to be for the correct reasons. The OP shouldn't have got one for the speed, as there needs to be a Section 3 RTA offence as well as the alarm, distress and annoyance (unless there is more to it).

of course there's no more to it...

Go on?

There never is. "The Police" are all jobsworth ignoramuses who target the innocent motorist. Have you never seen the evidence on social media?

[119]

CHLEMCBC said:

119 said:

CHLEMCBC said:

LosingGrip said:

However, it needs to be for the correct reasons. The OP shouldn't have got one for the speed, as there needs to be a Section 3 RTA offence as well as the alarm, distress and annoyance (unless there is more to it).

of course there's no more to it...

Go on?

There never is. "The Police" are all jobsworth ignoramuses who target the innocent motorist. Have you never seen the evidence on social media?

Ah, this is the usual ‘I pay your wages’ thread.

Gotcha.

[CypSIdders]

Hugo Stiglitz v2 said:

I don't see what PHers are worried about unless you boot it on purpose sideways around public roads?

From the post above yours, from the horses mouth, so to speak.

"Loads of colleagues I know give them out incorrectly. No matter how much we (as a department) tell them".

[Plymo]

2020vision said:

kiethton said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lk4ywdn2o

Just reading through the news and seen that they're now proposing to be able to seize vehicles accused of ASB immediately.

I assume that this would be through a small tweak to S59 legislation. Given the police like to give them out like confetti (I got one myself to accompany a speeding report!?! Some years ago) I struggle to see how this could work unless they remove any form of judgement:

We don't like your attitude (despite giving police often giving it and motorists responding in kind), car seized.

Your car looks like one that's been causing trouble, without any evidence, seized

Your exhaust passes MoT's, track day noise limits but is too loud for Maybel at #2, seized.

I don't like you as you caught us out lieing/refused to give information your not obliged to, car seized.

I fail to see how this can even work, especially as there is no right/ability to appeal....like they'd pay you back your costs when proven wrong either.

What is this country coming to - more authoritarian by the day!

1. MakeOrwellFictionAgain

Seems to be clear though:
"...The Home Office said police would also get stronger powers to deal with "the scourge of off-road bikes in public parks and dangerous e-scooters on pavements, street racing and cruising".

Under the plans, officers would no longer have to issue a warning before seizing vehicles involved in anti-social behaviour..."

Don't engage in these activities in a way that is anti-social and you will have no issues. People have been suggesting for years that the police should deal with matters swiftly. Hallelujah!!!

I don't see how this would make any difference to illegal off road bikes/escooters/sur-rons etc as they already have the ability to seize them immediately as they are uninsured & unregistered. The reason they often don't is that they are not exactly easy to catch... So more powers to do something they already could do, but often can't.

On the other hand, it could create a situation (for normal people who have number plates, and stop when ordered to) where their vehicle can be seized, on the spot, based on one person's opinion that it's being used in an "anti-social" manner".
Meanwhile speeding, careless driving, etc etc you won't get your car seized, and have the opportunity to argue it in court.

Doesn't really seem proportionate! I'd say the reason for the police's apparent lack of action against a lot of the scrotes we see has nothing to do with a lack of powers (as above, they're already breaking loads of laws) but more about the issues around them being able (and willing...) to actually use those powers.

[Hugo Stiglitz v2]

CypSIdders said:

Hugo Stiglitz v2 said:

I don't see what PHers are worried about unless you boot it on purpose sideways around public roads?

From the post above yours, from the horses mouth, so to speak.

"Loads of colleagues I know give them out incorrectly. No matter how much we (as a department) tell them".

Whereas I don't see that.

[trickywoo]

Plymo said:

I don't see how this would make any difference to illegal off road bikes/escooters/sur-rons etc as they already have the ability to seize them immediately as they are uninsured & unregistered. The reason they often don't is that they are not exactly easy to catch... So more powers to do something they already could do, but often can't.

On the other hand, it could create a situation (for normal people who have number plates, and stop when ordered to) where their vehicle can be seized, on the spot, based on one person's opinion that it's being used in an "anti-social" manner".
Meanwhile speeding, careless driving, etc etc you won't get your car seized, and have the opportunity to argue it in court.

Doesn't really seem proportionate! I'd say the reason for the police's apparent lack of action against a lot of the scrotes we see has nothing to do with a lack of powers (as above, they're already breaking loads of laws) but more about the issues around them being able (and willing...) to actually use those powers.

Exactly. It’s an enormous power with insufficient checks and balances.

Grant the police the same powers to enter your house and take property to a similar value based on hearsay and see what happens.

[Hugo Stiglitz v2]

trickywoo said:

Exactly. It’s an enormous power with insufficient checks and balances.

Grant the police the same powers to enter your house and take property to a similar value based on hearsay and see what happens.

So you're saying an officer who has reasonable belief and reasonable grounds ( more than suspicion) is the same as "hearsay"?

How many people do all of us know that have been the subject of a S59? Me none.

As for house searches, it's usually post arrest....

[trickywoo]

Hugo Stiglitz v2 said:

So you're saying an officer who has reasonable belief and reasonable grounds ( more than suspicion) is the same as "hearsay"?

Yes that’s right. The integrity of individual officers has been found lacking in far too many instances to give them these powers without additional checks / balances. It’s reckless to do so.