Required information?
Discussion
My friend got stopped in his (rather loud) 205 yesterday on his way to meet us down the pub (no he didnt drink). Apparently, he was stopped for going through a yellow light. What is quite puzzling is that the officer then proceeded to tell him that he would be issued a letter whereby if he was stopped again or a complaint was made about his car over the next year, it would be crushed 
Is this true, or is it something that was said to try and scare my mate? Also said officer called in to see if wanted, asked shoe size, and if my mate had any tattoos, then asked to see them???? wtf is this all about? Would this be something that would have to be provided to said officer? I have never been asked this when stopped, but would prolly have told said copper to **** off in a polite way, especially if I knew I had done nothing wrong.
Is this true, or is it something that was said to try and scare my mate? Also said officer called in to see if wanted, asked shoe size, and if my mate had any tattoos, then asked to see them???? wtf is this all about? Would this be something that would have to be provided to said officer? I have never been asked this when stopped, but would prolly have told said copper to **** off in a polite way, especially if I knew I had done nothing wrong.Maybe your mate is being victimised for driving a chavved up "rather loud" 205?
In which case top marks to the police!
Maybe after a few more trips to the nick with his documents he'll get it into his thick skull that driving pointlessly loud chav cars pees everybody off.
Wow! I feel like I really just got something off my chest!
SM
In which case top marks to the police!
Maybe after a few more trips to the nick with his documents he'll get it into his thick skull that driving pointlessly loud chav cars pees everybody off.
Wow! I feel like I really just got something off my chest!
SM
ipsg.glf said:
Flat in Fifth said:
Sounds like your mate is going to be issued with a Section 59 notice too, another piece of vile legislation being used inappropriately, or at least inappropriately based on the information as posted.
What makes you say that?
makes me say what?
a) that it sounds as if he is being issued with a Section 59
or
b) the comment about the legislation itself?
or
c) both?
supermono said:
Maybe your mate is being victimised for driving a chavved up "rather loud" 205?
In which case top marks to the police!
Maybe after a few more trips to the nick with his documents he'll get it into his thick skull that driving pointlessly loud chav cars pees everybody off.
Wow! I feel like I really just got something off my chest!
SM
In which case top marks to the police!
Maybe after a few more trips to the nick with his documents he'll get it into his thick skull that driving pointlessly loud chav cars pees everybody off.
Wow! I feel like I really just got something off my chest!
SM
Yes, its a (stupidly) loud car. I have told him, but he won't listen - I'm not fussed as I don't have to drive it. Point is, they aren't illegal and his isn't the worst offender I've seen/heard either.
supermono said:
Maybe your mate is being victimised for driving a chavved up "rather loud" 205?
In which case top marks to the police!
Maybe after a few more trips to the nick with his documents he'll get it into his thick skull that driving pointlessly loud chav cars pees everybody off.
Wow! I feel like I really just got something off my chest!
SM
In which case top marks to the police!
Maybe after a few more trips to the nick with his documents he'll get it into his thick skull that driving pointlessly loud chav cars pees everybody off.
Wow! I feel like I really just got something off my chest!
SM
If it's not illegal then I fully support the young Chav's right to drive his loud 205. I may not like it, but either we have freedom of the indiviual or we don't. I get peed off with those who only support freedom when it's a freedom they themselves are in favour of - i.e middle class freedoms and to hell with the tasteless Chavs and their aspirations.
The evil Daily Mail has a lot to answer for IMO.
Flat in Fifth said:
ipsg.glf said:
Flat in Fifth said:
Sounds like your mate is going to be issued with a Section 59 notice too, another piece of vile legislation being used inappropriately, or at least inappropriately based on the information as posted.
What makes you say that?
makes me say what?
a) that it sounds as if he is being issued with a Section 59
or
b) the comment about the legislation itself?
or
c) both?
Why do you consider it vile?
Why do you consider it to have been used inappropriately?
andy zarse said:
I get peed off with those who only support freedom when it's a freedom they themselves are in favour of - i.e middle class freedoms and to hell with the tasteless Chavs and their aspirations.
SO, you hate Nu Laba then? Good man.
Freedom of Speech, if it means saying things they agree with
Freedom of Association, if it means Labour Conferences
Freedom to Protest, if it isn't against the Govt.
As before looks like a S59 notice. If the driver (driving that or another vehicle) or the vehicle (driven by him or another driver) incurs another S59 the vehicle being driven at that time will be confiscated. It will be returned on payment of fine - failure to pay fine will result in destruction of vehicle.
Of course something as drocanian as this will have safeguards in terms of the behaviour required to attract a S59 notice which is a single BiB feels the manner of driving would be considered inconsiderate and it could (not has) cause distress to another party (including themselves)
it also has a robust appeal process which is none - it doesn't go to court, you can't take it to court, you have no right of appeal
Of course something as drocanian as this will have safeguards in terms of the behaviour required to attract a S59 notice which is a single BiB feels the manner of driving would be considered inconsiderate and it could (not has) cause distress to another party (including themselves)
it also has a robust appeal process which is none - it doesn't go to court, you can't take it to court, you have no right of appeal
ipsg.glf said:
Flat in Fifth said:
ipsg.glf said:
Flat in Fifth said:
Sounds like your mate is going to be issued with a Section 59 notice too, another piece of vile legislation being used inappropriately, or at least inappropriately based on the information as posted.
What makes you say that?
makes me say what?
a) that it sounds as if he is being issued with a Section 59
or
b) the comment about the legislation itself?
or
c) both?
Why do you consider it vile?
Why do you consider it to have been used inappropriately?
Are you VH's brother? You seem to have the same "all current laws are utterly beyond reproach" attitude.
gpshead said:
ipsg.glf said:
Flat in Fifth said:
ipsg.glf said:
Flat in Fifth said:
Sounds like your mate is going to be issued with a Section 59 notice too, another piece of vile legislation being used inappropriately, or at least inappropriately based on the information as posted.
What makes you say that?
makes me say what?
a) that it sounds as if he is being issued with a Section 59
or
b) the comment about the legislation itself?
or
c) both?
Why do you consider it vile?
Why do you consider it to have been used inappropriately?
Are you VH's brother? You seem to have the same "all current laws are utterly beyond reproach" attitude.
No, I'm not. I just want to understand his objections.
ipsg.glf said:
Flat in Fifth said:
ipsg.glf said:
Flat in Fifth said:
Sounds like your mate is going to be issued with a Section 59 notice too, another piece of vile legislation being used inappropriately, or at least inappropriately based on the information as posted.
What makes you say that?
makes me say what?
a) that it sounds as if he is being issued with a Section 59
or
b) the comment about the legislation itself?
or
c) both?
Why do you consider it vile?
Why do you consider it to have been used inappropriately?
It's a piece of legislation which, on face value, was brought in under the justification that something needed to be done about idiots donutting in public car parks and similar behaviour.
All so good, so far.
However the legislation itself when enacted is simply based on the belief of a police officer that a vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-
(a)contravenes section 3 or 34 of the RTA1988 c52 (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b)is causing, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he has the powers under section 3.
Section 3 says
(3) Those powers are-
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
Note it does not have to have actually caused any alarm or distress, simply an officer has to believe it might cause.
Right, why is this law vile?
Point 1
As stated by another poster, the matter is not heard before a court ie report on summons, the person issued the notice has no right of appeal, cannot elect for the matter to be heard in court, it is simply the decision of the officer.
Point 2 vile and inappropriate
Now this legislation seems to be being used in many cases where it is very doubtful that a prosecution case under S3 or S34 of RTA 1988 would hold up under scrutiny. I would argue, as in fact exactly as vonhosen has also argued on more than one occasion, that a S59 notice is only appropriate where a report on summons is also made for S3 or S34 offences. (edited later to add:- also appropriate if a FPN under S34 is accepted by the driver)
Right, in this case S34 clearly does not apply, not driving off road.
So does S3 apply? Well re the noisy exhaust, will it cause distress / annoynce etc. If the exhaust is so noisy that it is an offence under Constr and Use regs, then why not get a proper measurement, get a vehicle examiner in and make a professional decision, and report that, and in conjunction then issue a S59. But it appears from the evidence posted, and I do note we only have one hearsay side of the story, that such an examination was not done, nor any report on the vehicle made.
Likewise the amber light issue. If it was an offence then report under S36 , failing to obey traffic sign, of course S59 has sod all to do with that part of the Act, but so what. We are so far away from proper procedures why let that little obstacle in the way.
So this individual now potentially has a notice about to be slapped on him, possibly completely incorrectly and inappropriately, and has no right to be heard in court and has no right of appeal. As a result he may have his vehicle siezed and crushed.
He may of course sell his vehicle to another person who is unaware that the vehicle is subject to a S59 notice and if he falls foul could get a nasty shock without any warning.
I repeat, a vile piece of legislation applied inappropriately.
QED.
FiF
Repeat All along noted that we only have one hearsay side of the story.
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 26th January 21:08
I'd agree actually, hence the emphasis on one side and hearsay. Still doesn't alter my basic view of S59 unfortunately. ipsg.glf said:
Flat in Fifth said:
Sounds like your mate is going to be issued with a Section 59 notice too, another piece of vile legislation being used inappropriately, or at least inappropriately based on the information as posted.
What makes you say that?
Probably the vileness of the nasty proto-fascist legislation.
...add in the somewhat marginal basis on which the threat was made for truly boiling piss.
I hope the victim makes a formal complaint of harassment.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff