acpo guidelines

[sassanach0]

can anyone tell me what guidelines cover the siting and use of the lti dodgescope.my company van has been "lasered" on a dual carraigeway about 15 inches above the central reservation barrier,i was under the impression that metallic objects in the immediate vicinity of the beam gave iffy readings and in theory should be discounted.no problem sussing out the driver but i dont want anyone paying out any more tax to gordon if it can be avoided.advice please

[Mg6b]

Acpo guidelines are not a basis to form a defence about an alleged speeding offence.

They are merely advice on good practice. They do not constitute law.

They may be grounds for you to make a complaint against the officer if they were being breached. That is about all.

[andmole]

This has been done to death elsewhere, they are not guidelines, they are a code of practise. [Irony]For example I am sure that these "guidelines" are only a general indication of how custody suites should be run, and can be ignored if the custody sargeant feels like it.[/Irony]

Repeat after me:

CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES
CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES
CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES

A pedant will be along in a minute to tell me I've got the wrong version of the word practice/practise

[Derek Smith]

In theory, you cannot challenge the effectiveness of an approved device in court. So if you pleaded not guilty to being caught on a Gatso saying that your speedometer was showing you were within the law, so the device must have been defective, the court is obliged to convict. Any guidelines, or instructions on the operation of the device which are not followed might give you reason to challenge. So if, as you say, there were objects in the view of the device which might have affected the readings and which are proscribed by the operating instructions then there might well be an opening. I would suggest you would also need legal advice as well.

[Derek Smith]

andmole said:

This has been done to death elsewhere, they are not guidelines, they are a code of practise. [Irony]For example I am sure that these "guidelines" are only a general indication of how custody suites should be run, and can be ignored if the custody sargeant feels like it.[/Irony]

Repeat after me:

CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES
CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES
CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES

A pedant will be along in a minute to tell me I've got the wrong version of the word practice/practise

I don't think pedant is the right word.

[streaky]

Code of practice for operational use of enforcement equipment said:

(Last reviewed 31 December 2005)
Foreword

The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 required the Home Office Type Approval of evidential radar speed meters. The Road Traffic Act 1991 expanded this provision to allow for the type approval of other devices used in the enforcement of road traffic law.

While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.

The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.

These standards are in your hands.

R Brunstrom
Chief Constable
North Wales Police
Head of ACPO Road Policing Business Area

My emphasis, no further comment! - Streaky

[andmole]

streaky said:

Code of practice for operational use of enforcement equipment said:

(Last reviewed 31 December 2005)
Foreword

The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 required the Home Office Type Approval of evidential radar speed meters. The Road Traffic Act 1991 expanded this provision to allow for the type approval of other devices used in the enforcement of road traffic law.

While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.

The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.

These standards are in your hands.

R Brunstrom
Chief Constable
North Wales Police
Head of ACPO Road Policing Business Area

My emphasis, no further comment! - Streaky

[Mg6b]

Failure to comply with ACPO guidelines is not the basis of a defence in law. If some of those guidelines affect the operation of a specific piece of equipment such as its siting or operation as laid down by the manufacturers instructions for use, then a challenge would probably succeed.

That fact that the ACPO guidelines state the officer should be wearing a yellow vest will not!

[Peter Ward]

Mg6b said:

Failure to comply with ACPO guidelines is not the basis of a defence in law. If some of those guidelines affect the operation of a specific piece of equipment such as its siting or operation as laid down by the manufacturers instructions for use, then a challenge would probably succeed.

That fact that the ACPO guidelines state the officer should be wearing a yellow vest will not!

The magistrates are not interested in the CoP. Deviations from it are considered relevant only if they materially affect the likely result.

So for example if you are done at a distance greater than the CoP permits (610m) but within the distance that the device is approved at (LTI 20/20 = 999.9m) then the device's approval takes precedence over the CoP. The CoP states that the camera should be within 10ft of the side of the road but this is ignored. The CoP states that the camera must be held steady on the vehicle but this is ignored. The CoP states that if there is any reason to doubt the reading then it must be discarded but this is ignored.

I hope you're getting the picture.....

[Peter Ward]

Derek Smith said:

andmole said:

This has been done to death elsewhere, they are not guidelines, they are a code of practise. [Irony]For example I am sure that these "guidelines" are only a general indication of how custody suites should be run, and can be ignored if the custody sargeant feels like it.[/Irony]

Repeat after me:

CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES
CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES
CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES

A pedant will be along in a minute to tell me I've got the wrong version of the word practice/practise

I don't think pedant is the right word.

Not sure about "pedant" but I am sure that it should be "PRACTICE". "Practise" is the verb, eg. "I am practising the piano", "I practise medicine", and "Practice" is the noun, eg. "I am doing my piano practice", "I have a medical practice".

I can't think of another verb/noun combination offhand that follows the same pattern. However, I do like the combinations that change pronunciation depending on whether they're verb or noun. For example "I refuse to do that" and "that rubbish is refuse". Isn't English wonderful?

Any similar stuff in German, Wildy?

[streaky]

Peter Ward said:

Derek Smith said:

andmole said:

This has been done to death elsewhere, they are not guidelines, they are a code of practise. [Irony]For example I am sure that these "guidelines" are only a general indication of how custody suites should be run, and can be ignored if the custody sargeant feels like it.[/Irony]

Repeat after me:

CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES
CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES
CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES

A pedant will be along in a minute to tell me I've got the wrong version of the word practice/practise

I don't think pedant is the right word.

Not sure about "pedant" but I am sure that it should be "PRACTICE". "Practise" is the verb, eg. "I am practising the piano", "I practise medicine", and "Practice" is the noun, eg. "I am doing my piano practice", "I have a medical practice".

I can't think of another verb/noun combination offhand that follows the same pattern. However, I do like the combinations that change pronunciation depending on whether they're verb or noun. For example "I refuse to do that" and "that rubbish is refuse". Isn't English wonderful?

Any similar stuff in German, Wildy?

Advice/advise. Other trips (some of them oft-times seen on here), include:

• affect and effect
• discreet and discrete
• hear and here
• its and it's [Lynn Truss, where are you when we need you?]
• lead and led
• learnt and learned
• less and fewer [when will supermarkets learn the difference?]
• loose and lose
• poor, pore and pour
• principal and principle
• spelt and spelled
• sort and sought
• there, their and they're
• threw, through and thorough
• to and too
• warn and worn
• whose and who's
• your, you're and 'you'

Streaky

[Highway61]

offence/offense
to/too/two

[Mad Moggie2]

streaky said:

Peter Ward said:

Derek Smith said:

andmole said:

This has been done to death elsewhere, they are not guidelines, they are a code of practise. [Irony]For example I am sure that these "guidelines" are only a general indication of how custody suites should be run, and can be ignored if the custody sargeant feels like it.[/Irony]

Repeat after me:

CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES
CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES
CODE OF PRACTISE, NOT GUIDELINES

A pedant will be along in a minute to tell me I've got the wrong version of the word practice/practise

I don't think pedant is the right word.

Not sure about "pedant" but I am sure that it should be "PRACTICE". "Practise" is the verb, eg. "I am practising the piano", "I practise medicine", and "Practice" is the noun, eg. "I am doing my piano practice", "I have a medical practice".

I can't think of another verb/noun combination offhand that follows the same pattern. However, I do like the combinations that change pronunciation depending on whether they're verb or noun. For example "I refuse to do that" and "that rubbish is refuse". Isn't English wonderful?

Any similar stuff in German, Wildy?

Advice/advise. Other trips (some of them oft-times seen on here), include:

• affect and effect
• discreet and discrete
• hear and here
• its and it's [Lynn Truss, where are you when we need you?]
• lead and led
• learnt and learned
• less and fewer [when will supermarkets learn the difference?]
• loose and lose
• poor, pore and pour
• principal and principle
• spelt and spelled
• sort and sought
• there, their and they're
• threw, through and thorough
• to and too
• warn and worn
• whose and who's
• your, you're and 'you'

Streaky

I once wanted to remark that the weather was close. But I mis-pronounced it - and called the rather large man I was talking to at the time "gay"

Be careful if you want to say the weather is "schwuel". Don't say "scwhul" as it gets (the German speakers use the word for "bring" you into a "Schwultaet" (a bit of a fix .. )


Streaky .. Wildy has lots of "fun" with all of the above. It's not just the irking under your skin use of "ist and und" I've tried. I have huge posters in her lair and on the kitchen fridge/freezer and the family noticeboard in said kitchen - but it;s her "auburn" moment. as opposed to a "blonde one"

[Mad Moggie2]

Highway61 said:

offence/offense
to/too/two

And

er "jist snd .. er gist"





Sorry Steve! I really could not resist pulling your leg here

But "offence" (defence and colour) are English English.

"offense" like "defense" .. like "color" are American English and not English English

I admit that reading American English does irritate me though.

But we do have a rich but complicated language. I gather Spanish is allegedly easier to learn as its grammar and pronunciation are less complex to English speakers in particular.

[Derek Smith]

I have a Japanese daughter-in-law who experiences great difficulty with words that can be pronounced in different ways depending - in many cases - on context. My mother's maiden name was Cockshott, pronounced Co'shaw, but not by many, which bewilders my daughter-in-law. But the most difficult word/phrase is uh-huh which can mean so many different things.

[fluffnik]

Derek Smith said:

In theory, you cannot challenge the effectiveness of an approved device in court. So if you pleaded not guilty to being caught on a Gatso saying that your speedometer was showing you were within the law, so the device must have been defective, the court is obliged to convict.

Justice?

Not even close.

The whole stinky edifice needs torn down and replaced, with only fresh material.