Putting a bin liner over a Gatso
Discussion
Muncher said:
Could any of the BiB here say whether it would be a criminal offence to place a black bin liner over a Gatso, possibly tied on with string?
It is criminal damage.
There's a clear and binding ruling to the effect that "preventing normal operation" constitutes damage to the device's ability to function.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Muncher said:
Do you know where in the statute?
It's not in the statute. It's case law. But I don't know the reference for you. Sorry.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Done to death, here. www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=13&f=10&t=3311&h=0
Interesting to note the slow and very frightening change of attitude over a period of just 2 years
Interesting to note the slow and very frightening change of attitude over a period of just 2 years
Best way to do it is to drive a white van, flashing amber lights, two people with hi-viz jackets and ladders to put a bag over it with dayglo orange paint with an "out of order" sign attached.
Draw that much attention to yourself, no one will notice.
A bit like the blokes that stole a couple of miles of railway track, everyone thought they were contractors.
Draw that much attention to yourself, no one will notice.
A bit like the blokes that stole a couple of miles of railway track, everyone thought they were contractors.
safespeed said:But it would continue to operate normally. The radar would still work. The flash would still work. The camera would still work. It would just take pictures of the inside of the bag.
There's a clear and binding ruling to the effect that "preventing normal operation" constitutes damage to the device's ability to function.
Streaky (Not condoning anything illegal, just pointing out a possible discrepency in interpretation)
streaky said:
There's a clear and binding ruling to the effect that "preventing normal operation" constitutes damage to the device's ability to function.
But it would continue to operate normally. The radar would still work. The flash would still work. The camera would still work. It would just take pictures of the inside of the bag.
Streaky (Not condoning anything illegal, just pointing out a possible discrepency in interpretation)
We'd need the exact wording of the ruling to decide if that might be a defence.
I did ask a lawyer a few years ago and his answer was unequivocal. I've been happy to accept it as fact since then, but clearly you are right to question the small print.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
It really is worth reading the first couple of pages of the thread I posted earlier. I suggest that bagging cameras could well be a legitimate part of a larger protest action and as bagging in no way can be construed as intending to cause permanent damage, if carried out in very large quantities ie thousands of cameras then it is unlikely to be opposed by anyone other than the scamera partneships. In the same way as Huntingdon life science was all but bankrupted by protestors outside their building the scamera scum could be dealt with in the same way. I for one however am in favour of peacefull demonstrations. The violent attacks on Huntingdon workers was disgusting and while I consider scamera workers to be the lowest form of human scum we should not stoop to that level. Just some thoughts which if ever to be actioned should be done through the ABD. This is a forum not a focus group.
The terms "destroy" and "damage" are not defined under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and what constitutes this a matter of fact and degree for a Court to decide: Damage need not be permanent (Roe v Kingerlee 1986).
It can include permanent OR temporary impairment of value or usefulness (Morphins v Salmon 1989).
If such conduct accepted at Court then one should also be aware of a further offence to be considered of possession of an article to use to damage property (S3 CDA 71)
DVD
It can include permanent OR temporary impairment of value or usefulness (Morphins v Salmon 1989).
If such conduct accepted at Court then one should also be aware of a further offence to be considered of possession of an article to use to damage property (S3 CDA 71)
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:Well, that would take the council refuse trucks off the road; and outside the supermarkets would be a good place to stop and arrest shoppers
The terms "destroy" and "damage" are not defined under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and what constitutes this a matter of fact and degree for a Court to decide: Damage need not be permanent (Roe v Kingerlee 1986).
It can include permanent OR temporary impairment of value or usefulness (Morphins v Salmon 1989).
If such conduct accepted at Court then one should also be aware of a further offence to be considered of possession of an article to use to damage property (S3 CDA 71)
DVD
- StreakyWould there be any offence at all then if there was no camera inside the box at the time? It owuld not be perverting the course, inhibiting action etc. because the empty box does nothing. The only thing would be that people wouldn't slow down so maybe you would be "encouraging others to break the law!"
It would probably take a lot of bags though as many boxes are empty most of the time.
It would probably take a lot of bags though as many boxes are empty most of the time.
Dwight VanDriver said:HA1980 (c66) s132: "A person who, without either the consent of the highway authority for the highway in question or an authorisation given by or under an enactment or a reasonable excuse, paints or otherwise inscribes or affixes any picture, letter, sign or other mark upon the surface of a highway or upon any tree, structure or works on or in a highway" - begs the question whether a bin liner is an "other mark". The definitions appear to suggest that the "mark" should be defined by something that gives (or purports to give) some information ("picture", "letter", "sign") ... which a plain black bin liner clearly does not. Would make an interesting debate
Andyps
Would cause a discussion with CPS to see if they would wear an attempt to cause C.D. and/0r
Person without consent of Highway Authority affixes a mark upon any structure in a Highway, - offence under S 132 Highways Act 1980132 (&1000 fine).
dvd
- StreakySimilar thread to my bagging question. I am in favour of doing something, anything that will turn the tide against this Orwellian enforcement!
It's not just the fact that it's become another tax, it's the psychology of it's impersonal delivery and the methods of using a camera against ACPO and scameraship guidelines that makes my blood boil!
Bag em, stand in front of em, I really don't care. I would be willing to join some sort of organised anti-camera campaign in whatever form it takes.
Whilst I don't condone law breaking, it is perfectly aceptable to discuss protesting, in fact, it is necessary in a true democracy.
Was Emily Pankhurst breaking the law when she chained herself to the railings? Were the poll tax protesters acting within the law? I doubt it, but these are examples of how things can be made to change.
One thing is for sure, if we do nothing, nothing will change and we should not complain if we do not stand up for what we believe in!
It's not just the fact that it's become another tax, it's the psychology of it's impersonal delivery and the methods of using a camera against ACPO and scameraship guidelines that makes my blood boil!
Bag em, stand in front of em, I really don't care. I would be willing to join some sort of organised anti-camera campaign in whatever form it takes.
Whilst I don't condone law breaking, it is perfectly aceptable to discuss protesting, in fact, it is necessary in a true democracy.
Was Emily Pankhurst breaking the law when she chained herself to the railings? Were the poll tax protesters acting within the law? I doubt it, but these are examples of how things can be made to change.
One thing is for sure, if we do nothing, nothing will change and we should not complain if we do not stand up for what we believe in!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff