NIP for waving at a scamera van???
Discussion
The question below was circulated by Idris F. Anyone have any thoughts?
I recall one bunch of revenue raisers had motorbike chase teams to apprehend anyone who gave the finger to the operators. Not sure what the "offence" was.
T
>Subject: [unsigned_forms] NIP for non-camera offence???
>Reply-To: unsigned_forms@yahoogroups.com
>
>Hi,
Does anyone have any thoughts on this:
A chap called Stuart has recently posted on the ABD group saying that he has received an NIP for "Dangerous/careless or inconsiderate driving" due
to giving a cheerful wave, though perhaps with only one finger, as he passed a camera van.
Does anyone know if they can send you an NIP for such an offence and if it would be covered by s172? In other words is the NIP valid and does he have to complete it?
As I recall there was something about the NIP only being valid if the offence carried a moderate penalty but I would have thought that there are more fundamental issues at stake here.
If this NIP is valid what's to stop them sending out NIPs for murder? They could clear up all those unsolved crimes by sending out NIPs to random people demanding that they are signed and implying that the victim will be hit even harder if they refuse to sign.
I think that this is a frightening development and would be interested in any thoughts or comments. Stuart gives the details of the form as follows:
It is a NIP Form B14 (Rev 7/00) (in top left corner) - West Mercia
Constabulary - Safety Camera Partnership No other forms were with it ... for now I have to cut off the bottom 1/4 and return it with the drivers
details. Ends.............
Police state?????????
I recall one bunch of revenue raisers had motorbike chase teams to apprehend anyone who gave the finger to the operators. Not sure what the "offence" was.
T
>Subject: [unsigned_forms] NIP for non-camera offence???
>Reply-To: unsigned_forms@yahoogroups.com
>
>Hi,
Does anyone have any thoughts on this:
A chap called Stuart has recently posted on the ABD group saying that he has received an NIP for "Dangerous/careless or inconsiderate driving" due
to giving a cheerful wave, though perhaps with only one finger, as he passed a camera van.
Does anyone know if they can send you an NIP for such an offence and if it would be covered by s172? In other words is the NIP valid and does he have to complete it?
As I recall there was something about the NIP only being valid if the offence carried a moderate penalty but I would have thought that there are more fundamental issues at stake here.
If this NIP is valid what's to stop them sending out NIPs for murder? They could clear up all those unsolved crimes by sending out NIPs to random people demanding that they are signed and implying that the victim will be hit even harder if they refuse to sign.
I think that this is a frightening development and would be interested in any thoughts or comments. Stuart gives the details of the form as follows:
It is a NIP Form B14 (Rev 7/00) (in top left corner) - West Mercia
Constabulary - Safety Camera Partnership No other forms were with it ... for now I have to cut off the bottom 1/4 and return it with the drivers
details. Ends.............
Police state?????????
This was his original message.
Appears he might have given a rapid double-handed wave........
He went to view the video today, but no news yet.
Just received a NIP form, informing me of intended prosecution for
"Dangerous/careless or inconsiderate driving".
Driving down the road last Sunday, was warned by numerous cars coming the
other way (flashing lights - thanks), so I slowed down to the 'correct
speed', just incase there was 'u know who' round the corner.
And there he was . . . parked in the grass verge on my side, facing towards
me (ie facing the wrong way).
As I drove towards him, my hand may have gestured something in his direction
(I was chatting with my wife officer), but no horn was sounded.
I cant imagine he has a picture of me, and I am just wondering which way to
go forward with this.
I have to return the NIP, stating me as the driver, but how can they
prosecute me ??
Any ideas?
Appears he might have given a rapid double-handed wave........
He went to view the video today, but no news yet.
Just received a NIP form, informing me of intended prosecution for
"Dangerous/careless or inconsiderate driving".
Driving down the road last Sunday, was warned by numerous cars coming the
other way (flashing lights - thanks), so I slowed down to the 'correct
speed', just incase there was 'u know who' round the corner.
And there he was . . . parked in the grass verge on my side, facing towards
me (ie facing the wrong way).
As I drove towards him, my hand may have gestured something in his direction
(I was chatting with my wife officer), but no horn was sounded.
I cant imagine he has a picture of me, and I am just wondering which way to
go forward with this.
I have to return the NIP, stating me as the driver, but how can they
prosecute me ??
Any ideas?
, 
. hertsbiker said:
They might be able to do you for abusive behaviour, but this has NOTHING to do with your driving license.... so they can fark off.
That is SOOOOOOOO wrong. Take the example of the bloke in Farnborough who was warning people of a camera van up the road. He got a temp driving ban and was no where near his car....
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=103468&f=10&h=0
NIP is issued in respect of quite a few offences, not just speeding!
Some of those that require NIP are
1. Dangerous driving/cycling
2. Careless driving/cycling
3. leaving vehicle in dangerous position,
4. Fail to comply with (some) traffic sign.
NIP and Section 172 are attached to the same form.
All an NIP is, is a warning formula to inform a driver of an offence which may have been committed in relation to that driving or vehicle.
Section 172 can be used for any Road Traffic Offence where the driver is not stopped at the time and his/her identity is required.
Section 172 is not limited to NIP offences only!
My guess is that the driver was guilty of a public order offence in relation to the use of his vehicle or even the public order offence alone. The fact he was driving a vehicle when he did it and the Police are investigating that offence allows them to use Section 172 to ascertain the name of the driver. It need not even be a motoriong offence although you can be guilty of using a vehicle against a section of the public oredr act which has been integrated within the Road Traffic Act (came onto statute books with Police reform act last year)
The Police have the power to seize your vehicle if you are using it in a manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress!
Make sure you do not fall foul of that legislation by waving
to people you do not particularly like if they have a video camera recording your greetings
Some of those that require NIP are
1. Dangerous driving/cycling
2. Careless driving/cycling
3. leaving vehicle in dangerous position,
4. Fail to comply with (some) traffic sign.
NIP and Section 172 are attached to the same form.
All an NIP is, is a warning formula to inform a driver of an offence which may have been committed in relation to that driving or vehicle.
Section 172 can be used for any Road Traffic Offence where the driver is not stopped at the time and his/her identity is required.
Section 172 is not limited to NIP offences only!
My guess is that the driver was guilty of a public order offence in relation to the use of his vehicle or even the public order offence alone. The fact he was driving a vehicle when he did it and the Police are investigating that offence allows them to use Section 172 to ascertain the name of the driver. It need not even be a motoriong offence although you can be guilty of using a vehicle against a section of the public oredr act which has been integrated within the Road Traffic Act (came onto statute books with Police reform act last year)
The Police have the power to seize your vehicle if you are using it in a manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress!
Make sure you do not fall foul of that legislation by waving
to people you do not particularly like if they have a video camera recording your greetings SpudGunner said:
They might be able to do you for abusive behaviour, but this has NOTHING to do with your driving license.... so they can fark off.
That is SOOOOOOOO wrong. Take the example of the bloke in Farnborough who was warning people of a camera van up the road. He got a temp driving ban and was no where near his car....
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=103468&f=10&h=0
YOU know that. I know that, but the cnuts in charge only care about money, not saving lives.
My son was badly beaten up recently.
His assailant got off at the first court hearing for lack of evidence, which was available from several witnesses.
It seems they couldn't be bothered to get the evidence.......
Then they put all this effort into clobbering someone for two fingers in the air because it hurt their feelings.
There's something very wrong here.
It's petty.
It's vindictive.
It's a failing police service............
His assailant got off at the first court hearing for lack of evidence, which was available from several witnesses.
It seems they couldn't be bothered to get the evidence.......
Then they put all this effort into clobbering someone for two fingers in the air because it hurt their feelings.
There's something very wrong here.
It's petty.
It's vindictive.
It's a failing police service............
gone said:
The Police have the power to seize your vehicle if you are using it in a manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress!
And they say we dont live in a police state!!!!!!
I can see it now....
Moaning old hag: OOOh look at that man in a loud sports car... How distressing......
Copper: Quick get im boys (you will have to imagine the thick east end accent...) Your nicked sunny, it's the cells for you and give us yer motor....
>> Edited by dontlift on Monday 7th June 23:10
Do you know my team spends all day - every day - trying to get the evidence YOU want us to get to put these shits away and all I read here is winging, fact lacking crap from people with NO idea of what happens in the real world
YES - sometimes they get off - not usually from the lack of trying of the BiB - sometimes due to the lack of support from the public (you now the ones crying out for the police to do more)
Just wind your neck in for once and think what you write (and perhaps get a life!)
This continuous drivel may make some feel like giving in (I hope not)
As for now its the lack of faith in the public you may instil
if theyre all like you portray the God help us!
Fortunately theyre not
>> Edited by gemini on Monday 7th June 23:24
YES - sometimes they get off - not usually from the lack of trying of the BiB - sometimes due to the lack of support from the public (you now the ones crying out for the police to do more)
Just wind your neck in for once and think what you write (and perhaps get a life!)
This continuous drivel may make some feel like giving in (I hope not)
As for now its the lack of faith in the public you may instil
if theyre all like you portray the God help us!
Fortunately theyre not
>> Edited by gemini on Monday 7th June 23:24
gone said:
The Police have the power to seize your vehicle if you are using it in a manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress!
I think the point is that he wasn't using his vehicle in a manner likely to cause harasment, he simply made an offensive (to the scam operator anyway) gesture. The fact that he happened to be in his car is surely neither here nor there.
If a pedestrian had given the bird to the scam operator, would they receive a NIP?
With vindictive actions like this, deltaf's "day of reckoning" will come sooner rather than later. I certainly wouldn't like to be a scam operator when public tolerance finaly snaps.
Mr2Mike said:
If a pedestrian had given the bird to the scam operator, would they receive a NIP?
.
No they would have their shoes removed and taken to the station for further examination. They would then be banned from walking in shoes for a month and charged with "walking without due care and attention"
gemini said:
Do you know ny team spend s all day - very day - trying to get the evidence YOU want us to get to put these shits away and all I read here is winging, fact lacking crap from people with NO idea of what happens in the real world
YES - sometime sthey get off - not usually from the lack of trying o fthe BiB
Just wind your neck in sometimes - think what you write and get a life!
This continuous drivel may make some feel like giving in
As for now its the lack of faith in the public I have if theyre all like you are portrayed!
Ouch, ouch, ouch.......I deserve that. Didn't make myself clear.
Don't get wound up. There aren't enough like you out there.....that's the problem. I take it as read that all here are good 'uns.
Criticism of some of your less balanced colleagues shouldn't be stifled just because lots of you are doing a difficult job well.
Would you waste all that time getting your own back because somebody stuck a finger up?
I would guess not. Am I right?
And I ain't mentioned half of what went wrong in my son's case. It's personal, and I've a right to complain.
My gripe is with useless senior officers and their political masters who've cocked up the service with red tape, political correctness, too much theorising and a dearth of common sense.
Well, it's not going to stop me giving them the bird. It's a political statement. How can it be offensive when the bird is given to an inanimate object?
Anyway, if the guy wasn't speeding, how could he be convicted? Surely the tape wasn't just left running and shooting anything that moves? That wouldn't be ACPO guidelines, now would it?
Anyway, if the guy wasn't speeding, how could he be convicted? Surely the tape wasn't just left running and shooting anything that moves? That wouldn't be ACPO guidelines, now would it?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff