echoz Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 pate out of a dead horse? been shopping in tesco again Dave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid life crisis Posted April 3, 2013 Author Share Posted April 3, 2013 Ok here we go :laugh: :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 If I followed that correctly the cyclist had ridden through a red light. Therefore he had committed an offence. Therefore he was obliged to give his details to a police officer. Failing to give his details would, I would have thought, be an arrestable offence. I don't think it matters that he wasn't driving a car. A police officer does not have to quote the law, word for word, in order to know what he can prosecute someone. He only needs to know that riding through a red light is an offence (well I hope it is) I've never seen a dead horse resurrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgey Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 That video. ... The guy on the bike..not the copper... What a Dangler. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Agreed, I would have called for support and arrested him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid life crisis Posted April 3, 2013 Author Share Posted April 3, 2013 The copper was clearly a numptie, who should have never been let out alone Had no idea of the principles of what he was trying to enforce, would he have had any training in the basic principles of law Frightning thing is, he actualy would be able to issue a Section 59. If he knew what it was. I hope he never gets into a traffic car Sadly with a starting salary for an officer of £18000 we will probably be subjected to more like him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid life crisis Posted April 3, 2013 Author Share Posted April 3, 2013 Agreed, I would have called for support and arrested him. Personally I would prefer to see my taxes spent on something more constructive, than sending police officers and vehicles across London. To arrest a cyclist for going through a red light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 But MLC, whenever there's a thread on cyclist some will always complain about them riding through a red light. The bobby was thrown and wasn't sure of his rights to arrest the chap for failing to provide his name and address. I would have just said: "you have committed an offence and are therefore obliged to provide me with your name and address. I do not need to know the exact wording of the law, that's for the legal experts. Now I will ask one more time and then I will arrest you for failing to provide me with your name and address. I would also be obliged if you could keep the camera going so we can use it as evidence. Now, what is your name and address" Anyone want to bet he would have given me his name and address. The bobby was clearly rattled and could probably do with more training - as if they don't get enough! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jak Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 FOR GODS PEOPLE CAN WE DROP THIS NOW? The Police are n't perfect and neither are we. Life's not fair sometimes, accept it and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 But it's keeping me amused Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jak Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The horse is dead, make some burgers out of it! Norm, have n't you got better things to do than bait people on here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Colonial Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 On a more serious note... ...what happened to Sections 1-58? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 They don't understand them so don't use them. Jak, I'm sort of half watching the programme on Hillsborough. I'm going to sit down and concentrate now. See you later, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MK11 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Section 59 is an extremely poor piece of legislation that requires no proof of guilt, in effect you are guilty until proven innocent and even if you are proven innocent you will struggle to get the section 59 removed. What nobody has asked yet that I find strange is that why was section 59 used at all? Surely if the lad in the OP "sped" away from the Police then the correct route would have been to charge him with speeding. Did the lad not actually exceed the posted limit so in all actuality the only thing he is guilty of was accelerating faster than the police officer could keep up? Section 59 should not be used in many cases where it currently is since there is already sufficient legislation in place to cover every offence, the only difference is that these require a level of proof that is a dream for anyone charged under section 59. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid life crisis Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 Well thought out post MK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.