yes and?
>>
Thank you for that contribution.
|
It would seem that we are rapidly approaching the situation where all and sundry can enjoy similar powers to police officers.
|
What's not in the report is that all the patrolers did was provide witness statements to the Police who investigated it like they would any traffic offence, they didn't actually book him so to speak, although I agree with your point Stuart.
PCSOs (oh he's off again) they can have different powers in different Divisions of the same Police Force - how the hell are the public supposed to know who does what ?
|
|
|
It would seem that we are rapidly approaching the situation where all and sundry can enjoy similar powers to police officers.
It is worrying that the HA mobile jobsworths are starting to get a bit of power, bad driving or not, only the Police should be involved in law enforcement, otherwise we will have a situation like they have in many African countries, with amateur (and usually corrupt) law enforcement people all over the place. I'll bet that many HA Traffic Officers are secretly longing for the day when they get issued with guns !!
|
|
|
|
>>Thank you for that contribution.
My pleasure. So, what's the point you are making with ther link? Any person can report bad or dangerous driving & if proved, the culprit can be punished. No story there really.
|
>>No story there really.>>
Well actually there is, judging by the follow up contribution by Pugugly {P} about certain aspects of the incident not being reported.....
The impression given by the story doesn't fully relate to the circumstances surrounding the reason for the fine being imposed.
Edited by Stuartli on 11/01/2008 at 00:09
|
>>Well actually there is, judging by the follow up contribution by Pugugly
Er, no actually. Anyone can report bad driving - which is what this was. No special powers needed. Just as I can arrest a miscreant & escort them to a police station or make a statement to police regarding anti-lawful activity.
|
Anyone can report bad driving - which is what this was.
But it was only bad driving because they, the non-police, said it was. Therein lies the rub.
Just as I can arrest a miscreant & escort them to a police station or make a statement to police regarding anti-lawful activity.
You can, of course. Good luck in your efforts - I think you'll need it, because you are not a pseudo-police force in the way that these non-police are.
|
|
|
|
No story....
Except perhaps that you mustn't upset the Wombles.
Edited by Screwloose on 11/01/2008 at 00:08
|
>>But it was only bad driving because they, the non-police, said it was. Therein lies the rub.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the process here. If witness(es) report any illegal activity (or dangerous driving in this case,which can have many interpretations & expressions) to the police & those allegations are corroborated (& proof is available to prosecute) - the fact that they're traffic regulators, private individuals or men in 8-foot fluffy rabbit costumes makes not the slightest difference, no rub at all, AFAICS, involved.
Edited by woodbines on 11/01/2008 at 00:37
|
give it 5yrs and this is what your common or garden "village vigillantes" (i can use this phrase now bwcause national press have!) will have evolved into. It will soon soon be the case where you can be prosecuted on "somebody's" say-so, instead of irreputable proof.
Billy
|
"It will soon soon be the case where you can be prosecuted on "somebody's" say-so, instead of irrefutable proof."
The patent for this was registered by the Nazi party in the 1930s....the rest, as they say, is history.
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 11/01/2008 at 06:24
|
The facts are quite straight forward to me (based on this story and other information on the radio) - HA Officers setup a rolling road block to ensure the safety of one of their colleagues who was removing debris from a motorway. Man overtakes this roadblock thus endangering the life of said colleague. Therefore man prosecuted. Why did he overtake?
If this was you at work - you'd want to ensure that this person is dealt with appropriately. Did this guy pass the attitude test??
I thought HA cars have cameras in? If so, then there must be some evidence from the cameras (whether this is admissable in court, I'm unsure)
Like most things in life, there are some HA Officers who aren't up to the standard expected, but the majority of them do a good job, and expose themselves to a fair amount of danger on a daily basis. Arguably more so than a policeman or fireman (police - stab vests etc, fireman - protective clothing, HA Officer - erm, hi-vis jacket & a car that wouldn't do much if a lorry piled into them at 56mph...)
Its been interesting to see how other news sources have reported what was a potentially deadly action.
|
|
You're quite right. They're not sworn Officers but they are entitled (like any citizen) to the protection of the Law, an entitlement that they were exercising. My remark about Nazi Germany should not be read in the context of this incident.
|
PU - just to clarify my post wasn't having a go at you. It was just a general post re my thoughts (and thats all they are). Having worked for construction companies that have done roadworks, anything that helps to promote safety on the roads is fine by me.
BUT - these things need an auditable trail of evidence, which I'm sure exists otherwise we would have heard more from the guy who was prosecuted, declaring his innocence. I have not seen any such statements from him. Think that says it all
|
Maybe it was the umpteenth motorway instruction he'd had that day all of which were false alarms, like Caution Queue or lane closed ahead, or congestion ahead, although admittedly a rolling road block should have been more obvious.
Hasn't someone been done before for disobeying a temporary speed limit whilst passing one of these "patrols"?
|
|
I saw a traffic officer (proper PC not a 'womble') nearly get killed by someone who chose to ignore a lane closed sign on the M42. Sped down the outside lane not aware a traffic officer was laying cones.
|
I saw a traffic officer (proper PC not a 'womble') nearly get killed by someone who chose to ignore a lane closed sign on the M42. Sped down the outside lane not aware a traffic officer was laying cones.
There have been cases of people who assumed that they were protected by cones being killed by a certain ex-boxer racing his brother by swerving inside the protected zone....
Now what was his name...? He's got a monocle and an ego the size of his American truck....
|
Maybe it was the umpteenth motorway instruction he'd had that day all of which were false alarms like Caution Queue or lane closed ahead or congestion ahead although admittedly a rolling road block should have been more obvious. Hasn't someone been done before for disobeying a temporary speed limit whilst passing one of these "patrols"?
Does your post mean that you believe that we are all free to decide when we have had enough of legitimate instructions and can therefore decide when we wish to break the rules (statute, common or moral) with impugnity?
Anarchic behaviour is not the way to reform in a democracy.
I think he got away quite lightly.
|
woodbines -"Er, no actually. Anyone can report bad driving - which is what this was. No special powers needed. Just as I can arrest a miscreant & escort them to a police station or make a statement to police regarding anti-lawful activity."
Only if it is an indictable offence, and even so, the law is on their side, in that their are 101 things you can do wrong which would give the miscreant a stronger case against you than you have against him.
I suspect that he was prosecuted on the sole statement of a civilian witness, without any cautioning or questioning. This is the direction in which Labour are taking the justice system, just like it was in communist USSR, or 'hicksville' Azerbaijan.
|
Thirty or forty years ago, maybe more, Motor Sport magazine was reporting cases of motorists fined heavily for offences brought to court on no more than the say-so of other drivers.
Ergo, there's nothing new in this. Or maybe I've just been around too long...
|
|
"It will soon soon be the case where you can be prosecuted on "somebody's" say-so instead of irrefutable proof." The patent for this was registered by the Nazi party in the 1930s....the rest as they say is history.
You can already be charged on the say so of a copper, so in many respects this is no different. The question then is do we believe that traffic officers deserve such powers. As I understand it a non copper can report a crime, but unless there are multiple independent witnesses, it is unlikely to go to trial. So in this case were there multiple witnesses, or is a report from one traffic officer enough.
|
|
|
|
It has always been the case under English Law that you CAN be prosecuted on "somebody's" say-so. They are called witnesses and what "somebody" says under oath in court is considered to be evidence. Witnesses do not have to be policemen/women, nor as I understand it does the prosecution have to be brought by the crown.
Nothing new then
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes and?
And what?
Traffic officers are often portrayed as toothless wombles, whereas this report shows that they do in effect have the power to shop motorists, albeit indirectly. So we really need to obey their directions.
|
|
|
|
