"Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby reohn2 » 10 Nov 2013, 7:05pm

pete75 wrote:Again a waste of public money and misuse of police resources to pursue what seems a petty personal vendetta.

Or to prove a point not to mess with a police sergeant in front of two constables :wink:

Perhaps the sergeant didn't know the old saying ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.

I think he probably did :)

What charge did they arrest you on?

They didn't arrest me or Dickie FTM,just bundled him in their tranny van and took him away,we had to find our way to the local police station and wait until they decided there were no charges.
It was a different world 40 odd years ago.......
One things for sure, we all were a bit non plussed with Dickie,seeing as it was a Sunday night and they only let him out at about 2.30am. We then had to drive from Rhyl to Wigan and were at work at 8am.
The lesson was learned that life can be made a bit difficult if someone with a bit of power has a bit of time on their hands and some clever begger thinks he'll show off to his mates :D
-----------------------------------------------------------

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby reohn2 » 10 Nov 2013, 7:26pm

thirdcrank wrote:I'll suggest that a case like this illustrates a point I repeatedly make, which is that our criminal legal system is out of date....................
It certainly wasn't the operation of the legal system that saved the suspect from conviction here. For so long as the alternative to a fixed penalty is a criminal trial, it's going to be expensive to deal with those cases where a ticket is contested.............

Exactly!
And for it to be a legal require to provide some form of ID where a citizen is in a position to receive a FPN,It would have been far better in this case if the officer asked for ID it was produced and a FPN was handed out,if the offender then wanted to appeal,it was upto him.
The chap in question was the author of his own downfall IMO by refusing to give his details,live,for everyone could be much simpler.
-----------------------------------------------------------

thirdcrank
Posts: 30808
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby thirdcrank » 10 Nov 2013, 8:06pm

pete75 wrote: .... What's wrong with having to prove that someone has committed an offence? Yes a trial may be "cumbersome" for the police but what would you replace it with?


One of the points I tried to make was that the present legal rigmarole encourages ordinary people to cut their losses and accept a ticket. In this case it wan't the police who found a court hearing problematic, according to the linked report from the local rag it was the CPS representative and even the beak. (The Magistrates' Association being an organisation which regularly protests that the police prosecute too few cases. :roll: )

IMO, There's nothing wrong at all with having a trial to prove that somebody committed an offence. Most of what's being discussed here, including the entire drift of my post that you quoted, isn't about that, but about the procedures for getting there. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you were saying before, but it seemed to be that if somebody wasn't prepared to give their name and address, then it was somehow wrong for the police to follow the procedures recently enacted in legislation and subsidiary Codes of Practice etc., largely on the basis that budgets have been cut.

On the subject of a replacement system, I don't think I've ever hidden a view that something along what I understand to be the way they do things in much of Europe, where any trial is to establish what happened rather than "guilt" would be an improvement, at least for summary offences.

While we are asking questions, how do you feel a police officer should deal with somebody cycling without lights? If your answer is anything other than "ignore it," what should they do if the cyclist refuses to give their name and address?

...The current powers of arrest do seem ridiculous - not so long ago there were more serious offences which were arrestable and less serious which weren't. This seemed eminently sensible and would stop ridiculous events like the one being discussed here


The present system is the entirely logical result of the people entrusted to codify the procedures asking questions like "What happens if a suspect refuses to give their name and address?" BTW, I think you're way off the mark in sugesting that things like this didn't happen in the good old days. (There's at least one post from me about Corkery vs Carpenter, where either Mr Corkery or Mr Capenter - I can't remember which was the gannif - ended up in front of Leslie Goddard LCJ, the hanging judge, for something along these lines.)

pete75
Posts: 13696
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby pete75 » 10 Nov 2013, 8:58pm

reohn2 wrote:
pete75 wrote:Again a waste of public money and misuse of police resources to pursue what seems a petty personal vendetta.

Or to prove a point not to mess with a police sergeant in front of two constables :wink:

Perhaps the sergeant didn't know the old saying ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.

I think he probably did :)

What charge did they arrest you on?

They didn't arrest me or Dickie FTM,just bundled him in their tranny van and took him away,we had to find our way to the local police station and wait until they decided there were no charges.
It was a different world 40 odd years ago.......
One things for sure, we all were a bit non plussed with Dickie,seeing as it was a Sunday night and they only let him out at about 2.30am. We then had to drive from Rhyl to Wigan and were at work at 8am.
The lesson was learned that life can be made a bit difficult if someone with a bit of power has a bit of time on their hands and some clever begger thinks he'll show off to his mates :D



Probably totally illegal even then....

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby reohn2 » 11 Nov 2013, 7:50am

pete75 wrote:Probably totally illegal even then....

Probably but who was he going to complain to?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Milfred Cubicle
Posts: 311
Joined: 29 Aug 2007, 8:55am
Location: Co. Durham

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby Milfred Cubicle » 12 Nov 2013, 8:51pm

Surely riding a bicycle, on a public road, without lights and in dark clothing breaks all known 'daft bugger' legislation? I can see both points of the argument, but have to side with the police on this one. Yes, this may have been a burden on taxpayers, but maybe worthwhile in the long run? If this has acted as a deterrent in the Blackpool area, a far more costly road death might just have been avoided.

Postboxer
Posts: 1747
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby Postboxer » 13 Nov 2013, 10:19am

Hadn't thought of that.

Can't put a price on that!!

I always wish accident statistics were broken down into categories to remove the people vying for a Darwin award, as this would improve perception of the dangers.

thirdcrank
Posts: 30808
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby thirdcrank » 14 Nov 2013, 9:05pm

Talk of how things used to be has had me strolling down memory lane which touches on a few themes in this thread. Around this time of year - the season of mists and mellow fruitfulness - in 1967, when I was recently back from district training centre and after a few days being shown around was working on my own, I was standing at the side of Balm Road Leeds 10 at 1030pm, when I saw a moped being ridden without lights. I stopped the rider who was very apologetic, assured me that the lights had just failed (which provided a defence) and left with a promise to get them fixed. The following night, there we were again for a re-run, but the time I took his name and address. You couldn't make it up but this hardened recidivist was called Hood. (I'll not megtion his forenames as the conviction is well and truly spent, but it wasn't Robin.) I remember that when told he was nicked he replied "Anybody can see this on here" an early example of Kwackerism and it was certainly true that I had seen him under the bright yellow glare of the street lights.

Back on days, on one of my first early turns, I was sent on escort duty to bring a suspect back from Gateshead where had been checked hitchhiking on the A1, and connected with an offence in Leeds. The driver was an older PC, in the twilight of his career, whose main qualification for going was being an authorised police driver. It turned out that our suspect was none other than Mr Hood. He wouldn't speak to me, presumably still miffed at being reported for having no lights, but having been arrested because he had been grassed for cashing a woman's family allowance, he grassed her in turn to my colleague, for receiving stolen property, .

Back at the nick in Leeds, I was soon getting hard words fom a long-serving detective sergeant, wanting to know what I was doing arresting somebody for fraudulent conversion, which students of the Larceny Acts will know wasn't a felony, so there was no power of arrest without warrant. With me still totally confused, we were off in the divvy van with a posse, round to the house and when we were invited in (no search warrant) we found the place piled high with stolen property from crimes all over the place. Powers of arrest seemed to pale into insignificance, although I then got another telling off from the same DS for "my" prisoner not being fed. (No such thing as custody officers in those days.) Most of the rest of the CID were busy tailboarding "my" case, to the derision of my own section sergeant who had sent me in the first place. Others involved were grassed and arrested. A few days later, the case was up in front of the Stipe on guilty pleas and I was there ready to give the antecedents, that being the occasion when, unbeknown to me in my naivety, any commends etc., would be bestowed, guaranteeing a report in the Yorkshire Evening Post - fame indeed. At the moment I was getting ready to go into the witness box, another DS who I had not seen before in my life, popped up and told me he would deal with the antecedents, because he anticipated there were going to be some tricky questions. There were none, but I missed out on a totally unmerited moment of glory.

It's true that fings ain't what they used to be. :roll:

dazza500
Posts: 168
Joined: 1 Oct 2013, 3:17pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby dazza500 » 14 Nov 2013, 10:34pm

That's ludicrous what kind of police statev are we running now!

coast 2 coast
Posts: 74
Joined: 8 Jun 2009, 9:44pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby coast 2 coast » 15 Nov 2013, 3:35am

It's ludicrous that you might think to describe what we live in, as being police state.

User avatar
georgew
Posts: 1526
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 4:23pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby georgew » 15 Nov 2013, 10:26am

coast 2 coast wrote:It's ludicrous that you might think to describe what we live in, as being police state.


It does sound exaggerated but then again we find a report in this morning's Guardian concerning a Cambridge undergraduate being asked to spy by a Police officer on his fellow students who were involved in perfectly legitimate protest movements. This, following the activities of other undercover Police officers who fathered children in their attempts to infiltrate other protest movements.

Adam S
Posts: 606
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 8:53pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby Adam S » 15 Nov 2013, 1:55pm

I fail to see how someone receiving a summons because he refused to accept a roadside fine (for an offence he freely admitted to committing) is evidence of a police state.

dazza500
Posts: 168
Joined: 1 Oct 2013, 3:17pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby dazza500 » 15 Nov 2013, 4:38pm

Boris 'Mad Dog' Johnson wants to use City centre cctv to track and punish cyclists and dedicate some
percentage of the capitols surveillance network to this activity exclusively.

Another Tory nutter wants to see all cyclists wear a Yellow noddy jacket with a registration
number on the back and presumably insurance and a road test to boot.

What more evidence do you need!

dazza500
Posts: 168
Joined: 1 Oct 2013, 3:17pm

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby dazza500 » 15 Nov 2013, 4:42pm

And Johnson lays the blame for 5 deaths in 9 days at the victims door! Not 24hrs after the last
poor soul is killed. Nasty people, running a nasty party, hell bent on developing an even nastier
Police state.

You couldn't make it up. If it was five drug deaths or five people killed by terrorists
there would be a public outcry. But cyclists - it makes me ashamed to be British.

nez
Posts: 1862
Joined: 19 Jun 2008, 12:11am

Re: "Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

Postby nez » 16 Nov 2013, 11:09am

The headline is the silliest way to describe this. He was arrested for failing to give his details. That power hasn't always existed in the shires but it has for way over 100 years in places like London and Manchester. And we want coppers to have these powers. Don't forget Sutcliffe was arrested for having a dodgy tax disc. If a policeman asks for your name and address it's just unreasonable to refuse or lie, leave alone illegal.

And no I'm not a Bobby.