On Dec 1, 4:39*pm, David Hansen
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum

But most likely, given his acceptance of a fixed penalty, that he
failed to display lights at night.

You think? Personally I think that it is the threatening words and
behaviour.

We have differing opinions based on limited information, much of which
is assumption.
The one thing that doesn't seem to be disputed is that the cyclist
accepted a FPN.

Now that he's free from the police cell and any intimidation, real or
imaginary, one would hope he'd take a stance against this perceived
injustice and appeal the FPN. He wasn't too scared by the prospect of
arrest for failing to provide his identity so I'm sure some paperwork
isn't beyond him.


The police had already used threatening words and behaviour.

Where in the report did you read that?

The police undoubtedly used threatening words in their attempts to
make their victim provide information he did not have to provide.
The threatening words undoubtedly involved threats of arrest at the
roadside. The threatening behaviour included assaulting the victim
by placing him in handcuffs, taking him to a police station and
putting him in a cell. There were undoubtedly threatening words
during and after this too.

Wouldn't it have been a lot simpler to reply: "I didn't."?


Calum