On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum
wrote this:-

The report reports the claims of the police. That does not prove
that he was not showing *any* lights.

The report reports the claims of both sides.

I didn't claim otherwise.

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.

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.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54