David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:49:56 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum
wrote this:-

The report states he was stopped for not showing *any* lights,

The report reports the claims of the police. That does not prove
that he was not showing *any* lights. It may be that the police
simply failed to spot the lights amongst the general array of lights
on the road, it may be that the police were unable to see them as
the police were not in the right position (for example looking from
the side), it may be that their view was obstructed by something, it
may be that the police are lying, it may be that the report is
wrong. All sorts of possibilities

....including the possibility that the police were right and that he was
showing no lights, something he accepted by wisely opting for a FPN instead
of a court appearance.

and arrested for subsequently refusing to provide his name.

The police have only limited grounds to request such information. If
the lights were working then they had no grounds to request the
information, unless one imagines that the lights suddenly started
working. Although a light which has been switched off for a while
may be brighter when switched back on I doubt if an exhausted light
would make a comeback.

"Officers told the 30-year-old they had spotted him cycling along the
busy Tollcross Street without any lights on..."

Read on to the next bit after the three dots, "But Mr Cimini
challenged this, claiming he had left his flat with both lights
working".

Is that the same as "switched on", then?

The lights on my car are all working (I can see it from here). But they're
not switched on.

He accepted a fixed penalty notice and therefore accepted his guilt.

The police had already used threatening words and behaviour. No
doubt this continued and the victim gave in. Many victims do.

You ought to get down to London and speak up for Damian Green.

Or perhaps not.