On Dec 1, 8:58*pm, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:
David Hansen considered Mon, 01 Dec
2008 14:57:40 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:48:16 +0000 someone who may be Roger Thorpe
wrote this:-

And like many a person who thinks themself law-abiding, the middle class
offender is shocked to be treated like a criminal or even "a vagrant".

In this case it is not in the least clear whether the person was an
offender or not.

If the person was not an offender then the subsequent police actions
were illegal and the only offenders were the police officers
themselves.

Indeed, the police seem to have failed at even the most basic level of
proof: that the person thy observed "without lights" was actualy the
person they subsequently arrested for not giving his name and address.

In fact, given that the person they arrested HAD working (although
slightly dim) lights (and even proved it to them), it would seem to
indicate the contrary.

I think he was guilty of "not agreeing with a policeman", which as
most people who have ever had to deal with them will be aware, is as
close to a hanging offence as you can get, at least in their eyes.

Or he could have had lights that were almost invisible, he then
proceeded to wave the light in front of the coppers nose, instead of
acting like a reasonable person.

If a car driver had had a dim light showing you would expect him to be
pulled over, why should it be any different for a cyclist.
Like all road users he should check his light before he made his
journey.