|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp. If the report is true then the cyclist had working lights on his bike, though they may have been dim. Thus he was not committing an offence and the police had no grounds to ask him for his name and address. Thus the arrest was illegal, just like the fixed penalty notice. -- 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:06:01 +0000, David Hansen
wrote: I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp. If the report is true then the cyclist had working lights on his bike, though they may have been dim. Thus he was not committing an offence and the police had no grounds to ask him for his name and address. Thus the arrest was illegal, just like the fixed penalty notice. I wonder why he accepted the fixed penalty charge? Perhaps because he realised he had committed an offence. Do you really think he was not committing an offence - because the lights were only dim? Or is it perhaps you who is? I suggest that you or Anchor Lee get in touch asap to offer him the benefit of your fine legal minds. -- Commenting on a legal gate in a public park: I'd think it comes under the heading of "causing an obstruction", and should be investigated by the police as such. Phil W(anker) Lee - well known Psycholist |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Dec 1, 1:06*pm, David Hansen
wrote: I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-thre.... If the report is true then the cyclist had working lights on his bike, though they may have been dim. Thus he was not committing an offence and the police had no grounds to ask him for his name and address. Thus the arrest was illegal, just like the fixed penalty notice. The report states he was stopped for not showing *any* lights, and arrested for subsequently refusing to provide his name. "Officers told the 30-year-old they had spotted him cycling along the busy Tollcross Street without any lights on..." He accepted a fixed penalty notice and therefore accepted his guilt. That he has the brass neck to then seek publicity for his pig- headedness just gives some people more excuse to give *all* cyclists a hard time. Calum |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
calum writes:
That he has the brass neck to then seek publicity for his pig- headedness just gives some people more excuse to give *all* cyclists a hard time. Likewise all sociologists, all 30 year olds or all Edinburgh residents, any of which would be about as valid a generalisation. "Some people" are, unfortunately, pig-**** stupid and there's little that can be done about it short of a shovel and a shallow grave. -dan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Dec 1, 2:05*pm, Daniel Barlow wrote:
calum writes: That he has the brass neck to then seek publicity for his pig- headedness just gives some people more excuse to give *all* cyclists a hard time. Likewise all sociologists, all 30 year olds or all Edinburgh residents, any of which would be about as valid a generalisation. "Some people" are, unfortunately, pig-**** stupid and there's little that can be done about it short of a shovel and a shallow grave. -dan I'm not in complete agreement. None of the other categories you cite is a regular target for venom from his fellow man (except perhaps for residents of Edinburgh). Calum |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
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. 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". 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. -- 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
Given the small amount of information we have it's possible to build up
a picture of events where the rider is an arse just as easily as one can make a picture where the policeman is an arse. I was picked up like this about thirty years ago, and got provoked into being an arse myself. At least I did get a (long) anecdote out of it, but I won't repeat it here. Roger Thorpe |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
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), If the police failed to spot his lights amongst the general array of lights, then Mr Cimini needs to think if he needs more/better lights on his bike. Some of the LED lights I see are very dim against a background of other lights, which is why I am a big flashing lights. "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". That is the odd thing, if he did have working lights, then the police should have just let him get on his way. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Dec 1, 2:42*pm, David Hansen
wrote: 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. The report reports the claims of both sides. 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. But most likely, given his acceptance of a fixed penalty, that he failed to display lights at night. The police had already used threatening words and behaviour. Where in the report did you read that? No doubt this continued and the victim gave in. I'm sure Mr "still shocked and angry" still has plenty of time to challenge the FPN and have his day in court if he feels he has suffered an injustice. Calum |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mystery Cyclist turns themselves over to Police... | Gemma_k | Australia | 5 | June 15th 06 11:56 AM |
BBC - Cyclist Chased & Hit by Police car | Adrian Boliston | UK | 39 | September 20th 05 12:41 PM |
Police officer injures cyclist | David Hansen | UK | 5 | June 4th 05 08:59 PM |
Police kill cyclist | MSeries | UK | 22 | July 14th 04 01:27 PM |
Chatting to a Police Cyclist Today | [Not Responding] | UK | 14 | June 19th 04 12:08 AM |