:( :( :( any luck on the Mini?

:( :( :( any luck on the Mini?

I'll pm you

 

Well, what a purile, vitriolic attack without a shred of intelligent reasoning to back up the discussion!

"Police Courts" were renamed "Magistrates Courts" following the Metropolitan Police bribery scandals of the early 1970's, but still operate in much the same way!

 

Your allegations of never have been in a magistrates court, not having passed the IAM course, not having any legal knowledge etc are refuted and made on ridiculous assumptions without any substance.

As for police corruption, take your pick (all of the events catalogued are real and can be verified):

http://www.bentlawyersandcops.com/featured_cops.htm 

 

Edited 29 August, 201411 yr by bealine

Concerning that article on the Scottish Unmarked car and Speed Camera.  

2 guys taking the mick and then some journalist writing does not make it Entrapment, it does make it an Accusation of, & wrongly so.

 

Accused of Entrapment,

the Marked Camera Vans has nothing to do with Unmarked Police Vehicles, which is totally lawful in Scotland.

Well, what a purile, vitriolic attack without a shred of intelligent reasoning to back up the discussion!

"Police Courts" were renamed "Magistrates Courts" following the Metropolitan Police bribery scandals of the early 1970's, but still operate in much the same way!

 

Your allegations of never have been in a magistrates court, not having passed the IAM course, not having any legal knowledge etc are refuted and made on ridiculous assumptions without any substance.

As for police corruption, take your pick (all of the events catalogued are real and can be verified):

http://www.bentlawyersandcops.com/featured_cops.htm 

 

 

Considering I was taking cases to a MAGISTRATES Court in the 70's as a Government Dept Prosecutor, (as a civilian too!!) and my Mother and Grandfather were both MAGISTRATES sitting at Cardiff MAGISTRATES Court between the 50's and 70's, and that this seems to imply that they go back to the 1200's

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrates_of_England_and_Wales)

suggests that again you haven't done any research.

 

Be honest. you have a severe case of being anti the Police and the judicial system in this country and will find any chance of trying to find a reason to have a go at them, however unjustified or incorrect.

Considering I was taking cases to a MAGISTRATES Court in the 70's as a Government Dept Prosecutor, (as a civilian too!!) and my Mother and Grandfather were both MAGISTRATES sitting at Cardiff MAGISTRATES Court between the 50's and 70's, and that this seems to imply that they go back to the 1200's

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrates_of_England_and_Wales)

suggests that again you haven't done any research.

 

Be honest. you have a severe case of being anti the Police and the judicial system in this country and will find any chance of trying to find a reason to have a go at them, however unjustified or incorrect.

 

Not at all.   I am far from being anti-police and there is a lot more good work done by our policemen than they receive credit for.   What I am against, and it is becoming more and more evident, is our police being used as tools of the government to raise a constant stream of cash for the treasury.   Have you ever stopped to consider where all the money taken in fines actually goes and what gets done with it?

We are at the sage where the police run around hunting "racism", "homophobia" and "petty motoring offences" leaving the really big, serious stuff alone.   That's exactly what happened at Rotherham ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-2893908 ) 

 

200 fanatics with British passports arrived home from fighting in Syria two days ago and were allowed to proceed unchallenged.   Had we had 200 British or Irish passport holders suspected of Loyalist activity, what do you think the police would have done?   Locked them up and kicked ten buckets out of them!

Again, you are trying to make this discussion personal.   I must refer you to the rules of the forum!   Then again, if you are a civilian who has made a packet from the public purse, I guess you think the law, or any rules for that matter, don't apply to you.

For your information:

Law of England and Wales portal

In criminal matters, magistrates’ courts (formerly known as a police courts) in England and Wales have been organized to deal with minor offences in a speedy manner. All criminal cases start here and over 95 percent of them will end here too – only the most serious ones go to Crown Court.

Edited 30 August, 201411 yr by bealine

Anyone got any more smoking animals? A-ha or talking ones...

 

J.

Back to the OP and the whole affair is frankly quite Ridiculous.  

 

The police in that film were a disgrace....very embarrassing.  The catalogue of misguided decisions and frankly unlawful actions on the part of the police ought to have been taken as a complaint to the Chief Constable and to the local MP.  The guy was not altogether right about his right to film the police in the manner that he did.  The way the law stands, the gentleman was correct in that the chap in the marked police van should have been accompanied by or should have been a trained police officer. No civilian has any authority to operate in a police vehicle on the highway unless a police officer, a pcso, or a Special.  That chap operating a police vehicle on the public highway and the apparatus inside may have been just doing his job but I would call into question the legality of it.  At best, anyone caught that day could appeal and on a technicality might get their convictions quashed.  Civilians operating un-marked traffic partnership vans, properly trained and using calibrated kit can operate jointly with the police and its for the police to then decide whether the motorists captured should be prosecuted or given a fixed penalty based on the evidence. No civilian has any authority to impersonate a police officer or to carry out independent speed checks for the purposes of gathering evidence for a prosecution...unless a new law has been passed?

 

The collection of that evidence has to be beyond reproach so I'd argue that a lone civilian using a police van doesn't pass muster.   Furthermore, the van was parked in a position likely to cause a moving traffic obstruction and was clearly a hazard to oncoming vehicles as it's location created the need for vehicles to cross the carriageway to pass it.   That was compounded by the damp conditions and average visibility, so it was as likely for the van to have created an accident as it was a speeding motorist.  A case of revenue generation methinks.  Nuts.

 

The guy did right and there's nothing that the police can do...that policewoman had no right setting foot in his house and that constitutes trespass which is a civil tort, not a criminal offence. It would have been a criminal offence had she forced her way into the house without reasonable cause, which she most certainly lacked, along with any brain cells, politeness and civility.  She also tried it on and was about to use his "mental state" as grounds for entry (which the police can do if they believe the occupant is a danger to themselves or likely to be to others) but had second thoughts and had to do some back tracking rather quickly.  Pathetic.  The attitude of the chap is completely irrelevant.  Apart from being a bit of an armchair expert with one or two flaws in his reasoning, he did nothing unlawful that I could see nor was he rude or disrespectful.  Respect has to be earned and the police officers in that video didn't exactly qualify in that respect.

Edited 30 August, 201411 yr by SEVrs

SEVrs, if that was the case the government would have to refund a lot of speeding fines and compensation and it'd have been challenged in the courts many years ago.

Just as in most professions, simply needs to be suitably trained/competent.

I know someone in a SCP, and they wet themselves at the video. He'd have simply sent an urgent assistance call and laughed as the civilian was carted away

I can't see how any civilian operator can operate alone in a marked Police vehicle so will have to politely have to agree to disagree here.  Checking this won't take long and if I'm wrong, I have no problems with admitting it. It would come as a surprise and something of a shock to think that this is widespread practice. As to the name "Safety Camera Partnership" my personal view is that if these organisations were serious about safety, they'd be lobbying to make the driving test harder, at least advanced standard, rather than taking income from speeding fines.  Just because a SCP operative wet himself at the video does not make the issues raised go away.  Don't wish to get into a speeding debate as there's no way you can justify exceeding the speed limit, however, speed is usually only one factor in most accidents which are more to do with a lack of hazard awareness, not being in proper control of a vehicle or driving without due care and attention/dangerous driving and I see precious little effort by so called safety partnerships into addressing these far more prevalent issues.

Edited 30 August, 201411 yr by SEVrs

I can't see how any civilian operator can operate alone in a marked Police vehicle so will have to politely have to agree to disagree here.  Checking this won't take long and if I'm wrong, I have no problems with admitting it. It would come as a surprise and something of a shock to think that this is widespread practice.

Correct!   This is unconstitutional.   The use of civilians operating police equipment has never been granted parliamentary approval, therefore every fine issued by a civilian operator should be refunded and the points on their licences expunged.

Furthermore, the camera operator in the South Wales video clip should face Dangerous Driving charges for parking the vehicle in such an atrocious and unsafe manner.       

 

 

.............ought to have been taken as a complaint to the Chief Constable

 

Chances of success of a police complaint?   Try a ratio of 46 recommendations for disciplinary action out of 17,514 complaints!   That means you have a 1 in 380 chance of being taken seriously!   Does the "Police Complaints Commission" not seem like a flawed system to you?

Edited 30 August, 201411 yr by bealine

Have any of Briskodas Police men commented as it would be interesting to see their point of view! Is John one? If so what do you think of it all? Just guessing from the name

Back to the OP and the whole affair is frankly quite Ridiculous.

The police in that film were a disgrace....very embarrassing. The catalogue of misguided decisions and frankly unlawful actions on the part of the police ought to have been taken as a complaint to the Chief Constable and to the local MP. The guy was not altogether right about his right to film the police in the manner that he did. The way the law stands, the gentleman was correct in that the chap in the marked police van should have been accompanied by or should have been a trained police officer. No civilian has any authority to operate in a police vehicle on the highway unless a police officer, a pcso, or a Special. That chap operating a police vehicle on the public highway and the apparatus inside may have been just doing his job but I would call into question the legality of it. At best, anyone caught that day could appeal and on a technicality might get their convictions quashed. Civilians operating un-marked traffic partnership vans, properly trained and using calibrated kit can operate jointly with the police and its for the police to then decide whether the motorists captured should be prosecuted or given a fixed penalty based on the evidence. No civilian has any authority to impersonate a police officer or to carry out independent speed checks for the purposes of gathering evidence for a prosecution...unless a new law has been passed?

The collection of that evidence has to be beyond reproach so I'd argue that a lone civilian using a police van doesn't pass muster. Furthermore, the van was parked in a position likely to cause a moving traffic obstruction and was clearly a hazard to oncoming vehicles as it's location created the need for vehicles to cross the carriageway to pass it. That was compounded by the damp conditions and average visibility, so it was as likely for the van to have created an accident as it was a speeding motorist. A case of revenue generation methinks. Nuts.

The guy did right and there's nothing that the police can do...that policewoman had no right setting foot in his house and that constitutes trespass which is a civil tort, not a criminal offence. It would have been a criminal offence had she forced her way into the house without reasonable cause, which she most certainly lacked, along with any brain cells, politeness and civility. She also tried it on and was about to use his "mental state" as grounds for entry (which the police can do if they believe the occupant is a danger to themselves or likely to be to others) but had second thoughts and had to do some back tracking rather quickly. Pathetic. The attitude of the chap is completely irrelevant. Apart from being a bit of an armchair expert with one or two flaws in his reasoning, he did nothing unlawful that I could see nor was he rude or disrespectful. Respect has to be earned and the police officers in that video didn't exactly qualify in that respect.

Why is it unlawful for police staff to be in a police vehicle yet not unlawful for a PCSO?

Pretty much every force operates their vans this way.

As I understand only handheld cameras must be operated by an officer. Which is why community speed watches require an officer to issue points/summons

Why is it unlawful for police staff to be in a police vehicle yet not unlawful for a PCSO?

 

Because the Police Reform Act of 2002 enables uniformed PCSOs to operate under the jurisdiction of the Chief Constable and that includes driving marked police vehicles. 

Edited 30 August, 201411 yr by SEVrs

Why do people keep assuming one operator was working the Van, there may have been a second person, having a leak or a little lay down.

 

Single Manned Camera Safety Vans are rather common though.

Because the Police Reform Act of 2002 enables uniformed PCSOs to operate under the jurisdiction of the Chief Constable and that includes driving marked police vehicles.

I think you misunderstand the legislation a little. Which legislation prohibits pro lice staff from driving police vehicles? I'll help you out a little there isn't any, police staff are even permitted to drive with all the same exceptions as police officers, hence why most police driving instructors are retired police officers who are now civvie staff.

I accept that and am trying to learn something here.  My point however relates to lone civilians using police marked vehicles for police enforcement duties such as setting up speed traps, not police staff accompanied by police officers or otherwise using vehicles where they are not actively engaged in police enforcement duties.  Can you point me towards the legislation which enables lone civilians to actively carry out police enforcement duties whilst manning marked police vehicles?  I'd be interested in that not because I want to argue the point but because I am unaware of the enabling legislation and like others here, consider it unconstitutional.  I would have a serious issue with the fact that any civilian could covertly pass themselves off as a police officer.  Of course most of us realise that since 2002, laws have been changed to allow more civilian staff to undertake what were formally official police duties.  I was unaware though that in the case of speed camera vans that the evidence presented by a lone civilian member of staff was de-facto since there is no corroboration for the judgement that someone must have been speeding in order to video them and similar such issues.  Perhaps with modern tech and trained civilians there doesn't have to be, in which case it is a sad state of affairs where police employees are now carrying out official police enforcement. I am sure that the police would argue that safety partnerships free up their trained officers for more serious crimes and again, that is a reasonable argument.  It's the lone staff issues which most concerns me, the corroboration of judgement and correct operation of the kit etc.  

Edited 31 August, 201411 yr by SEVrs

The folk at peepipoo will be able to point you in the right direction with regards to that.

As above, if it wasn't legal pretty much anyone caught by a camera Van, certainly in the last 5-10 years would be taking the government to court. The likes of Nick "loophole" Freeman would be a very busy man

For the Law of England and Wales and Enforcement of the Law, check it out. online, it is all there if you look,

It is Not only the Police Officers that Enforce the Law or Gather Evidence, as in Wales it can be 'Police Staff'..

For Handbooks & Guidelines on the use of Speed Cameras & Fixed Cameras, its all there with a Google.

 

http://gosafe.org/cameras/camera-equipment/mobile-safety-cameras.aspx

 

http://kmscp.org/the-partnership/myth-buster.aspx

 

http://transportscotland.gov.uk/road/safety/scottish-safety-camera-programme

Edited 31 August, 201411 yr by goneoffSKi

I accept that and am trying to learn something here.  My point however relates to lone civilians using police marked vehicles for police enforcement duties such as setting up speed traps, not police staff accompanied by police officers or otherwise using vehicles where they are not actively engaged in police enforcement duties.  Can you point me towards the legislation which enables lone civilians to actively carry out police enforcement duties whilst manning marked police vehicles?  I'd be interested in that not because I want to argue the point but because I am unaware of the enabling legislation and like others here, consider it unconstitutional.  I would have a serious issue with the fact that any civilian could covertly pass themselves off as a police officer.  Of course most of us realise that since 2002, laws have been changed to allow more civilian staff to undertake what were formally official police duties.  I was unaware though that in the case of speed camera vans that the evidence presented by a lone civilian member of staff was de-facto since there is no corroboration for the judgement that someone must have been speeding in order to video them and similar such issues.  Perhaps with modern tech and trained civilians there doesn't have to be, in which case it is a sad state of affairs where police employees are now carrying out official police enforcement. I am sure that the police would argue that safety partnerships free up their trained officers for more serious crimes and again, that is a reasonable argument.  It's the lone staff issues which most concerns me, the corroboration of judgement and correct operation of the kit etc.

Firstly, the law generally states what you cannot do, not what you can do. So just because if no legislation states you can do something this makes his actions illegal. To my knowledge there's no legislation that states you may eat drink and breathe yet these are all legal!

Secondly, he is not carrying out enforcement duties, only evidence gathering, and even that is debatable as he is just a camera operator, it's the camera that collects the evidence, so do you also think the civvie staff in debenhams that operate the CCTV should be unlawful and should be carried out by fully paid police officers? The evidence gathered from the camera and will be put before the police (as in officers) to decide whether or not to summons or ticket.

All police services use civvie staff in one role or another that will drive marked police vehicles on their own at times, this does not make it illegal.

Thanks...I'll do a little more reading as this is something which seems to have a few grey areas about it!  I have not claimed (and I dont think any one else is claiming) that driving police vehicles per se is illegal as clearly it's been done for years in one role or another.  It's the lone operator in a marked police vehicle aspect that interests me.  I had no idea that this was permissible due to the corroboration/correct use issues.  However, I stand corrected if that is (surprisingly) permitted.

Edited 31 August, 201411 yr by SEVrs

Given where that police camera speed van was parked (ie. no parking restrictions), what would happen if the owner of a say a nice transit van reversed up to the rear doors of the van and blocked its view of the road....

Hopefully the driver would be asked to park in front rather & not waste Local Authority's time.

 

'They work for you!'.  

 Just people doing a Job and paid by the Public Purse.