Safe Speed Forums

It's been a busy week so far with N Wales plod in the news:

Link

Fingered for a cheeky gesture
Jun 27 2007



by Eryl Crump, Daily Post


A COMPANY boss was pulled over by police and warned that his van could be seized and crushed after he made a cheeky gesture towards officers.

Barry Ward stuck up his middle finger at police officers as they manned a roadside camera on the A55 in Conwy.

The 51-year-old grandfather thought nothing more of the childish gesture until he was pulled in by a patrol car.

He was given a written warning under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, the motoring equivalent of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order.

The notice warns that he was “causing alarm, distress or annoyance” at the wheel and that if he repeats the gesture in the next 12 months, his vehicle could be seized.

Mr Ward admits his gesture to officers, who were using a camera to identify uninsured and untaxed cars.

He believes the law was designed to clamp down on boy racers and joyriders, not law-abiding pranksters.


The father-of-three said: “What a waste of police time. You’d have thought they have better things to do. It’s so childish. I did stick my finger up at the camera and a patrol car stopped me at the next lay-by. The officer sad it was an offence and explained about new powers to combat anti-social behaviour. The form just says the vehicle was being driven in a manner likely to cause offence.

“The law should be reserved for boy racers who rev their engines and screech their tyres – not a 51-year-old married man with three grown-up children and two grandchildren.”

Mr Ward, who runs a courier firm, has only clocked up one speeding fine while driving 60,000 miles a year.

Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 enables a uniformed police officer to issue a warning if he “has reasonable grounds for believing a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public”.

The Act states vehicles can be seized if the alleged offence is committed a second time within a specified time.

Cars may be kept, sold, crushed or released to the owner on payment of a £105 fee plus £12 a day storage cost.

Human rights and criminal law specialist Ken Dale-Risk, of Napier University, said on-the-spot warnings could lead to disproportionate penalties for trivial offences.

A North Wales Police spokeswoman said: “Mr Ward was stopped by police and given a warning notice for making rude and offensive gestures in public. The law is indiscriminate on this point and is there to deal with anyonewho behaves in an anti-social manner.”

And the leader column in the same paper:

Link

The police’s lot is not a happy one
Jun 27 2007



by Mark Brittain, Daily Post


WHO can forget the case of the Oxford University student arrested under the Public Order Act in May 2005 for suggesting a policeman’s horse was “gay”? The horse will undoubtedly have got over it. The student, too, has probably lived down his instant celebrity by now. Even the policeman, perhaps. But the public? Never.

The English literature graduate spent a night in the cells, refused to pay an £80 fine and was taken to court.

Thankfully common sense – and justice – prevailed. Our young “wit” had been celebrating finishing his final exams. His comments were not – as claimed – homophobic. It was light-hearted banter, youthful exuberance, puerile behaviour, but nothing more.

The police, however, found themselves accused of being heavy-handed, of having no sense of proportion. And worse, of having no sense of humour. One wondered what sort of person would want to patrol a famous university town on the evening of its final exams and not want to share in some of the excitement. But let’s be fair: student hijinks can be pretty tiresome. And the police are not paid to be happy.

As WS Gilbert wrote, a policeman’s lot is not a particularly happy one anyway. Crime, violence, drunkenness, filth, death. You see the worst side of people. And you have to uphold the law whether you agree with it or not. The least you can expect is a little respect.

Now we have someone pulled over in their car and given a written warning by police for being cheeky to them – at least that is what 51-year-old, grandfather-of-two, Barry Ward says he was being.

True he is probably old enough to know better. Also true that his gesture could have been construed as obscene or offensive.

In all likelihood though, he may have thought it would not be seen. He was gesturing at what he thought was a speed camera.

In any event if he repeats his behaviour in the next twelve months his vehicle can be seized and even crushed.

Should lack of respect for police be an offence? Should they be able to enforce respect?

In what some people think of as the “good old days” a stern word, a good “dressing down” would have done the trick. It would probably have earned the police the respect they undoubtedly do deserve and are entitled to expect.

But perhaps we get what we, as a society, deserve too. We need a return to better manners – from everyone. Then we can all smile.

Seems like they already are.



Knocking a policeman's hat off is an offence and shows a lack of respect. Giving them the finger? I suppose that is a lack of respect.



How can you enforce respect? As I said when my daughter screamed that her brother didn't respect her "Respect is earned, not demanded."

Dishing out FPN's like sweets doesn't help either.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

The s59 warning is probably on dodgy ground, let's look at the legislation:



It is likely that giving "the finger" is driving without due care and attention/reasonable consideration, and the van is certainly another user of the road, however a half-decent solicitor could make a good argument.

However the second point seems quite dodgy:

- Firstly the police officers are unlikely to be deemed "members of the public", obviously because it would be trivial to get a few police officers to agree that a person is "annoying" them, when the "public" in reality are not annoyed.

- Secondly - even if a police officer was a "member of the public", would they be "alarmed, distressed or annoyed" at a finger being raised? Unlikely. In case law relating to the Public Order Act it was ruled that a police officer will rarely be distressed etc. by such things, and I would expect that the case law could be quoted in court.

- Finally, even if a member of the public was in the area, would they see the finger being raised, and would they be "alarmed, distressed or annoyed" by it?

Either way, I think a Judicial Review is the only way to deal with a s59 warning since there is no other route available. If the car was seized I expect you could sue them for the losses and deal with the above points in court.

Well that's the way to deal with a Talivan then - they are annoying, and many motorists view them with alarm, and if they are speeding before they see them, then they will undoubtedly be distressed.

When do we see the first Talivan getting a warning or better still CRUSHED?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

"Annoyance" is so vague that it includes anything. People who believe the moon landing were fake or who think The Davinci Code is historical cause me annoyance. Can I involve the police? Also it would definitely include things like the council census mentioned in another thread. If the law is truly indiscriminate as they claim they would issue crushing warnings to the officers and census staff involved.

Hear bloody hear

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I agree. They cause me alarm, distress and annoyance. How can I complain?

_________________
Andrew.

What about Callaghan?

He would'nt be crushed.... he's too thick skinned!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Careful ernest, he'll use police headed stationery to issue you with a summons for distress....i happen to agree with you tho, except its not his skin thats thick, its his solid wooden head.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

So, are we to assume that a repeat offence would result in this mans vehicle being crushed??? Crushing a car for making a rude jesture? Are we taking about Britain or 1970s East Germany here????

Do we , as private citazens have certain rights and powers ??

Was thinking of powers of citazens arrest etc - merely thinking aloud etc ?????

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Be careful with the "citizen's arrest" angle. Two blokes caught a group of youths vandalising (may have been stealing) and made a citizen's arrest. Both of them were charged with kidnapping.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

I remember that case. The reason was that they caught the wrong person, and the charges were later dropped.

However citizen's arrest does not apply to summary only offences, it has to be indictable or either way, and you cannot arrest on suspicion, only certainty.