Crazy police stop.I didnt think it was real at first !

[Rewulf]

55 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

I await your next deflection or silence.

You do get a bit excitable dont you ?

Try this 'deflection then ' from the police federation. As sec 40a of the RTA is a little convoluted.

https://www.polfed.org/media/17076/offenc-1.pdf

Scroll down to lighting offences, some are endorsable , some are not, the section pertinent to non working equipment is pertinent to non functioning lights is 'Condition of accessories and equipment...' and is endorsable, with 3 points and £100 fine.
Now Im not saying this will happen if you get pulled , I never did, in fact , I think it highly unlikely to get 3 points for a brake light out , but the police CAN do if they see fit , in fact , if Insp Jephcott catches you , youll likely do 6 months in chokey for it.

A good rule of thumb is this , if your car would fail an MOT for it , it makes your car unroadworthy , albeit unintentionally.
This puts the ball of discretion in the officers court about how to deal with it .
But the police can apply fines and points for each item they feel makes the car unroadworthy or dangerous , they often use great discretion in this.
A brake light out could be described as dangerous to other road users.
A car having a different colour could NOT.

I see that youve decided you were wrong about the bald tyres ? Thank me later.

[Rem260]

On 13/01/2023 at 15:18, Rewulf said:

A brake light out can result in a fine and 3 penalty points, Ill leave it to your imagination what record  that would go on.
To have this happen is rare, it usually results in a notice to rectify, get caught again not fixing it then those points are coming your way.
 

You started off saying a singular brake light.

I replied with singular brake light.

22 hours ago, Rem260 said:

1)A brake light out does no attract 3 penalty points.

2) No they don't. I think you need to check what a non recordable offence is and which offences carry penalty points.

Do you also still think that people who have a defective brake light are criminals. You usually research your subject well but on this occasion your Google/barrack room lawyer has let you down.

When you couldn't come up with any evidence to prove a single defective brake light attracts a endorsable penalty you changed it to BRAKE LIGHTS, plural.

I then replied

18 hours ago, Rem260 said:

So we have now changed it to the plural Brake lights. Which could then change the offence to Having a vehicle in a dangerous condition. So we have now changed it to the plural Brake lights. Which could then change the offence to Having a vehicle in a dangerous condition. Which incurs penalty points. However this would then negate the offence of defective Brake light(s). Which incurs penalty points. 

 

Therein you tried to change it to Sect 40A. There is simply no way that you will get a Dangerous Condition out of a single defective brake light when there is already an offence of Fail to Maintain Lamps. You could not pass the threshold test because of this, let alone prove it was dangerous and likely to cause injury. In the example you provided you have ask why it says

"The endorsable S40A RTA offences, below, require evidence of why the vehicles use involved a danger of injury." 

This would not be written if the mere fact of having a defective brake light made it so.

However no doubt you will continue to insist it does. 

In that case please provide an example where a reasonable person would consider a singular defective brake light liable to cause danger of injury under Sect 40A of the RTA.

Regarding Bald tyres that was a totally different conversation and not regarding penalty points. Show me where I questioned it. I doubt you can.

Excitedly awaiting your response.🥳

Edited January 14, 2023 by Rem260

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Rem260 said:

Excitedly awaiting your response.🥳

I give up, you're one of those people that can never be wrong, so branch the topic off into convoluted territory that has nothing to do with the topic. Mainly because you disagree that a cop who wants to bust your windows out, and can't abide a motorist who questions him, so unlawfully arrests and handcuffs him. 

And all because he thinks the car colour isn't right, which is technically nothing to do with him.? 

Crack on 😂

[Rem260]

😪Total deflection. Have you taken your ball back.

[Rewulf]

4 hours ago, Rem260 said:

😪Total deflection. Have you taken your ball back.

Keep it, you're entertainment 😂

But, I've taken professional advice on the brake light thing , Ive emailed a friend of mine... 

Inspector R. Jephcott {Lord Supreme commander, Dorset Popo.} 

Thank you for your inquiry Mr Wulf. 

On the matter of 'Is a brake light out an endorsable offence?' 

It most definitely is, it goes without saying that any light out on a motor vehicle is a very serious offence, official guidelines say 3 points, but here in Dorset we do things differently.... 

I recommend to my officers a minimum of 6 months in a cat A prison, this can be lengthened to 12 months if they answer back, and a good pepper spraying too, and vehicle confiscated and crushed. 

A second offence, like playing loud music, or looking at the officer 'funny' can result in life imprisonment. 

I hope this answers your query. 

Yours R. Jephcott. 

Dorset police-We do things different down here. 

[Gordon R]

Rewulf - amusing post. 

[hodge911]

I've lost confidence in the police.

March last year my next door neighbor's brother (while picking up her boyfriend) reversed into my car , luckily I was outside working on my campervan on the drive and heard the bang . Went to investigate and seen pulling forward off my vehicle and starting to reverse out again .

I stopped him and he got out smelling strongly of weed I said wait there I'll go get a pen and paper and we'll swap details as we have to and take it from there.

When I went indoors the piece of carp got in his van and drove off .

I called police and reported it it took them 5 days to come out . In that time I done some homework and got his name his mobile number the van reg and who he works for , I handed all that over to the police along with VERY CLEAR CCTV of the whole thing . 

6 months later police ring me and say it's gone past the time they had to prosecute him and he hasn't replied to any letters they sent him and they were closing the case 🤬🤬.

I complained and was told by a Sgt that the investigating officer has failed to carry out the appropriate investigations and will be in for a reprimand.

But unfortunately there's nothing else could be done as they had missed the window to put the case to the cps ...

[button]

Slightly off topic, do you have to notify the DVLA if you get you car wrapped?

[Dave-G]

1 hour ago, button said:

Slightly off topic, do you have to notify the DVLA if you get you car wrapped?

Depends if it involves a colour change I imagine.

[welsh1]

1 hour ago, button said:

Slightly off topic, do you have to notify the DVLA if you get you car wrapped?

I would think it's a modification and you would need to let your insurance and the DVLA know.

[Mungler]

9 hours ago, button said:

Slightly off topic, do you have to notify the DVLA if you get you car wrapped?

A simple enough scenario and question and a good example.

Indeed, I’m going on a car rally in May where we’ve bought an old Dark Blue Toyota Previa and are getting it wrapped and made up to look like the ambulance from the Cannonball run. 

I can’t write ‘ambulance’ in the car colour section of the V5 and so I think we’re just going to wait for the looney copper from Dorset to come and smash our windows in.

[Mungler]

On 13/01/2023 at 13:18, Vince Green said:

So next time I am stopped I give your name address and postcode and that's OK is it ?

One of the big problems the police have is actually determining who an individual really is when stopped. Its not that easy

You’re unnecessarily making a meal of ID. 

There is no law that ID has to be carried but there is a law that you identify yourself to a police officer when asked. 

Talk to a copper. They will tell you the PNC has name, address, post code and date of birth and other markers. Now mix in severity of offence, who you are dealing with and other factors like location.

So, if you’re stopped for something minor like littering and you can give your name, address, post code and DOB quickly without hesitation then they are likely to accept that.

Police will even look at an Apple ID or a phone to verify ID in the overall mix of making sure someone is who they say they are. Any suspicion that the details are false then move to a search (to see if there’s a phone, a bank card or something else to hint to identity) and lastly there are finger print scanners.

Bear in mind, routinely dragging anyone who isn’t in possession of their passport down the station for a littering offence is not best use of police time or resources.

Obviously if the police are dealing with a serious offence or someone from a roving community with a propensity to lie and not be in the same place two weeks running then they go straight for the fingerprint scanner. If they don’t have one, one will be brought to them if the circumstances and offence warrant it.

Back to the case in point - chummy can and has identified himself and the details will all chime with PNC and DVLA - it’s not like the vehicle was registered to a lady twice his age of a different ethnicity and living in a different county. 
 

[Rewulf]

5 hours ago, Mungler said:

but there is a law that you identify yourself to a police officer when asked. 

Just to clarify (if this is what you meant) you only HAVE to give your name when driving a motor vehicle (sec 165)
This is more to check whether you are legal to drive.

Any other time , you are not obliged to give details. you can be detained with reasonable grounds to suspect you of committing or about o commit a crime , but even when detained , you do not have to supply details.
Being arrested obviously ups the bar , and if taken to the station and checked in , you are obliged to give details, or the police will use fingerprints /dna to ascertain.
Not supplying your details (unless driving) is NOT cause for detainment or arrest, there is no such section of law.

Many police officers use refusal to supply details as a cause for detainment or arrest, this is unlawful and illegal, and results in millions of pounds compensation every year , because cops cannot be bothered to learn this very important section of law.

6 hours ago, Mungler said:

Bear in mind, routinely dragging anyone who isn’t in possession of their passport down the station for a littering offence is not best use of police time or resources.

And would be illegal.

[welsh1]

25 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Just to clarify (if this is what you meant) you only HAVE to give your name when driving a motor vehicle (sec 165)
This is more to check whether you are legal to drive.

Any other time , you are not obliged to give details. you can be detained with reasonable grounds to suspect you of committing or about o commit a crime , but even when detained , you do not have to supply details.
Being arrested obviously ups the bar , and if taken to the station and checked in , you are obliged to give details, or the police will use fingerprints /dna to ascertain.
Not supplying your details (unless driving) is NOT cause for detainment or arrest, there is no such section of law.

Many police officers use refusal to supply details as a cause for detainment or arrest, this is unlawful and illegal, and results in millions of pounds compensation every year , because cops cannot be bothered to learn this very important section of law.

And would be illegal.

What he said☝️

[Rewulf]

42 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

What he said☝️

Classic example here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvsDmzl5oUc (contains very mild profanity)

The lad has done nothing wrong as he rides down the street on his pushbike, but EEK ! He has a mask on !
A motorised PCSO pulls him over for a chat. because he doesnt like people with masks.
He immediately asks , without any justification for the lad to supply his details.....

Later some real cops arrive, and demonstrate a complete inability to grasp the word of the law, the female cop illegally detains him as soon as she gets there, without any knowledge of what he may or may not be suspected of.
Then proceeds to demand details , despit being completely unable to articulate what crime the lad be suspected of (because there isnt one)
When all else fails , they accuse him of being cocky, rude 'obstructive' and difficult (these are not offences either )
The lad swears at the officers in frustration, and is warned it could be a public order matter, but you can swear at the police as long as no member of the general public is close enough to be offended.
 

 

This kind of illegal detention usually gets awarded £500 in compensation.

[welsh1]

36 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Classic example here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvsDmzl5oUc (contains very mild profanity)

The lad has done nothing wrong as he rides down the street on his pushbike, but EEK ! He has a mask on !
A motorised PCSO pulls him over for a chat. because he doesnt like people with masks.
He immediately asks , without any justification for the lad to supply his details.....

Later some real cops arrive, and demonstrate a complete inability to grasp the word of the law, the female cop illegally detains him as soon as she gets there, without any knowledge of what he may or may not be suspected of.
Then proceeds to demand details , despit being completely unable to articulate what crime the lad be suspected of (because there isnt one)
When all else fails , they accuse him of being cocky, rude 'obstructive' and difficult (these are not offences either )
The lad swears at the officers in frustration, and is warned it could be a public order matter, but you can swear at the police as long as no member of the general public is close enough to be offended.
 

 

This kind of illegal detention usually gets awarded £500 in compensation.

I have been stopped while taking pictures on quite a few occassions, because i have a large camera and lens is why i was told the last time, they always want your details and get a bit annoyed when i politley tell them i don't have to give them, one Sgt threatened me with arrest if i didn't supply them while  photographing a demonstration, i invited him to do so and explained that being a retired high court enforcement officer i knew my way around the court system and would be looking for compensation for illegal detainment and then i would come looking for him personally through the civil courts (it wouldn't happen but he wasn't to know) what do you know Sgt pretends to listen to radio and then with a "it's your lucky day, i have more important things to attend to" he went on his way.

My job is never to assist the police in any investigation into myself, i learnt the hard way after a stupid Sgt and PC from Gwent police tried to stitch me up with Dyfed Powys, telling them i was aggressive and out of control when they attended a commercial propery i was at as a Sheriffs officer with a high court writ, they knew the owner and for 3+ hours tried everything to obstruct me, in the end i walked away on the instructions of the Sheriff who made a formal complaint to Gwent police, two days later armed police at my door to remove my firearms because ofthe email these idiots had sent.
Luckily i had 3.5 hours of HD quality head cam footage to show my actions that day, it took 4 months , i got my firearms back with a letter from Dyfed Powys stating that i had acted in a calm and professional manner throughout my interactions with these officers and there was no reason to remove my firearms, the officers had 3 of 4 complaints upheld against them, the 4th malicious communication would have had them out of the job, but the police said the email was on a secure net and therefore not malicious, i could have fought it, but months of stress told me just to walk away.

I have never seen the actual email, both police forces refused to show it to me.

When Gwent standards officers came to my house to take a statement, i made them a coffee and sat them down to watch the video, when it had finished the senior officer said "bloody hell that's not what we were expecting after reading the email"

There are good officers out there, but 20 years of dealing with them in my old job has shown me a lot are on a power trip, they will gang up to protect their mate even if he is wrong.

I have a hunch that the officer from Gwent who killed himself a while back and left his phone showing lots of nasty stuff was the PC(same name), in a report i read online there was mention of close ties to a retired Sgt who is under investigation and cannot be named at the moment, it would not surprise me if it's them.

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, welsh1 said:

I have never seen the actual email, both police forces refused to show it to me.

2 hours ago, welsh1 said:

There are good officers out there, but 20 years of dealing with them in my old job has shown me a lot are on a power trip, they will gang up to protect their mate even if he is wrong.

This includes police professional standard and the IOPC, but as this video demonstrates you (should) be able to access all information that the police hold on you.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J99eJK0Yuh8

Crimebodge tends to come across as a bitter police hating trouble maker, I dont know if he has 'proper' legal training, but he comes across as competent.
The above video demonstrates one of the reasons he has such a view.

 

[welsh1]

25 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

This includes police professional standard and the IOPC, but as this video demonstrates you (should) be able to access all information that the police hold on you.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J99eJK0Yuh8

Crimebodge tends to come across as a bitter police hating trouble maker, I dont know if he has 'proper' legal training, but he comes across as competent.
The above video demonstrates one of the reasons he has such a view.

 

Crimebodge i believe used to go under other guises on forums about bailiffs and high court officers, his information was never that good, and at times downright wrong, he has got things wrong quite a few times on you tube and had to pull videos once the police legal teams warn him.

[Penelope]

On 14/01/2023 at 22:45, Rewulf said:

A second offence, like playing loud music, or looking at the officer 'funny' can result in life imprisonment. 

'Not the Nine O'clock News' fan by any chance?

[Rewulf]

8 minutes ago, Penelope said:

'Not the Nine O'clock News' fan by any chance?

That's a blast from thr past, I can't even remember a sketch along those lines, but I'm sure they would have done 😂

[Penelope]

14 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

That's a blast from thr past, I can't even remember a sketch along those lines, but I'm sure they would have done 😂

Gryph Rhys Jones and Rowan Atkinson as two police officers, subordinate and superior. Allegations ascertaining to a Winston Godogo.

[welsh1]

7 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Gryph Rhys Jones and Rowan Atkinson as two police officers, subordinate and superior. Allegations ascertaining to a Winston Godogo.

 

[Rewulf]

Excellent !

[Mungler]

10 hours ago, Penelope said:

Gryph Rhys Jones and Rowan Atkinson as two police officers, subordinate and superior. Allegations ascertaining to a Winston Godogo.

Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area after 7 pm.